"White anti-feminist men in Japan"

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

It isn`t the "goal" of feminism that is the issue - it`s the method taken to reach these goals.
I dropped out of the discussion when it dissolved into insult tossing - but I have yet to see anyone on here who said they were anti-feminist who was actually against the textbook definition of the movement. (ie. rights for women, etc.)
Instead, all those against it are against the actions taken to attempt to reach those ideals.

No matter how wonderful the core ideas are, if the followers are doing awful things - the movement is not going to look good. Even if it is pushing toward a truly good and respectable goal.

As a random example, let us say there is a group for eliminating car accidents. That is an all around positive goal, yes? But let us say that while two thirds of the group goes around trying to actively prevent accidents and spread information, the remaining much more vocal third decides that harassing people when they try to get in their cars or breaking those cars is a valid tactic. Yes, it does reduce the number of accidents - but there is obviously something wrong with those tactics. Even if that is the minority and the rest of the group doesn`t agree with their actions - unless they step up and actively try to stop those using the guerrilla tactics, they are indirectly supporting them and allowing them to be thought of as part of their group.

That`s the problem I have with feminism. Sure, it may be "radical" feminism that is a problem - but I don`t see any "regular" feminists stepping up and trying to stop them. They either turn a blind eye or say "Well, if it works!".

I may think that women deserve equality, but I`m not going to support a group that is willing to just let things go when it comes to women. Equality is the good with the bad - you can`t bash men (validly) if they are doing something discriminatory to women, then turn around and pretend that it`s okay (Or pretend not to even see it) if a woman does something similar to a man. That simply is not equal.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Seriously... please stop trying to redefine feminism to specifically represent the ideology of those radicals because you had a bad experience with some of them. It is lame and it makes you sound uneducated.

Instead of going to war with the term feminism why don't you humbly accept that you are in fact STILL a feminist by it's broad definition and go to war with the very people who you disagree with. Not in the name of feminism but in the name of common sense.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Seriously... please stop trying to redefine feminism to specifically represent the ideology of those radicals because you had a bad experience with some of them. It is lame and it makes you sound uneducated.

Instead of going to war with the term feminism why don't you humbly accept that you are in fact STILL a feminist by it's broad definition and go to war with the very people who you disagree with. Not in the name of feminism but in the name of common sense.

As feminists consider themselves part of a specific group / organization, why should I not do the same?
A "bad experience with some of them" is not the issue - I have yet to have a good experience with someone who identifies themselves to me as a "feminist".

I never said I was going to go out and fight feminists. I said that I am not comfortable identifying myself with that term as long as the "organization" most people consider it to be turns a blind eye to all the self-identifying feminists abusing the system.
Sorry. That is just morally wrong in my eyes. It`s easier to say that I am an anti-feminist egalitarian. If you choose to consider me "uneducated" because I am able to form opinions based on huge swaths of information instead of taking the textbook definition as all there is to it - feel welcome to do so. I am not one to toss insults around, and have no intent to do so... Nor do I believe I have done so in this thread. If you want to interpret me as leaping to conclusions based on a few personal experiences, then you have completely missed my point.

All I have done is stated my reasons for not wanting myself to be identified as a feminist. Take it as you will.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

As feminists consider themselves part of a specific group / organization, why should I not do the same?
A "bad experience with some of them" is not the issue - I have yet to have a good experience with someone who identifies themselves to me as a "feminist".

I never said I was going to go out and fight feminists. I said that I am not comfortable identifying myself with that term as long as the "organization" most people consider it to be turns a blind eye to all the self-identifying feminists abusing the system.
Sorry. That is just morally wrong in my eyes. It`s easier to say that I am an anti-feminist egalitarian. If you choose to consider me "uneducated" because I am able to form opinions based on huge swaths of information instead of taking the textbook definition as all there is to it - feel welcome to do so. I am not one to toss insults around, and have no intent to do so... Nor do I believe I have done so in this thread. If you want to interpret me as leaping to conclusions based on a few personal experiences, then you have completely missed my point.

All I have done is stated my reasons for not wanting myself to be identified as a feminist. Take it as you will.

What you're doing is pigeon-holing feminism and feminist thought with your "anti-feminist" stance. A stance which on it's own implies that you are in fact against the core movement.

If you really want to have a proper, intelligent discussion on this topic then unfortunately for you textbook definitions are the only way to carry it forward. Otherwise you will not be taken seriously.

You despise a certain type of feminist. Fine... why can't you just say that instead of ranting on and on about how you identify this type of feminist as the voice of feminism when in fact that is completely innacurate.

[Wasabista]

"Won't be taken seriously"? I beg to differ. Nyororin makes a perfectly valid point. You may claim - and I'm still waiting for examples -- that there are corners of the "feminist" movement that don't demonize men, desire to equalize responsibilities as well as rights, and value an honest disclosure of the historical events that led to today's changing gender roles. But to the best of my knowledge they don't exist. Can you supply names?

When I use the term "feminism" you can assume I mean mainstream feminism, as marked out by the movement's most prominent speakers and as reflected in the mainstream media.

This movement claims to aim for equality between the sexes. But if you look at the things feminists have been achieving over the past 30 years, it's hard to square those things with the stated aims. They are:

• Imposition of hiring quotas for women, particularly in academia
• Enabling the arbitrary confiscation of assets from men to women
• Imposition of a Stalinist system of "pay equity" in the public sector, which essentially guarantees women higher pay than market forces can justify
• Propagation of the lie that men typically abandon their children and typically batter women
• Preventing fathers from being with their children, virtually at the whim of the mother and the courts

If feminists were really interested in equality as they claim, they would be clamoring to extend the military draft to women. I'm straining my ears to hear this voice from feminists, but all I hear are crickets chirping.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Wasabista

"Won't be taken seriously"? I beg to differ. Nyororin makes a perfectly valid point. You may claim - and I'm still waiting for examples -- that there are corners of the "feminist" movement that don't demonize men, desire to equalize responsibilities as well as rights, and value an honest disclosure of the historical events that led to today's changing gender roles. But to the best of my knowledge they don't exist. Can you supply names?

When I use the term "feminism" you can assume I mean mainstream feminism, as marked out by the movement's most prominent speakers and as reflected in the mainstream media.

This movement claims to aim for equality between the sexes. But if you look at the things feminists have been achieving over the past 30 years, it's hard to square those things with the stated aims. They are:

• Imposition of hiring quotas for women, particularly in academia
• Enabling the arbitrary confiscation of assets from men to women
• Imposition of a Stalinist system of "pay equity" in the public sector, which essentially guarantees women higher pay than market forces can justify
• Propagation of the lie that men typically abandon their children and typically batter women
• Preventing fathers from being with their children, virtually at the whim of the mother and the courts

If feminists were really interested in equality as they claim, they would be clamoring to extend the military draft to women. I'm straining my ears to hear this voice from feminists, but all I hear are crickets chirping.

You want an example of mainstream feminism? Look at society now compared with 40 or so years ago.

Also where are your examples? All I see is right wing exaggeration and spin (That feminists tow the line that men typically abandon their children and batter women as well as prevent fathers from seeing their children at the whim of their mothers... complete bullshit)

and oversimplification of some very sound policies (pay equity and quota systems in some occupations and academia. What's wrong with that? Do you have a problem with women being paid the same for the same job? You're not one of those dipshits that believes that because women COULD get pregnant and suffer mood swings that that makes her more of a liability and less valuable. Seriously I've seen that retarded argument before. As for the quotas, it's not like workplaces and schools accept ANY woman to fill those quotas. They of course have to be qualified and the best for the role or position they are going to fill.).

Also, I think you'll find that most feminists being liberal are opposed to ANY sort of draft involving men OR women. Why would they want to EXTEND something they don't believe in the first place?

It'd be like asking God to kill the pharoah's first born sons AND daughters as opposed to just their sons. (Old testament reference if you didn't understand that... though I think the point I'm trying to make is clear).

[Wasabista]

First born sons, eh? No daughters? Hmm, funny I thought women were oppressed in those days. Go figure.

Ronin, I'll go tell my friends tonight when I see them on the town that somebody called me "right-wing." We'll all have a good chuckle on that. (Then again Noam Chomsky has been called an anti-Semite, with no apparent irony...funny old world)

OK, here's an example for you. We’re going to talk about domestic violence. You raised several other interesting points, but I’m going to concentrate on this one.

Point One: The general popular view is that domestic violence is almost exclusively a male crime.

You’ve probably heard that one of the great challenges the women’s movement is struggling with is domestic, or family, violence. Have you heard that? Is it your impression that this consists of men beating up women, and fathers abusing their children? You probably have.

What percent of men beat their wives and girlfriends? 20 percent? 30 percent?

What percent of women beat their husbands and boyfriends? Virtually none, or only in self-defense?

If that sounds like your view, you’re not alone. There are NGOs all over North America purporting to be dedicated to “ending violence against women.” Note, not “ending violence,” or “ending violence between spouses.” The domestic batterer is typically characterized as MALE. The victim, FEMALE.

Examples?
• An ad by the Ad Council and Family Violence Prevention Fund, Time magazine, 1996: “42% of all murdered women are killed by the same man (their husband).”
• An ad from the Boulder (CO) Men’s Center: “A slap in the face is no solution. AMEND = Abusive Men Exploring New Directions” Men, not people.
• Rocky Mountain News, Feb 5, 1990: “50% of women feel the cold hand of a batterer.”
• Boston Globe, Jan 29, 1993: “Women’s shelters flooded with more calls the Monday after the Superbowl than any other time of year.” The Globe later acknowledged the claim was false.
• US Women’s Bureau: Women are 6 times more likely than men to be victims of domestic violence.
• At a recent address (like, a few weeks ago) to the United Nations, Suze Orman, a financial planner who does a show on CNBC, stated that greater financial independence was a key element in the fight against violence against women. She said nothing about violence against men.

So this is a widely held opinion. You’ve probably seen the ads on TV yourself, or in newspapers, or on public buses. I have.

Point Two: This view is false. Women and men are equally likely to be victims of abuse by their spouses.

The academic research on the subject is unanimous: Sadly, there are men who batter women, and women who batter men.

The landmark study on this phenomenon was Steinmetz, Straus and Gelles, way back in 1975. This study found that women and men batter each other equally. The study caused a storm in sociology circles, and more studies were inaugurated. But ALL of these studies ended up finding the same thing. The methods varied, the locations, time scales, etc varied, but the results all supported Steinmetz, Straus and Gelles—even though most of the researchers were feminists. (That reflects well on them—despite their bias, they brought out the truth.)

Take a moment to think about that. The academic research is UNANIMOUS. Here is a partial list, you can look them up online with ease. I’m saving my typing fingers by giving you only the authors, journal names and dates.

J Archer and N Ray, Aggressive Behavior, 1989
I Arias and P Johnson, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Sept 1989
I Arias, M Samos, K O’Leary, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, March 1987
ML Bernard and JL Bernard, Family Relations, 1983
RE Billingham and AR sack, Journal of Adolescent Research, 1986
R Bland and Helene Orn, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, March 1986
JR Bohannon, DA Dosser Jr, SE Lindley, Violence and Victims, 1995
J Bookwala, IH Frieze, C Smith, K Ryan, Violence and Victims, 1992
MB Brinkerhoff and E Lupri, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 1988
L Brush, National Survey of Families and Households; Gender and Society, March 1990

That’s ten. There are at least 40 others.

You wanted facts – be careful what you wish for!

Point Three: The reason why people don’t know the facts is that feminists prevent them from hearing about it.

Dissident feminists such as Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Summers speak of being prevented from appearing on TV and other media due to various threats, usually of the “you’ll never do lunch in this town” variety but even a great many death threats. (Paglia’s voice mail has a taped message stating that she does not open packages sent to her so don’t bother.) When Summers wrote Who Stole Feminism, many feminists called CBS to pressure them not to air an interview they had taped with her. Gloria Steinem called personally to demand the show be shelved. And on, and on, and on.

There’s actually MUCH more to this censorship process—men’s macho attitudes being a big one! But clearly, the women’s movement is lying, and is very serious about it.

Conclusion

I began my replies to MissMisa on this thread by stating that modern mainstream feminism no longer seeks anything recognizable as equality as its goal, if indeed it ever did. I showed you numerous quotes from the world’s best known feminists to back it up.

In this post, I’ve focused on one important area: Domestic violence. I’ve given numerous examples demonstrating that the women’s movement promotes the view that this crime is a MALE crime. I’ve offered exhaustive documentation that this isn’t so. And I’ve explained why the truth has been so effectively covered up.

Next time, if anybody is still awake, I’ll tell you one example of how this campaign of lies hurts men, and many women too, and their children: the Duluth procedures.

[Salvanas]

Originally Posted by Wasabista

First born sons, eh? No daughters? Hmm, funny I thought women were oppressed in those days. Go figure.

Ronin, I'll go tell my friends tonight when I see them on the town that somebody called me "right-wing." We'll all have a good chuckle on that. (Then again Noam Chomsky has been called an anti-Semite, with no apparent irony...funny old world)

OK, here's an example for you. We’re going to talk about domestic violence. You raised several other interesting points, but I’m going to concentrate on this one.

Point One: The general popular view is that domestic violence is almost exclusively a male crime.

You’ve probably heard that one of the great challenges the women’s movement is struggling with is domestic, or family, violence. Have you heard that? Is it your impression that this consists of men beating up women, and fathers abusing their children? You probably have.

What percent of men beat their wives and girlfriends? 20 percent? 30 percent?

What percent of women beat their husbands and boyfriends? Virtually none, or only in self-defense?

If that sounds like your view, you’re not alone. There are NGOs all over North America purporting to be dedicated to “ending violence against women.” Note, not “ending violence,” or “ending violence between spouses.” The domestic batterer is typically characterized as MALE. The victim, FEMALE.

Examples?
• An ad by the Ad Council and Family Violence Prevention Fund, Time magazine, 1996: “42% of all murdered women are killed by the same man (their husband).”
• An ad from the Boulder (CO) Men’s Center: “A slap in the face is no solution. AMEND = Abusive Men Exploring New Directions” Men, not people.
• Rocky Mountain News, Feb 5, 1990: “50% of women feel the cold hand of a batterer.”
• Boston Globe, Jan 29, 1993: “Women’s shelters flooded with more calls the Monday after the Superbowl than any other time of year.” The Globe later acknowledged the claim was false.
• US Women’s Bureau: Women are 6 times more likely than men to be victims of domestic violence.
• At a recent address (like, a few weeks ago) to the United Nations, Suze Orman, a financial planner who does a show on CNBC, stated that greater financial independence was a key element in the fight against violence against women. She said nothing about violence against men.

So this is a widely held opinion. You’ve probably seen the ads on TV yourself, or in newspapers, or on public buses. I have.

Point Two: This view is false. Women and men are equally likely to be victims of abuse by their spouses.

The academic research on the subject is unanimous: Sadly, there are men who batter women, and women who batter men.

The landmark study on this phenomenon was Steinmetz, Straus and Gelles, way back in 1975. This study found that women and men batter each other equally. The study caused a storm in sociology circles, and more studies were inaugurated. But ALL of these studies ended up finding the same thing. The methods varied, the locations, time scales, etc varied, but the results all supported Steinmetz, Straus and Gelles—even though most of the researchers were feminists. (That reflects well on them—despite their bias, they brought out the truth.)

Take a moment to think about that. The academic research is UNANIMOUS. Here is a partial list, you can look them up online with ease. I’m saving my typing fingers by giving you only the authors, journal names and dates.

J Archer and N Ray, Aggressive Behavior, 1989
I Arias and P Johnson, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Sept 1989
I Arias, M Samos, K O’Leary, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, March 1987
ML Bernard and JL Bernard, Family Relations, 1983
RE Billingham and AR sack, Journal of Adolescent Research, 1986
R Bland and Helene Orn, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, March 1986
JR Bohannon, DA Dosser Jr, SE Lindley, Violence and Victims, 1995
J Bookwala, IH Frieze, C Smith, K Ryan, Violence and Victims, 1992
MB Brinkerhoff and E Lupri, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 1988
L Brush, National Survey of Families and Households; Gender and Society, March 1990

That’s ten. There are at least 40 others.

You wanted facts – be careful what you wish for!

Point Three: The reason why people don’t know the facts is that feminists prevent them from hearing about it.

Dissident feminists such as Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Summers speak of being prevented from appearing on TV and other media due to various threats, usually of the “you’ll never do lunch in this town” variety but even a great many death threats. (Paglia’s voice mail has a taped message stating that she does not open packages sent to her so don’t bother.) When Summers wrote Who Stole Feminism, many feminists called CBS to pressure them not to air an interview they had taped with her. Gloria Steinem called personally to demand the show be shelved. And on, and on, and on.

There’s actually MUCH more to this censorship process—men’s macho attitudes being a big one! But clearly, the women’s movement is lying, and is very serious about it.

Conclusion

I began my replies to MissMisa on this thread by stating that modern mainstream feminism no longer seeks anything recognizable as equality as its goal, if indeed it ever did. I showed you numerous quotes from the world’s best known feminists to back it up.

In this post, I’ve focused on one important area: Domestic violence. I’ve given numerous examples demonstrating that the women’s movement promotes the view that this crime is a MALE crime. I’ve offered exhaustive documentation that this isn’t so. And I’ve explained why the truth has been so effectively covered up.

Next time, if anybody is still awake, I’ll tell you one example of how this campaign of lies hurts men, and many women too, and their children: the Duluth procedures.

That was a very well written post with effort put into it. Kudos to you.

[MissMisa]

For the last time, radical feminists are not and never will be the majority of feminists. Sure, the radical feminists are the most influencial, but saying that makes most feminists radical is like saying that because hitler was influencial all germans are nazis.

I'll reply to your post soon Wasabista, going to school in a moment!

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Wasabista

First born sons, eh? No daughters? Hmm, funny I thought women were oppressed in those days. Go figure.

Ronin, I'll go tell my friends tonight when I see them on the town that somebody called me "right-wing." We'll all have a good chuckle on that. (Then again Noam Chomsky has been called an anti-Semite, with no apparent irony...funny old world)

OK, here's an example for you. We’re going to talk about domestic violence. You raised several other interesting points, but I’m going to concentrate on this one.

Point One: The general popular view is that domestic violence is almost exclusively a male crime.

You’ve probably heard that one of the great challenges the women’s movement is struggling with is domestic, or family, violence. Have you heard that? Is it your impression that this consists of men beating up women, and fathers abusing their children? You probably have.

What percent of men beat their wives and girlfriends? 20 percent? 30 percent?

What percent of women beat their husbands and boyfriends? Virtually none, or only in self-defense?

If that sounds like your view, you’re not alone. There are NGOs all over North America purporting to be dedicated to “ending violence against women.” Note, not “ending violence,” or “ending violence between spouses.” The domestic batterer is typically characterized as MALE. The victim, FEMALE.

Examples?
• An ad by the Ad Council and Family Violence Prevention Fund, Time magazine, 1996: “42% of all murdered women are killed by the same man (their husband).”
• An ad from the Boulder (CO) Men’s Center: “A slap in the face is no solution. AMEND = Abusive Men Exploring New Directions” Men, not people.
• Rocky Mountain News, Feb 5, 1990: “50% of women feel the cold hand of a batterer.”
• Boston Globe, Jan 29, 1993: “Women’s shelters flooded with more calls the Monday after the Superbowl than any other time of year.” The Globe later acknowledged the claim was false.
• US Women’s Bureau: Women are 6 times more likely than men to be victims of domestic violence.
• At a recent address (like, a few weeks ago) to the United Nations, Suze Orman, a financial planner who does a show on CNBC, stated that greater financial independence was a key element in the fight against violence against women. She said nothing about violence against men.

So this is a widely held opinion. You’ve probably seen the ads on TV yourself, or in newspapers, or on public buses. I have.

Point Two: This view is false. Women and men are equally likely to be victims of abuse by their spouses.

The academic research on the subject is unanimous: Sadly, there are men who batter women, and women who batter men.

The landmark study on this phenomenon was Steinmetz, Straus and Gelles, way back in 1975. This study found that women and men batter each other equally. The study caused a storm in sociology circles, and more studies were inaugurated. But ALL of these studies ended up finding the same thing. The methods varied, the locations, time scales, etc varied, but the results all supported Steinmetz, Straus and Gelles—even though most of the researchers were feminists. (That reflects well on them—despite their bias, they brought out the truth.)

Take a moment to think about that. The academic research is UNANIMOUS. Here is a partial list, you can look them up online with ease. I’m saving my typing fingers by giving you only the authors, journal names and dates.

J Archer and N Ray, Aggressive Behavior, 1989
I Arias and P Johnson, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Sept 1989
I Arias, M Samos, K O’Leary, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, March 1987
ML Bernard and JL Bernard, Family Relations, 1983
RE Billingham and AR sack, Journal of Adolescent Research, 1986
R Bland and Helene Orn, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, March 1986
JR Bohannon, DA Dosser Jr, SE Lindley, Violence and Victims, 1995
J Bookwala, IH Frieze, C Smith, K Ryan, Violence and Victims, 1992
MB Brinkerhoff and E Lupri, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 1988
L Brush, National Survey of Families and Households; Gender and Society, March 1990

That’s ten. There are at least 40 others.

You wanted facts – be careful what you wish for!

Point Three: The reason why people don’t know the facts is that feminists prevent them from hearing about it.

Dissident feminists such as Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Summers speak of being prevented from appearing on TV and other media due to various threats, usually of the “you’ll never do lunch in this town” variety but even a great many death threats. (Paglia’s voice mail has a taped message stating that she does not open packages sent to her so don’t bother.) When Summers wrote Who Stole Feminism, many feminists called CBS to pressure them not to air an interview they had taped with her. Gloria Steinem called personally to demand the show be shelved. And on, and on, and on.

There’s actually MUCH more to this censorship process—men’s macho attitudes being a big one! But clearly, the women’s movement is lying, and is very serious about it.

Conclusion

I began my replies to MissMisa on this thread by stating that modern mainstream feminism no longer seeks anything recognizable as equality as its goal, if indeed it ever did. I showed you numerous quotes from the world’s best known feminists to back it up.

In this post, I’ve focused on one important area: Domestic violence. I’ve given numerous examples demonstrating that the women’s movement promotes the view that this crime is a MALE crime. I’ve offered exhaustive documentation that this isn’t so. And I’ve explained why the truth has been so effectively covered up.

Next time, if anybody is still awake, I’ll tell you one example of how this campaign of lies hurts men, and many women too, and their children: the Duluth procedures.

Yeah nice post there as Salvanas said. THESE feminists suck. Too bad it ignores the textbook definition given to feminism and pretty much the point I've been making the whole thread.

That the women who are against such measures like Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Summers are labelled "dissident feminists" shows your bias.

The term encapsulates ALL discussion past and present within the feminist movement. Some backward example from America doesn't change that.

To be "anti-feminist" is to be anti this ideal.

[Haiiro]

Hi all,
Seeing as I'm joining this discussion so late, my opinion is probably a moot point. However, reading through this thread did cause me to rethink a few things, so I thought I'd post if only to say these conversations are not in vain. It actually inspired me to write a letter to my sister, who enjoys a mix of both lifestyles as the "bread winner" and housewife at the same time.

So rather than rewriting my musings here, I'll just post a snippet of the email itself, with your kind indulgence... Yes, I'm lazy:P

----------

Out of the blue today, a forum post caught my eye, and the thread basically forced me to rethink my entire view on "feminism". It's rather naive, I know, but I generally stick to the intended or original meaning of a word, in a laughable attempt to preserve the integrity of the English language. When a word becomes too "loaded" with implied meaning (which actually changes from person to person) it becomes virtually worthless as a part of one's vocabulary. As a result I often find myself discarding vocabulary, and looking for "clean" terminology to express a concept without inviting misinterpretation (a seemingly hopeless endeavor).

Up until now, I have always thought of myself as a feminist. During its inception feminism was very idealistic, providing women the "option" to do whatever they wanted. Wonderful - so how can such a noble persuit end up becoming so twisted in the public perception? Feminism has become such a loaded word over time, that there is really no reason for anyone to use it anymore. To some, it carries the implication that women are superior to men, or that women who choose not to live a perceivably "feminist" lifestyle are somehow allowing themselves to be inferior to, or dominated by men. So essentially feminism, in it's current twisted state, does not necessarily represent the fight for equality and freedom of choice, so much as a new and significantly greater expectation from women. "Housewife" has become a demeaning term for a woman who simply chooses to stay at home, and care for her kids. Men who stay at home are mocked and ridiculed. What we end up with is both parents working their asses off (even when it's completely unnecessary from a financial perspective) to pay for someone else to take care of the kids, while never fully enjoying the "family life" they work so hard to support. It a pretty common scenario I think, (although do correct me if I'm wrong) and the result is less actual freedom than ever, as people strive to live up to new, and much more demanding social expectations. Social progress on this subject, as I see it, is the process of expanding options, without actually requiring a change of lifestyle.

I think you're probably the most likely person to understand where I'm coming from on this. I think I've developed a greater appreciation for just how controversial your chosen lifestyle actually is. On the one hand you have people like Twila (sp?) who frown on your capabilities as a businesswoman. And then on the other hand, you have people who would look down on you for staying at home. Well, as a famous diplomat once said (wish I could remember the name!), if both sides are pissed off with you then you're on the right track:P

So now I'm curious: how would you normally describe yourself? Are you a feminist or egalitarian?

After giving this a little thought, I can not, in good conscience, call myself a feminist. I'm now simply an egalitarian - one who believes in all-round equality between race, gender, sexual preference, or whatever.

---------

Well that's it. To clarify a couple of points... On her partner's side of the family, they actually *hate* the fact that she is so capable in business, believing that women should never handle finance. On the other side of the coin, some people in our own family believe that she's wasting her life staying at home, intelligent and capable as she is, and shouldn't have ever had more than 1 child (she has 4). Both views are complete BS - what we have here is a woman living a full and wonderful life by her own rules. That, to me, is what feminism used to represent, but now the term has become saturated with false meaning... Time to toss that one on the refuse heap and move on IMO.