I agree with all of the above, and I don't have time to comment further, but the bit that stands out to me is this: "This kind of 'feminism' is a misnomer still leaning heavily on ideas that were in vogue in the 1970s, Janet argued." Think about that statement, and then think about the progress that science and technology have made since 1970. Belief-in-magic systems never progress; they remain stuck in an infinite loop for as long as their adherents continue to practice them.

Great point, Cousin Dave.

Just in terms of phones, remember how big a deal a long-distance call was? Now I can call my friend on her cell phone as she's out and about in Paris for 2 cents a minute on my computer, on Skype.

You're point about the 70's is well taken. A favorite, game-changing scientific discovery happened in 1986. (It was made by a woman.)

Listen, nobody loves shooting fish in a barrel as much as I do... And people calling themselves feminists keep on rolling the barrels down the gangplank, one after the other.

Yet thoughtful people need to be clear, because ninnies will not understand. It's fun and useful to make fun of wordy, naive, isolated young women who go to college and pretend their delicate interior lives have given them special insights about the human condition... When it's obvious they've never suffered, or even risked, a meaningful disappointment of any kind.

Yet nothing better defines decency and modern life on this planet than the respectful and socially rewarding treatment of woman. It's the finest metric of human affairs, bar none. And there's no better name for it than "feminism," so you should keep that name clean and dry: It still needs to be applied to about a third (or maybe half) the world population, including some places we think of as successfully contemporary... Hel-looooooo Tokyo!

Crid, I sort of agree with you, but I also think that when someone else decides to break a social contract, my obligations to that contract, other than basic human decency, vanish. Now, in practice it doesn't always work that way, but when it doesn't, that's usually because of power relationships rather than willingness on my part. There are people that I have to show respect to even though I think they are a total waste of perfectly good oxygen. But they don't know what I really think, and they never will.

As far as the word: Sometimes popular culture grabs hold of a word and has its way with it, and there's nothing anyone can do. Us software people hated the way the media redefined the word "hacker", but it happened and here we are. The rational feminists are going to have to come up with a new word. (People like Charlotte Allen and Wendy McElroy have been trying, but nothing has stuck yet.) Actually, I like Amy's idea of simply casting it as an aspect of humanism. And someday MRA will become another aspect of the same thing.

If you are for equal rights, you are for everyone having them and for the defense of the rights of anyone who has them violated; you don't just stick to supporting the vagina team.

Nicely said, Crid.

All I got out of this was 'men need to figure out what women mean even though women are not the women may not know what they mean'.

Circular logic is a woman's logic?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/women-at-work-a-guide-for-men-1418418595?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_careerjournal

If truth and reason are phallocentric, then lies and craziness must be gynocentric.

"It's fun and useful to make fun of wordy, naive, isolated young women who go to college and pretend their delicate interior lives have given them special insights about the human condition... When it's obvious they've never suffered, or even risked, a meaningful disappointment of any kind.

Yet nothing better defines decency and modern life on this planet than the respectful and socially rewarding treatment of woman. It's the finest metric of human affairs, bar none."

Yeah, no.

That's true of taking care of children, so it doesn't apply in this connection.

Read the WSJ article BobinTexas, and I agree with your assessment.

There were one or two salient points, usually buried in an actual quote that didnt quite mesh with what ever complaint it was attached to, but the rest was a train wreck of logic and a mess of emotional 'why cant men just be women' whining.

" She's pretty sure that you don't respect her...

“It’s not that women want respect more than men. It’s that men start out with more,” says Tony Schwartz, president and CEO of the Energy Project, a consulting firm. As a man, “you’re the privileged one. You just don’t realize you’re privileged.” "

If you think in terms like 'privilege' then yes, you're absolutely dead right in that I don't respect you.

Also, I work in startups. I respect courage and initiative, and will reward those virtues. People without them don't deserve raises and won't get any promotions that I'm handing out.

I have a better idea: how about women learn to develop initiative and a willingness to take risks? Some have those virtues, and I applaud them. Others could stand to work on that.

Also, I have always wanted to drive a pirate to work.

“It’s not that women want respect more than men. It’s that men start out with more,” says Tony Schwartz, president and CEO of the Energy Project, a consulting firm. As a man, “you’re the privileged one. You just don’t realize you’re privileged.” "

Right, as the man, without gender specific scholarships, training programs, leadership programs, and news articles telling managers to promote women who arent ready over men who are, men are the privileged ones.

> If you are for equal rights,
> you are for…

Well, yesyesyes, but who are the people you want to fight with? Do you wanna fight with ninnies?

Year after year, men and women come to this blog and "Feminists are goofy," but who would disagree?

If truth and reason are "phallocentric" i should wear a strap-on to work in as scientific field. However i have never felt it necessary.

You could try it JT. Let us know if it increases your truth or reason. Or it may just increase your interactions with HR.