Betty Friedan is the author of the 1963 publication many people consider the foundation of modern feminism, “the Feminine Mystique”. She also founded the National Organization for Women, running it from her apartment starting from 1966.
Friedan stepped down from her position as NOW’s first president in 1970 and pursued political activism which included the nation-wide Women’s Strike for Equality on August 26 1970. This strike was successful enough to significantly broaden the feminist movement. In 1971, Friedan joined other leading feminists to establish the National Women’s Political Caucus.
As the founder and early organizer of the movement which is now one of the largest hate organizations in the world, it would be easy to rationalize inclusion of Friedan in the bigot category of register-her.com, but it would be incorrect.
The corruption, the tradition of fraudulent statistics, the routine employment of logical fallacy in feminist rhetoric, and the numerous other failings of modern feminism do not belong to Betty Friedan.
To be sure, much of her philosophical position was strongly opposed to the humanist libertarian point of view many MRA’s lean towards. However, Friedan was a curmudgeon, and though her social movement in its modern form opposes human rights, Friedan herself was a strict adherent to what she saw as the truth. Unlike many later feminists, her version of feminism did not rest on a foundation of hatred.
Friedan’s obituary[1], published in the UK Independent makes this clear; “because I’m not anti-marriage and anti-family. I always thought it was dangerous to go against the idea of the family. I don’t even like the phrase “women’s liberation” because that idea of being set free from everything doesn’t seem right to me. I like to think of the women’s movement as a fight for equality. Friedan’s The Second Stage (1981) aimed to set the record straight, stating that men were not the enemy”
Friedan was briefly a candidate entry in the database of Register-her.com, listed under the category of offence as Domestic Violence False Accuser. As a moderator of the registry, it seemed that founder of the world’s most successful hate movement should be listed in an alternate category of offence. The candidate entry, while noting her claim of accusing an ex husband of battery and refuting that accusation with: “she later admitted this was not true,” this entry to the registry was short of detail or corroboration. This motivated me to conduct my own research, and to assume a better category would be that of bigot. My assumption proved incorrect and I deleted the candidate entry in the registry for the founder of NOW.
In her autobiography, published in 2000, she stated that her ex husband, divorced in 1969 has beaten her during her marriage. This claim was disputed by Carl Friedan. The Register-her candidate entry submitted contained the statement that “Friedan later admitted this was not true”. Unfortunately, the description of that statement of admission is incomplete. Referring back to Friedan’s obituary:
“She said that her husband had beaten her, a claim which Carl Friedan strongly rejected. Betty Friedan then admitted they had exchanged blows, commenting, “Look, I’m not a doormat. We did have our battles.”
Sometimes a political opponent is just a political opponent, and not a criminal. Friedan’s monster continues to cut a swath of destruction through the social landscape, but Friedan is not the ideologue who turned an erstwhile fight for equality into persecution of half the human race.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/betty-friedan-465800.html
125 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Jean Valjean:
Charbroil:
Peegies:
Doug1:
Kimski:
That was a beautiful article, John. It’s also a clear reminder that we need to keep our eyes on the ball. Thank you for the insightful research.
For those of us who have a tendency to jump the gun, I would remind you that we are not trying to rewrite history. What we do here should probably be kept in the present tense, and let the record stand forward from there. This is the easiest way to document the events and people of the times, and set up a building and lasting legacy to remind us all in the future.
Glad to see some serious thought going into who is and who isn’t a bigot. Andrea Dworkin (http://reason.com/archives/2005/04/19/womans-hating) and closet bigot Hanna Rosin deserve far more ‘love’ than do relatively honest but misguided feminists. I hope the worst of the bigoted bunch enjoy the limelight first.
Hanna Rosin closet bigot? I thought it was pretty obvious. I cringe when I think of her ted conference video.
Yes, Rosin is an utterly enraging man and boy (son) hater. Since she chortles so provocatively about the end of men, her racket deserves front and center ‘rape’ (that is forced ‘penetration’) right away. That said, I’m not sure her supposedly ‘truth-tellin’ rhetoric is directly bigoted enough to bust her yet as a RegisterHer subject.
I guess one could say it is a matter of interpretation. She obviously celebrates the gradual downgrading of men’s status and the growing domination of women. I’m sure that one could find blatantly anti-male statements in her discourse. She should be asked what is her ideal outcome of this trend? Men used only as sperm donors and relegated to second class human beings?
I’d love to be able hang her on her own petards but I haven’t seen the smoking guns yet. She is blatantly anti-male but she’s also too cunning to say so directly as far as I can see anyway. As for what the the ideal outcome of her feebleminded falsehood looks like, I imagine she’d suggest: http://www.amazon.com/Herland-Lost-Feminist-Utopian-Novel/dp/0394736656
That said, I don’t see women fighting the wars, farming the food, mining the coal, creating the computers or fulfilling of thousands of other essential jobs anytime soon. As Hoff Sommers said, the hangers on which feminism depends are always paid for by those who do the real work. Pretty soon the sources of funds these hateful hacks use to destroy us are going to dry up as we all go back to focusing on pure financial survival. As they always did, always do and always will, women will come crying back to men when the chips are down. What we need to do is smile, look away and say oh but you’re already equal and therefore you really don’t need our courage.
@Primal:
“Herland” can be downloaded free if you google around for it.
@Fidelbogen
Nice to know. Thank you.
Was Friedan a Communist (CPUSA apparatchik)? To what extent did she have ties to the Communist party, or adhere to Communist party doctrine? Did Friedan withhold past connections to Communism from public view, while very publicly pushing a gender feminist agenda? If so, why?
One of the two authors of the Communist Manifesto, Friedrich Engels, certainly has enormously contributed to “Patriarchy theory,” according to Eugene R. August, writing in his book, “The New Men’s Studies,” Pp. 242. And “Patriarchy theory” has caused enormous human suffering, IMO. It is Engel’s grossly flawed “Patriarchy theory” that is still widely foisted on students in Women’s Studies programs (and Sociology curriculum) in colleges and universities all across the Western world and beyond. What was Friedan’s view on “Patriarchy?”
My own research on Friedan is limited, but based on what I’ve read I have lots of questions.
Patriarchy theory was indeed the spring board for feminism as we see it today. The whole edifice of domestic violence and the rape culture flows from this one theory. The idea being that DV and rape are used to enforce mens sense of privilege. It is interesting to look at two early quotes by feminists.
“Men are not the enemy, but the fellow victims.
The real enemy is women’s denigration of themselves.”
Betty Friedan
“the visionary feminists of the late sixties and early seventies knew that women could never find freedom by agreeing to live the lives of unfree men.”
Germaine Greer
Both women in this regard did not see men as being free. Patriarchy theory came later.
It is apparent from a quote by Freidan later in life that she was disillusioned with the way feminism had gone.
“It isn’t that I have stopped being a feminist, but women as a separate interest group are not my concern anymore.”
I had assumed that deceased individuals were not eligible for the registry.
At least, this is the conclusion I arrived at when I saw that Dworkin was conspicuously absent.
I sure hope that the long list of deceased bigots who primed the pump for this hate movement are featured in full on the register. Registering them and registering those who still worship them today is extremely important in the same way as busting the administrators of CafeMom is important. Will someone shed some light on the policy here?
Awesome post JTO. Distinguishing between bigots and philosophical opponents exemplifies the objectivity and responsibility inherent to the MRM.
OT: I just found this and it’s really cool. Movember to fight prostate cancer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTuKOgHI7GA
Time to grow a stach?
http://www.youtube.com/user/movembertv#p/c/4CA386525BE97099/0/oEatR2CVWiE
I’ll be growing one sir. I shave tomorrow night and then not again until December 1st.
I remember watching Ms Friedan being interviewed on what must have been her only visit to Australia (c.1990). By then, she had already become Feminism’s Trotsky, reviled and rejected by the hardcore man-haters who had hijacked the movemnet long before.
One Australian female ABC TV journalist, kept trying to get Ms Friedan to make pithy man-hating soundbites. She asked questions like,”So, what do you think about men…?” and, “What do you say to men who…?”
Ms Friedan finally had enough and snapped, “Stop wasting your life envying men!” She then admonished the chastised journo for blaming men for women’s problems. Needless to say, Australian feminists couldn’t wait to see the back of her. I remember they used the words ‘traitor’ and ‘getting old’ a lot when asked to comment on her various public speaking engagements.
Since then, I deduced that Betty Friedan was less than rapturous at what feminism had become. She had indeed created a monster beyond her control. Feminists came as close to dancing on her grave as they dared. The nicest eulogy I remember any of the usual suspects saying of her was that she had become an embarrassment to herself and to others.
Feminists have kicked the bones of Ms Friedan into the stratosphere of irrelevance more effectively than we ever could.
I disagree about Friedan, because she is a role model to the feminists. Just like men and fathers are by default disrespected and denigrated, one of the icons of the feminist movement should be dragged through the mud. She should have made better choices as a young person.
I think the real human traitor is Gloria Steinem. She is/was a cia government operative that was instrumental in leading a lot of men and boys into the chasm. This was a very clever mis-info artist that should be brought to justice. Steinem’s actions (or more accurately, following the instructions of the man behind the scenes) is the single most important reason for the backlash women face in the near future.
“Though she admitted to having worked for a CIA-financed foundation in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Steinem denied any continuing involvement.” -wikipedia.org. Yeah, just like you only work once for the drug cartel ;^)
She was influential in ushering in feminist Marxism into American society in the 60′s. That was the beginning of the disrespecting and denigration of men and boys. She is the reason now why men don’t go to university and women are afforded that privilege and are now ushered into high paying managerial jobs.
She is the reason why women have “serious” government funded pensions/subsidies as women studies alumni, while the average man is broke, no job, and without a proper education.
Both of these scum-bags should be put up and displayed examples for all to see. A person who is praised for destroying a way of life should be put down, not propped up. Family, fatherhood, maleness have become negative words. This is wrong. They have been flapping their lips free from impunity for way too long. Look where it has lead us, into an ugly and debased society. We can thank the feminists for this. We can thank Steinem for this and we can thank Friedan.
Agree with John here. Betty Friedan for the most part stopped well short of misandry. I think if she were still alive nowadays she would be the first to admit that feminism has gone too far.
“Sometimes a political opponent is just a political opponent, and not a criminal.”
You are right. No kisses or hugs for Friedan, but she does not belong on the list. There are a small number of old guard feminists who we can defeat with respect.
The modern entitlement princess deserves no respect.
I have often said that if feminism were about equality, then I would be a feminist. It’s not and I ain’t. I am not opposed to equality. I have defined five types of political equality, though one is a psuedoequality. Those are equal rights, responsibilities, opportunity, protection, and the psuedoequality of equal outcomes. Only equal outcomes should be opposed.
If Friedan is about equality, then I would have little quarrel with her. While she has been a major influence on feminism, I haven’t read anything by her or studied her at all. So I am not qualified to say whether she should be on Register-her or not. I’ll take your word for it. Not every feminist belongs on that site, not even all the prominent ones. those that do belong are the ones who continually spew forth hateful bile in very public forums.
TDOM
Feminism is about “equality” though. It just depends on your brand of “equality.” Is this equality of outcome, equality of opportunity, or something different? Of course, the whole preoccupation of equality is what leads to socialism anyway. I say, give everyone a shot, if they don’t make it; too fucking bad!
The “equality” I’m talking about is what I call the 5 political equalities (equal rights, responsibilities, opportunities, protections, and outcomes). I discuss them at:
http://cmi.thedamnedoldeman.com/?page_id=101
The first four are true equalities, outcome is a psuedoequality that can be used to measure the first four, but only in areas where there are no innate differences in the sexes, races, ethnicities, etc. Where innate differences exist, outcome is not a valid measure.
Consider education. Intelligence testing consistently indicates that there is no significant difference in general intelligence between men and women, although there may be significant difference in particular types of intelligence. If the education system is set up to favor those areas where women exceed men in intelligence, then equal outcomes should not be expected and women should demonstrate higher educational achievement. However, if educational achievement is then used to provide women with advantage in employment, then equality of opportunity is compromised. The women may be more qualified because of their education, but they are not more intelligent and may not be more capable (or wouldn’t be if men were equally educated. Therefore an educational system that favors women over men should be evaluated according to outcome and adjusted to emphasize men’s intellectual capabilities equally with those of women so as to provide an overall equal opportunity for educational achievement.
This is not to say that all areas of educational outcomes should be equal, only the overall outcome. If men are better at math, then more men should achieve higher levels in math related fields. If women are better at language, then more women should achieve higher levels than men. But the educational system should be producing a relatively equal number of graduates and maintain relatively equal enrollments of men and women.
TDOM
When I was a young and foolish kid I did believe that “feminism (was) about equality.” Took me quite a long time to see behind the curtain, and I’m not proud of my obtuseness in that respect.
It’s remarkable that my “major reproductive mistake,” of taking care of my aging mother rather than pursuing a wife and kiddies of my own, actually saved me from the fate of a bitter marriage, emasculation, marital slavery, divorce, and the rapine & plunder of Family Court. I may have missed certain joys of raising children that I thought were mine, but what I earned and made and created for myself is still mine.
TDOM, I’m with you on those first four equalities – as long as all four are meted out equally under the law. No more of this “hang HIM high, but slap HER wrist lightly!”
I too once believed that feminism was about equality. but even in my youth I sensed that something was amiss and never could call myself a feminist. If you are hanging him, but slapping her wrist for the same offense, it is not equality.
TDOM
This may be a good time now to ask the question, what is RHs goal? I thought of it more as a registry of living misandrists and their crimes. This article seems to lead to the idea that there should be some type of “Hall of Shame” to put the deceased into but I would hate to see RH filled with strategically irrelevant (i.e. dead) people.
Steinem and Rosin? Now they should be in both RH and a Hall of Shame.
Interesting pov. The hall of shame could include anything from some racist and warmongering/white feather campaign suffragettes to the deceased modern feminist icons. Kind of like a negative hagiography/pantheon.
Problem is that it may get overly complicated. Also there are some obvious benefits to focusing on the ones who are currently spreading anti-male ideas and propaganda, not to mention criminal offenders.
@TDOM
I personally do not believe in ‘equality’. Rationality? Absolutely, but ‘equality’ certainly not!
The concept of ‘equality’ sounds a splendid, fair and noble ideal but one that does not bear close scrutiny. I think that’s why so many women (and some men) support the idea; it feels right – so long as you don’t think too deeply about it.
Let’s examine your proposed five types of ‘political equality’.
Equal rights – Isn’t that the same as ‘human rights’ so apparently most people would agree with this concept, well apart from if your a criminal, enemy non-combatant, old, an immigrant…
Now I think about it, many in the UK wish to see the end of ‘human rights’.
Equal responsibities – responsibility over what exactly?
Feed yourself? Fight off wild tigers? Take out the trash?
Opportunity – Absolutely, as soon as women loose a set of ribs, grow extra muscle groups, are as physically tough as a man, share the same ‘hunter’ instincts of a man, put on an extra 50lbs of muscle mass and share the same tolerance for physical pain and capacity for endurance then there should be no reason a female should be barred from joining any elite fighting force. (Or fire fighter, or trawler man, or logger, or miner..)
Conversely, should men be given the ‘opportunity’ to experience the joys of childbirth? (See ‘Life of Brian’ for the answer to that one)
Protection under the law I agree with, but as long as there are humans there will always be ‘human nature’ and therefore a propensity for males in particular to ‘save the damsel in distress’ before anything else.
The only absolute principal we should dedicate ourselves to is ‘truth’; at least that’s how I see it.
You should probably read my description of the five equalities.
http://cmi.thedamnedoldeman.com/?page_id=101
Equal rights is just that. Whatever rights are afforded one sex should be afforded the other. It doesn’t matter what they are, so long as they are equal.
Equal responsibility is mostly directed at responsibilities towards society, but may also apply in other areas. If men are required to register for a military draft, women should be required to register as well and face the same consequences if they don’t. If women are permitted to abdicate their parental responsibilities via abortion or adoption, men should be able to abdicate theirs as well.
Equal opportunity has nothing to do with physical capabilities. If a job demands a high level of physical strength any woman who possesses that strength should be permitted to apply and have an equal chance of being hired as any man who possesses that strength. It does not mean that standards should be lowered in order to achieve equal outcomes.
As far as “truth” goes, you really need to read some of my more philosophical writings.
What is Truth? http://thedamnedoldeman.com/?p=1312
TDOM
TDOM.
I have followed the links and read carefully what you have written.
Please consider this. Let’s pretend it’s the middle of world war three, the fighting has devolved into a brutal war of attrition with fluid front lines that sprawl over countries and continents; the initial battles have seriously depleted both your regular and reserve forces and you now need to enact conscription to replenish your troops.
I’m curious, would you really send women to dig fox holes, attack enemy fortifications or conduct amphibious assaults? Would you say that the presence of women in a fighting force enhances or bolsters its capabilities or do they diminish it?
“I’m curious, would you really send women to dig fox holes, attack enemy fortifications or conduct amphibious assaults? Would you say that the presence of women in a fighting force enhances or bolsters its capabilities or do they diminish it?”
I think that women that are physically capable of performing combat functions would not diminish the capabilities of a fighting force. I will qualify that by stating that there may be other, nonphyscial issues involved (such as sex, sexual attraction, jealousy, sexual assault or false allegations, etc) that could possibly affect moral. However, the conscription of women into the military could free up male soldiers who perform noncombat functions for duty at the front. Further, conscription of women could also be utilized for nonmilitary (civilian) functions requiring them to replace men who have been conscripted for military duty.
Conscription for women who are not capable of performing military duty could be into a “civil service” instead. This would not be entirely equal, but would provide a similar duty that would make things more equal than no duty at all.
It would be comparable to choice for men as a similar right to abortion for women. C4M would not affect the woman’s right to choose, but would allow men to have a similar choice. The difference would be that if a woman chooses to give birth, she would be soley responsible for her decision as she is should she choose abortion. The result may be a lower standard of living for the child if the man opts out, but the child would still be born if the mother chooses that option. Whereas when a woman chooses abortion, the infant is never born and the man still has no choice.
No system would ever result in complete and total equality because there are real differences in men and women, but that does not mean that rights, opportunities, protections, and responsibilities can’t be made as equal as possible.
TDOM
“I like to think of the women’s movement as a fight for equality.”
Translation:
I want undeserved rights and special privileges. I expect everything in my life to be handed to me on a silver platter and spend the rest of my life with a silver spoon in my mouth. I demand everyone respect me without proving competency. If I don’t get my way, I will stomp my feet and scream at the top of my lungs until my childish attitude and mentality are acknowledged. Oh, and I better not hear anyone acknowledge the weaknesses women have because of biology. Everyone should stick their heads in the sand and pretend equality is achievable, even though it isn’t.
Now is the time for all you male peasants to bow down to the greatness of women!
Perhaps a new category of Useful Idiot or Unwitting Dupe?
In that case there could be a ‘fellow travelers’ category, where some manginas/white knights might be knighted too (pun intended)
“Perhaps a new category of Useful Idiot or Unwitting Dupe?”
There are far too many of those to contain them all in a single website.
TDOM
At the time Gloria Steinem overshadowed Friedan because she was attractive and articulate, making her a more compelling media figure. When Ms. Magazine got going, the feminist propaganda machine got into full swing, other women’s magazines clamoured on to the bandwagon because they saw feminism sold.
Friedan and Steinem were enemies because Friedan did not agree with Steinem’s approach. The media was always trying to bait Friedan into a public feud with Steinem which she refused fall for. Steinem claimed Friedan was jealous of the sudden sucess of Ms. Magazine, while she was trying to form and build NOW. Ms. quickly became a profitable business concern, while NOW was charity based.
TV media preferred Gloria over a rather frumpy Betty and Gloria used this to tell women what they wanted to hear. Not to mention Gloria Steinem had been an undercover Playboy bunny (for an article she wrote), so there was a sex angle. Gloria had sex appeal to women AND men, so she had an audience for what she said.
Probably the best anit-feminist feminist though is Camille Paglia. Not even the best MRA commentators of our time could hold a candle to her brutally honest assessment and critique of feminism. She saw what it started to become, a grievance industry, “male hate movement” and ditched it early on. The old guard hates Camille Paglia, even more than Phyllis Schlafly; mostly because Camille Paglia expresses herself without social filtering or reserve…and she frames her points from a feminist perspective.
I agree with some who have said that if RH includes everything and anything – it will just get watered down.
In fact, by not including everything, it strengthens its authority on being the arbitrer of bigotry.
All of us know someone who just goes around going “bigot” “racist” “hater” to everything in sight – and nobody takes them seriously.
JtO is a magnificient tactician who has given RH amazing authority by writing this piece.
This closet bigot is probably the most dangerous one in the world even though she pretends to respect men: http://www.3news.co.nz/Hillary-Clintons-powhiri—full-video/tabid/309/articleID/184708/Default.aspx There’s also plenty of thought provoking content in this sadly hilarious clip about the whole war racket thing which is always run by women behind the scenes. We men have some serious work to do transforming the cultural imperatives that drive us to doom.
What about Esta Stoler? http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/section/aboutus/staff/president I remember her exchanges with Glenn Sacks, when he used to have HiSSide.
“Our public policies should aim to prevent all domestic violence, and help all victims. The Violence Against Women Act does exactly that.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/04/12/EDG2PC5O141.DTL&ao=2#ixzz1cI8JbomB
Stoler has had a long history with a domestic violence group that used to be called the Family Violence Prevention Fund, but has recently changed its name to “Futures Without Violence.” http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/section/aboutus/staff/president Their information is riddled with half truths and other distortions, regarding the true nature of domestic violence. Some might even think their website engages in male bashing, judging by the way it so frequently asks males for their accountability for domestic violence, but never asks females for their accountability for domestic violence.
Whichever name it goes by, it’s had a long history of doing very biased work in the domestic violence industry, IMO. Here are some examples from their website:
“Futures Without Violence is partnering with the Office on Violence Against Women and Men Stopping Violence as the lead technical assistance provider for the Engaging Men Program – an exciting new federal program focusing on engaging men to prevent violence against women.”
and
“What are ordinary men willing to do to end violence against women and girls? Futures Without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund, has been asking this question for more than a decade."
and
“Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children.”
and
“Father’s Day is this Sunday, June 20. On that day, leading women’s and violence prevention organizations are asking America’s fathers to honor their daughters – and women and girls all around the world – by helping to end violence and make the world safer for women everywhere. “
http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/section/our_work/men_and_boys
Sounds like a possible candidate for register her. Singling out men as perpetrators of domestic violence is common bigotry based on bogus statistics, similar to jmk’s ’99% of predators are men’.
Actually Friedan despised Radical Feminists, also she is long dead. If she were alive she might be an ally as she was against the idea of sexualizing the gender debate, eg rape hysteria. Don’t cheapen the Register.
What I want to know is why these 2 aren’t on it.
(1) Sharon Osborne, CBS The View
(2) Alyona Minkovski, The Alyona Show, RT.com
Both for simply vile reactions to the Catherine Becker case and both making non-apologies after massive pressure.
In Minkovski’s case also for taking gross offense to others mockingly suggest she suffer same fate as Becker’s husband, something she had laughed hilariously at 2 weeks before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOkIV_hUhso
(starts 8.00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqCMmV9AxR8
(rancid apology)
Actually, Osborne has been submitted and is pending review for approval. But my general answer to anyone who asks why isn’t this person or that on the registry, is “Because you have not registered them.”
http://www.register-her.com/register/
I registered Crystal Mangum but she still doesn’t show up (maybe she’s still pending in moderation).
I checked yesterday and Osborne was already there
she’ll be approved
http://register-her.com/index.php?title=Sharon_Osbourne_–_Bigot
The reference in her profile doesn’t go anywhere. Is that supposed to link to a video of her remarks on the show?
I agree that register-her.com needs to concentrate on CURRENT and RECENT offenders, rather than historic (hysteric?) figures of long ago.
There might be justification in a “historical perspective” section, that included some of the Great Satans of misandry past – such as Dworkin the Hutt – but I’m not so sure it would be worth the time and effort to create it. Anyway, why go gunning for an enemy agent who we’ve already outlived?
I think anybody that is an icon of feminism, dead or alive should go on. The reason, to show that this lovely peaceful ideology called feminism, is, and has been staffed by bigots and haters from the beginning.
She doesn’t sound like she took feminism to a pathological level. Yeah, I know feminism itself is pathological. But I do not want Einstein going down in history as a war criminal because he had a hand in creating nukes. He thought he was doing something good.
Agreed, but I meant those that qualify, which is most, dead or alive, active or inactive. The ones the are guilty of promoting misandry are guilty if it’s last week, or 50 years ago. I wouldn’t concern myself with some nobody that done such and such 50 years ago, but if they are well known, and feminist icons, and have misandry skeletons in their closet, I say put em on the register
Agreed
Eh-well agreed with what you just stated. I am still comfortable with this woman not being in RH. Being far more ready to open a champagne bottle at seeing Sharon Stillborne and JK up there.
For the same reason it’s important to put Hitler down as a genocidal bigot it’s important to put deceased feminist bigots now. Neo-Nazi’s or feminist female supremacists always follow the head historical bigots. Therefore it’s critical to name the deceased bigots as well as those who CURRENTLY worship them if we are to pull this hate movement out by the taproots.
Equality is one of those things that sounds like a good idea, but it really only drives things in one direction…..down. The guy who can run 100 meters in under 10 secs can make a living running….does that mean I should be paid for running….and get to advertise Nike runners on TV, and fill my den with trophies and medals even if an old man with a walking frame can beat me……of course….we’re talking about equality after all. Since it’s not possible to lift me up to his standards, then the only thing that can be done is to hobble him, so that he is no better then me.
Equality of outcomes is total bullshit. I reject it completely. People seek to improve their skills, their preformance, their knowledge, and abilities in the pursuit of rewards. When you reward the less capable the same as the talented, the hard working, the productive, then you create a disincentive to achieve anything, and an incentive to sit back and reap rewards for nothing.
You have a right to run in the race of life, you don’t have a right to win, or to place, or to receive the same rewards as those that do. The ultimate true test of a right is this for me. If someone else has to sacrifice something, or give you something for you to have your right, then it’s not a right, it’s privlege.
Unbelievable. “Equality” is about to drive my taxes up yet again.
This time because a bunch of bitching, whining nurses(95% female), “feel” their work was the equivalent of doctors (real fucking doctors that spent much, much more time and money investing in their education) so they should get the same pay as a doctor.
http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id5630518
Only half of the case has been dealt with (in favour of the female complainants of course), the second half is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars rather than “just” $2.3 million.
I retract the “unbelievable” statement. It is the same old same old of appropriating money from men to give to women. Even if it completely overlooks the fact that if they wanted to be paid like doctors they could have chosen to attend med school just like doctors.
Or they could marry doctors and take at least half of what they make.
I thought that maybe this YouTube channel would be of interest to many of you:
http://www.youtube.com/user/FalseAccusers
I also found this woman. I think that some of you have already come across her: http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/
PS. Feel free to delete my comments since they’re off-topic.
What about misandrist guys? You’ll find no comment in this article, quoting a Sheriff, telling a man to get his gun back on target, when “the little nest builder” is going through one of her psycho episodes and coming after her man with a butcher knife.
Wright said he knows “liberals” don’t think you can just keep people in jail, but that Lance “should not have the right or opportunity to violate a good, upstanding woman.”
Wright said, “It’s too bad someone with a concealed weapons permit didn’t walk by. That would fix it.”
Read more: http://www.wyff4.com/news/29638219/detail.html#ixzz1cOKOnofE
“He encouraged women to walk in groups, and he ended by saying again, “I want you to get a concealed weapons permit. Don’t get Mace. Get a firearm.”
Read more: http://www.wyff4.com/news/29638219/detail.html#ixzz1cOK55PJz
“
I posted the following on MensNewsDaily back in 2005 under the name “Denis” (not the same Denis who has been commenting here at AVfM). Most of these femininists are still alive. I believe they should all be registered. To see just how deranged they are look below:
Feminist Hate Speech
2005-07-31
By Denis
“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women…he can sexually molest his daughters… THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE.” Marilyn French (her emphasis)
‘My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.” Marilyn French; The Woman’s Room.
“All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women… All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men’s prey.” Marilyn French
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.”
Marilyn French, Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.)
“We live, I am trying to say, in an epidemic of male violence against women.” Katha Pollitt.
“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” Catherine MacKinnon
“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”
Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.
“The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used.” Andrea Dworkin
“The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations…obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign.” Marilyn French
“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” Germaine Greer.
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.”
Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.
“Men renounce whatever they have in common with women so as to experience no commonality with women; and what is left…is one piece of flesh a few inches long, the penis. The penis is the man; the man is human; the penis signifies humanity.” Andrea Dworkin
“You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.”
Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.)
“Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence.” Judith Levine
“Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.’ Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, ‘even if she does not feel forced.’
Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)
‘To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”
Scum Manifesto. (Valerie Solanas)
((Delaney Nickerson, of the American Coalition for ABUSE AWARENESS, refers to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as “The Fucking Molesters Society”. (Miami Herald, April 3, 1995) The ACAA is a lobbying group, which includes Ellen Bass (co-author of THE COURAGE TO HEAL), and Rene Frederickson, leading feminist psychotherapist and strong proponent of repressed memory theory.))
((At the STONE ANGELS satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay in February, 1995, the following was contained in the handouts at a conference supported financially by the Ontario Government: FMS stands for: FULL OF MOSTLY SHIT; FOR MORE SADISM; FELONS, MURDERERS, SCUMBALLS; FREQUENT MOLESTERS SOCIETY.))
“The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness…can be trained to do most things.” Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men.)
“Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do.”
Popular Feminist Graffiti
“I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, ‘hate in love,’ for the men women share their lives with–husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers.” Judith Levine, My Enemy, My love
“There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of ‘sex acts’…includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder.”
J. Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document, (A southern Women’s Writing Collective: Women Against Sex.)
“All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck”. Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University. 1995 settlement.
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” Andrea Dworkin; from her book Ice and Fire .
“Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it “Her”. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination. Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women
“On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom.”
Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women.
“I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father’s concubine… What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What’s more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.”.Journalist Sylvia Fraser
“We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable.”Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.
Catharine MacKinnon ( ) maintains that “the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women’s exploited labor.” In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state’s nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid–ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed–they’re “hiding from the truth.” The family isn’t a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don’t simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to “breed” them for that purpose.
Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window; (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al tenets of misandric belief.)
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.
“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” Robin Morgan
“And let’s put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism–the lie that there can be such a thing as ‘men’s liberation groups.’ Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a ‘threatening’ characteristic shared by the latter group–skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism–the oppressed have no alternative–for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women’s Liberation will of course free men–but in the short run it’s going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women–kill your fathers, not your mothers”. Robin Morgan.
“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” Andrea Dworkin
“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.”
Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies.
“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.
“The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist”. Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (p. 86).
“(Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”. Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will p.6.
“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression…” Sheila Jeffrys.
From ‘A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:
MALE:…represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants…the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.
MAN:…an obsolete life form… an ordinary creature who needs to be watched…a contradictory baby-man…
Letter to editor: “Women’s Turn to Dominate”. “……Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is: if you don’t like it, bad luck–and if you get in my way I’ll run you down.”
Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia. 9 Feb., 1996.
“If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal–a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students–I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment…of persuading students that women are oppressed,” said Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.
“Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.” Valerie Solana, SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men.)
And from Robert Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah — Modern Liberalism and American Decline:
“Radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come down to us from the Sixties. This is a revolutionary, not a reformist, movement, and it is meeting with considerable success. Totalitarian in spirit, it is deeply antagonistic to traditional Western culture and proposes the complete restructuring of society, morality, and human nature. Radical feminism is today’s female counterpart of Sixties radicalism……Feminism rode into our cultural life on the coattails of the New Left but by now it certainly deserves its own place in the halls of intellectual
barbarisms.”
“At the Beijing conference, for instance, the word “family” was not to appear in the Platform. Instead, the word “household” was used. The significance of this is to be found in the feminist insistence upon use of the word “gender.” There being five genders, unions or marriages involving any gender or genders are legitimate. These unions can be called households. The traditional family is then presented as a household, just one form of living arrangement, not superior to any other. Indeed, since feminists view the family as a system of oppression, and since feminism contains a large lesbian component, the marriages of men and women are often seen as morally inferior to unions involving the other three genders. ”
“There is a great deal of reckless disregard for the truth in radical feminism. Some of it is so blatant that it certainly deserves to be called lying, but some of it appears to reflect the delusions of paranoia. What is worrisome is that so much serious misrepresentation passes into the realm of “truth.” One might think that misrepresentations about checkable facts could not survive long in an open society, but they can and do, probably because the press and the academy are very pro-feminist. When a sensational report about the amount of domestic violence against women appears, newspapers, magazines, and even textbooks relay the news, and it quickly becomes established folklore. The attitudes formed as a result are embedded in the culture. Yet the facts, for those who care about them, indicate that these reports are wild exaggerations or flat misrepresentations. ”
“There are now more than 600 undergraduate and several dozen graduate programs in Women’s Studies in American colleges and universities. At first sight that might seem odd since so much of feminism is utterly inconsistent with intellectual seriousness. In many universities today, however, intellectual integrity comes in a distant second to political correctness. It is thus only an apparent paradox that institutions which, because of their professed devotion to reason and knowledge, should be feminism’s sworn enemies are instead the centers of its power.”
…and one of my favorites:
“The only good feminist is a dead feminist”
Denis, The Daily Cause, July 31, 2005
Go to:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/07/31/feminist-hate-speech/
May I suggest a new category for the register. There are sexist pigs (aka female chauvinist pigs) who worship female supremacism but who aren’t necessarily hateful bigots. By adding another category say ‘sexist’ the register can capture the huge majority of prominent feminists (including ‘manly’ feminists like Jumpin Joe Biden or his partner in crime Barak Obama) who are too cunning to be openly bigots but who are responsible for vast majority of the officially sponsored tyranny that men face today.
I suppose you could put a woman who thought outside the square (so to speak) on register.com.
But then, you have to ask yourself how much gratification do you WANT from power?
Is the men’s movement really about …. heck, have men defined this completely? The men’s movement doesn’t have the luxury of other movements.
Ho Hum, no-one said anyone has to be perfect (YET).
It isn’t thinking outside of the square that’s the problem here. It’s the ugly fact that very few women THINK period other than the few rare slandered ‘anti-feminists’ like Hoff Sommers, Paglia, or Patai. Your post here is a case in point. I have no idea what you think other than that maybe Friedan doesn’t belong as a registered anti-male bigot. No one has to be perfect but nice intentions, some serious thought and genuine equality from feminists would go far toward rebuilding the bridges between the sexes.