rigorousintuition.ca

Thanks, Allegro and Jeff. Lewis has been getting fiercer in his old age, calling out the whole damn 'system' for being nonsensical and inhumane.

I wish he got more exposure in the Canadian and world mainstream.

Canadian_watcher wrote:It is not surprising that there are some women who hate men and use the rules and regulations that feminism and the women's movement have fought to have put in to place (but who didn't put in to place) to their advantage and to seek power over men.

I think they're actually seeking power over women, their subordinate feminists and so on. I mean the refusal to countenance more effective treatment over less effective incarceration for domestic violence perpetrators could be driven by simple hatred of men and a desire for vengeance and to see men punished over-riding any desire to reduce violence against women, but it could equally be driven by a desire to keep violence and conflict going, along with the fear and discord this causes between the sexes, which they can then use to accrue greater power.

In fact in that documentary they focus heavily on female victims of feminism. The girl kidnapped, the women abused by a man who could have been treated rather than imprisoned and then released with no encouragement not to reoffend, the documentary maker herself threatened and intimidated by the government bigwigs, that sort of thing.

Do you find it disturbing that these women are in such positions of power in Swedish feminism? As, indeed, the leaders of American feminism have been the most blatant in their hatred (editor of Ms. saying "'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act", for example).

There are twisted people of every gender. I disagree with those who seek power over, no matter who they are or what group they affiliate themselves to.

True, and I agree, although some movements have a relatively good record of being in power. Democratic socialist parties, for example. Tend to support academic freedom, fairly and effectively manage economies, rarely have people killed, &c..

As you've said before, though, one cannot tar everyone in any group with the same brush - we are individuals and deserve to be treated as such.

One can't tar everyone in a birth group with the same brush. But people aren't born feminists, they choose to give themselves the label. I mean, when Nye Bevan said about the Tories: "So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin", no-one would argue that he was wrong. Or no-one should, anyway. It's therefore perfectly appropriate to denounce feminism, which doesn't require denouncing all feminists and certainly doesn't involve any attribution of responsibility to those who don't put themselves willingly into that position. I'm perfectly capable of treating feminists as individuals while denouncing their membership of a movement I find to be a hate-movement.

Have you got any ideas about my question? Policies and laws and what have you? I think you'd probably have some thoughts.

ETA: AIDS was made in a lab and spread intentionally, it can best be fought by encouraging the use of prophylactics, anti-retro-viral drugs, and improving the living standards of people in the region. Most of the victims and infected are men. Any approach based on putting a black woman in charge of fighting it on that basis, rather than the best person for the job, is nothing short of willful murder. I'm not aware of any way in which gender relations may have effected the spread of the disease.

.

Feminism is not a political party. There is afaik no major feminist political party.

Feminism is not a state.

As a movement, it contains multitudes.

No one is "in power in Swedish feminism." Not a single one.

Certain feminists hold power within the Swedish state authorities. That is a world of difference.

The comparison to the Tories is therefore misguided.

I am a feminist. I am not "vermin."

Most female feminists of my acquaintance welcome it when a man calls himself a feminist. A few do not.

For me, feminism is humanism, or completes it with what it was missing, shows where humanism should lead.

Of course whether I am or want to be a feminist depends on which definition we use. Stephen, yours is a semi-insane projection. I'm not saying you're insane, but the definition of feminism as a hate movement against men is insane. I've read several of the most reputedly man-hating feminists, in fact, and none of them are that, problematic though they are to me. (Some of them are dispassionately but harshly judgemental in a way I can't argue men don't have coming to us. You're really not helping.)

You're remote from the reality, you're pretty much projecting the opposite of the world.

Reports of injustices in the name of feminism in Sweden don't change the reality of the world.

After reading you say these things for years, before there is another mod intervention in this thread, I'd appreciate some idea of how you developed your ideas. Be honest with us. Some thing or some sequence of experiences made you come to these beliefs. What makes you feel besieged, as a man, specifically by feminists, or modern women at large? I mean YOU, not your ideas about a general legal assault on men. What happened? Who is it, individually, or what, that forged the views you represent here?

.

JackRiddler wrote:As a movement, it contains multitudes.

I've heard this argument before, but all feminists hold certain things in common, such as the name.

No one is "in power in Swedish feminism." Not a single one.

Certain feminists hold power within the Swedish state authorities. That is a world of difference.

Do you think anyone in any movement has any power over it? Or do you just think all movements are entirely without a sort or moral or intellectual hierarchy? These are feminists who control academia so they can control the formation of the movement's literature. They are ensconced in the main feminist organisation in Sweden, ROKS, of which the ones in the documentary are the leaders and spokeswomen.

Most female feminists of my acquaintance welcome it when a man calls himself a feminist. A few do not.

For me, feminism is humanism, or completes it with what it was missing, shows where humanism should lead.

But it excludes that part of the population which isn't female, and politically feminist. It's like starting a movement called whitism and saying it's what humanism should be, you can't have the culmination of humanism being an exclusive movement which explicitly represents only a part of the population, unless you consider the excluded part of the population to not be human. Certainly the feminist in the documentary who believes saying men are no better than animals to be an unjustifiable compliment would agree with you there, but I don't. Humanism is humanism, feminism isn't.

Of course whether I am or want to be a feminist depends on which definition we use. Stephen, yours is a semi-insane projection. I'm not saying you're insane, but the definition of feminism as a hate movement against men is insane.

On the basis of the current posting guidelines I'm unable to put forward a proper argument for feminism in the modern west constituting a hate movement, as it would mean denying the officially established policy that women have been and remain a fundamentally oppressed group.

I've read several of the most reputedly man-hating feminists, in fact, and none of them are that, problematic though they are to me. (Some of them are dispassionately but harshly judgemental in a way I can't argue men don't have coming to us. You're really not helping.)

Oh, I see, so holding someone responsible for joining a political movement is unacceptable, but holding someone responsible for being a man is totally fine.

You're remote from the reality, you're pretty much projecting the opposite of the world.

Reports of injustices in the name of feminism in Sweden don't change the reality of the world.

After reading you say these things for years, before there is another mod intervention in this thread, I'd appreciate some idea of how you developed your ideas. Be honest with us. Some thing or some sequence of experiences made you come to these beliefs. What makes you feel besieged, as a man, specifically by feminists, or modern women at large? I mean YOU, not your ideas about a general legal assault on men. What happened? Who is it, individually, or what, that forged the views you represent here?

Nothing beyond objective intellectual pursuit of the truth.

I mean, since I adopted this position, I've seen more IRL around me, I've encountered the offensive jokes which would be unacceptable if aimed the other way, the lack of employment opportunities for men (which has effected me personally), the social and cultural disparities (which are the root causes behind most of the employment disparities), that sort of thing. I used to read the newspaper, The Independent, so I came across stories about sexual matters, the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, saying women should never be sent to prison while championing harsher sentences for men, for example. The Blair government certainly provided confirmation for a lot of my political views, actually, but only after my views were formed.

In fact it was feminists who made me this way. My natural inclination when reading anything or hearing anyone speak is to disagree strongly with their position. As the feminist position was plastered all over the papers, and the TV, and the internet, and so on, it had more than enough opportunity to get my goat. Anti-feminism was, and is, obscure. It, unlike feminism, isn't a dominant force in modern society and because of that, and the facts which I know, I follow my inclination to favour the underdog. If feminism had been obscure I wouldn't have been against it, if the facts had supported its main contentions, if its philosophical positions had been acceptable, I might have gone the other way. I remember being very sympathetic towards feminism in my formative years, when I was deluded enough to think of them as a progressive movement. Come to think of it, it was only when I actually encountered feminists and their positions and arguments that I turned against it.

Stephen Morgan wrote:
Anyway, the feminists in power use their position to warp academia, intimidate and silence their opponents and prevent prosecution of their allies and lackies. Much like anyone else in power, to be honest, but I'd expect better of people here, feminist or not.

Wait, wait, wait.

compared2what? wrote:Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism.

Done!

Okay - I watched about 20 minutes of it (sorry, I did enjoy it, but I'm swamped right now)

The women from RSOK (sorry if that's the wrong acronym) appeared to be blind idealogues. That they claim to represent the views of a majority of women is an insult to other free-thinking women. That they are trying to insert politics into university courses disguised as pure science makes my skin crawl.

Stephen Morgan wrote: I think they're actually seeking power over women, their subordinate feminists and so on.

I think they just want their own way, period.

Stephen Morgan wrote:Do you find it disturbing that these women are in such positions of power in Swedish feminism? As, indeed, the leaders of American feminism have been the most blatant in their hatred (editor of Ms. saying "'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act", for example).

I find it disturbing that they seem to get such deference, yes. Still, they may call themselves Feminists, but there is no "Feminism (tm)" organization which requires membership so your question about them being in positions of power in Feminism is not really logical to me. See what I mean? I'm a feminist, but there are no rules, no leaders, no one in a position of power in feminism. I simply identify with efforts to keep the status of women advancing towards equality.

Stephen Morgan wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:As you've said before, though, one cannot tar everyone in any group with the same brush - we are individuals and deserve to be treated as such.

One can't tar everyone in a birth group with the same brush. But people aren't born feminists, they choose to give themselves the label...

not really. I only say 'feminist' as a short-hand. It would take me forever to list the causes I believe in, so I say I am a feminist instead. Just like 'single-Dad.' Those guys maybe didn't ask to be single parents, but that is what they are. They probably refer to themselves as such but this doesn't mean that they are all the same. Victims of crime aren't born that way, but they belong to a group and they aren't all the same. Widowers aren't all the same and weren't born that way. Social liberals aren't all the same and weren't born that way.

Stephen Morgan wrote: I mean, when Nye Bevan said about the Tories: "So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin", no-one would argue that he was wrong. Or no-one should, anyway. ...
It's therefore perfectly appropriate to denounce feminism, which doesn't require denouncing all feminists ...

Feminism isn't the same as a political party though, Morgan. There is no leadership or party whip. Think of it more like Vegetarianism. A bunch of people who generally agree on an over-arching philosophy. Go ahead and call out the petty tyrants among feminists. I encourage it! But I wish you'd stop believing that we all believe the same things. Or that we phone each other at night to run our ideas past the group. It's not like that. (and you know it.. I think)

Stephen Morgan wrote:Have you got any ideas about my question? Policies and laws and what have you? I think you'd probably have some thoughts.

I'd love to hand you my book: "Ways to Fix the World" but it is only in the first draft. I have ideas, but nothing specifically feminist. For one, in Canada I would like to see a major shift of our tax structure. I'd like to see it turned upside down in terms of collection - Municipalities should get all the tax money from the people within them, and then they should transfer upwards to the Province. Then the Provinces should transfer upwards to the Feds. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but those are the types of things I think about when it's quiet.

Stephen Morgan wrote: I'm not aware of any way in which gender relations may have effected the spread of the disease [AIDS].

The culture in most of Africa is highly misogynistic and therefore it has grown a very destructive mythology about AIDS that both perpetuates the disease as well as the subjugation of women. The myth insists that raping very young girls may cure the disease. That might be one way that gender relations effects the spread of the AIDS/HIV.

Canadian_watcher wrote:Okay - I watched about 20 minutes of it (sorry, I did enjoy it, but I'm swamped right now)

I did mean to point to the subtitle button but I assume you found it.

The women from RSOK (sorry if that's the wrong acronym) appeared to be blind idealogues.

They're certainly an odd group.

That they claim to represent the views of a majority of women is an insult to other free-thinking women.

I'm not sure they actually claim that. They strike me as believers in vanguardism, the old communist belief in a small ideologically pure group which would drive revolution and set up the dictatorship of the proletariat, the issue which caused the Bolsheviks (minority) to split from the Menshaviks (majority).

That they are trying to insert politics into university courses disguised as pure science makes my skin crawl.

Well... social science.

Stephen Morgan wrote:Do you find it disturbing that these women are in such positions of power in Swedish feminism? As, indeed, the leaders of American feminism have been the most blatant in their hatred (editor of Ms. saying "'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act", for example).

I find it disturbing that they seem to get such deference, yes. Still, they may call themselves Feminists, but there is no "Feminism (tm)" organization which requires membership so your question about them being in positions of power in Feminism is not really logical to me. See what I mean? I'm a feminist, but there are no rules, no leaders, no one in a position of power in feminism. I simply identify with efforts to keep the status of women advancing towards equality.

But by adopting a label for oneself one accepts a certain set of core beliefs, or at least offers moral support to them. As a socialist, I believe we must "secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service". When I call myself a socialist it is implicit that I support common ownership, redistributive taxation, and so forth, even though I'm no longer a member of the Socialist Workers' Party. There's a lot of types of socialist, but that all have certain things in common.

So a feminist associates himself, by adopting the name, with certain positions, and offers moral support to those organisations and positions which operate most prominently under the feminists rubric.

Stephen Morgan wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:As you've said before, though, one cannot tar everyone in any group with the same brush - we are individuals and deserve to be treated as such.

One can't tar everyone in a birth group with the same brush. But people aren't born feminists, they choose to give themselves the label...

not really. I only say 'feminist' as a short-hand. It would take me forever to list the causes I believe in, so I say I am a feminist instead. Just like 'single-Dad.' Those guys maybe didn't ask to be single parents, but that is what they are. They probably refer to themselves as such but this doesn't mean that they are all the same. Victims of crime aren't born that way, but they belong to a group and they aren't all the same. Widowers aren't all the same and weren't born that way. Social liberals aren't all the same and weren't born that way.

Not all the same, but all having things in common. And social liberals are the only group there of which membership is voluntary.

Nonetheless you choose to call yourself a feminist. It may be shorthand to you for the wide array of your positions, but it denotes certain things about you, that you regard the feminist part of that array as the most important, or at least most presentable. That you regard the sexual differences in society as the most important, and that you wish to work on behalf of women in that arena. I have a range of positions, but I choose to call myself a socialist. I regard economic and class differences as the most important in modern society. I disagree with some prominent socialist organisations on, for example, their spending my membership dues on feminist causes, but I agree with the core beliefs of the movement. I wouldn't go around claiming that it's not possible to criticise socialism because of the variety of socialist positions available, that would make the term meaningless and there wouldn't be a point to espousing it. No point calling yourself something if it doesn't constitute nailing your colours to the mast. In fact only when arguing with feminists have I come across this "nailing jelly to a wall" approach to nomenclature.

Stephen Morgan wrote: I mean, when Nye Bevan said about the Tories: "So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin", no-one would argue that he was wrong. Or no-one should, anyway. ...
It's therefore perfectly appropriate to denounce feminism, which doesn't require denouncing all feminists ...

Feminism isn't the same as a political party though, Morgan.

Except for the Feminist Initiative party in Sweden, of course.

There is no leadership or party whip. Think of it more like Vegetarianism. A bunch of people who generally agree on an over-arching philosophy. Go ahead and call out the petty tyrants among feminists. I encourage it! But I wish you'd stop believing that we all believe the same things. Or that we phone each other at night to run our ideas past the group. It's not like that. (and you know it.. I think)

But if I criticised vegetarianism on the grounds, quite rightly, that some land is unsuited to arable cultivation and that a large scale movement from proper food to vegetarianism would result in a decline in global food production generally and a precipitous decline in lysein production, probably also to land degradation caused by failed attempted to cultivate unsuitable land, and also that vegetarianism is unhealthy and tasteless, and denounced in Romans 14, the vegetarians wouldn't respond by saying that there are so many different types of vegetarian that I can't possibly criticise them.

And they don't even have an established political movement, with think-tanks, and vegetarian-studies departments at universities, and prominent social figures and so forth putting forward a coherent policy platform like feminists do.

Stephen Morgan wrote:Have you got any ideas about my question? Policies and laws and what have you? I think you'd probably have some thoughts.

I'd love to hand you my book: "Ways to Fix the World" but it is only in the first draft. I have ideas, but nothing specifically feminist. For one, in Canada I would like to see a major shift of our tax structure. I'd like to see it turned upside down in terms of collection - Municipalities should get all the tax money from the people within them, and then they should transfer upwards to the Province. Then the Provinces should transfer upwards to the Feds. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but those are the types of things I think about when it's quiet.

So local government would collect the taxes in their own area and pour them upwards at their own discretion? But wouldn't that reduce economies of scale inherent in a national tax collecting infrastructure? And establish a "race to the bottom" competition between municipalities to attract businesses, resulting in lower tax rates?

In fact it's odd that you should suggest this, because one of the socialist happenings I regard as amongst the most heroic in history is "Poplarism", in which several local councillors in the London borough of Poplar went to prison to try to bring about a tax system which would take money from rich areas of London, who wouldn't have volunteered to give it, and redistribute it to poorer areas. You see, the London County Council required a certain payment from each borough, and the boroughs also had to pay unemployment benefits out of their rates income. Areas with high unemployment and poverty, like Poplar, bore and equal share of the county burden and also had to pay for their own unemployed with the meagre income of their own employed, so in periods of high unemployment (and, therefore, low wages due to supply and demand in the labour market) Poplar had to put up rates and extract more from the employed to pay for the unemployed and the country contribution. So, the Labour councillors simply refused to pay the county what it was owed, and what they were required by law to pay, and spent the money on providing better benefits and lower rates to the local population, on the grounds that richer areas (which actually had lower rates due to less unemployed) should take the burden of the country in proportion to their wealth, not their population. So they were thrown in prison for refusing to pay the rates to the county council. Continued running the council from prison, the woman was released to give birth, until the law was changed to force the richer areas to pay more so the poor areas didn't have to. So I support a system which takes wealth from richer areas of the country, continent, maybe even world, and redistributes it without the self-serving consent of those areas to areas which are more in need.

Other than the Spanish government's proposal to charge women lower income tax rates on the same income I don't think you could have come up with a policy I would be more likely to disagree with.

But that's not what I was after. I mean, if we accept the official position here that women are an oppressed group, there would presumably be laws or administrative policies which could be pursued by a government which could remedy the situation. So I would like suggestions as to what they might be.

Stephen Morgan wrote: I'm not aware of any way in which gender relations may have effected the spread of the disease [AIDS].

The culture in most of Africa is highly misogynistic and therefore it has grown a very destructive mythology about AIDS that both perpetuates the disease as well as the subjugation of women. The myth insists that raping very young girls may cure the disease. That might be one way that gender relations effects the spread of the AIDS/HIV.

I don't really know anything about Africa to be honest. I've heard about the myth that having sex with virgins cures AIDs, of course, but it seems unlikely to have a major effect on the rate or direction of spread. Not, at least, compared with the lack of proper birth control and retro viral medication. And the prominent African politicians who occasionally claim condoms give you aid, and the Pope and so forth, anyway.

Stephen Morgan wrote: But by adopting a label for oneself one accepts a certain set of core beliefs, or at least offers moral support to them. ...

So a feminist associates himself, by adopting the name, with certain positions, and offers moral support to those organisations and positions which operate most prominently under the feminists rubric.

sure.. a certain set.. not all. Besides, since you're okay with admitting that there are lots of different types of socialism yet you call yourself a socialist, can't you accept that I am a feminist but not a radical feminist? I believe both of those labels are still floated, and one is clearly something different from the other, even though people confuse them and attribute to them different things. I for one don't think bra-burning is all that 'radical.' Valerie Solanas, OTOH, espouses views that are radical.

Stephen Morgan wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:Just like 'single-Dad.' Those guys maybe didn't ask to be single parents, but that is what they are. They probably refer to themselves as such but this doesn't mean that they are all the same. Victims of crime aren't born that way, but they belong to a group and they aren't all the same. Widowers aren't all the same and weren't born that way. Social liberals aren't all the same and weren't born that way.

Not all the same, but all having things in common. And social liberals are the only group there of which membership is voluntary.

[/quote]

Really? People don't voluntarily become single fathers?

Stephen Morgan wrote:Nonetheless you choose to call yourself a feminist. It may be shorthand to you for the wide array of your positions, but it denotes certain things about you, that you regard the feminist part of that array as the most important, or at least most presentable.

that is not correct. Again, if one is a vegetarian does that mean that one views not eating meat as the most important thing about themselves?

Stephen Morgan wrote: That you regard the sexual differences in society as the most important, and that you wish to work on behalf of women in that arena.

again, not so. I feel as you do - that economic and class differences present society with its most difficult problems. If you look into women's history from a supportive point of view rather than to try and find ways that women's historians might have lied and tricked, you will find that feminists have done a lot of good fighting for class equality. (and racial equality, and the environment.. etc.)

Stephen Morgan wrote:. I wouldn't go around claiming that it's not possible to criticise socialism because of the variety of socialist positions available, that would make the term meaningless and there wouldn't be a point to espousing it. No point calling yourself something if it doesn't constitute nailing your colours to the mast. In fact only when arguing with feminists have I come across this "nailing jelly to a wall" approach to nomenclature.

if people criticise you for being a socialist when they really mean Marxist, do you object? People confuse those two ideologies all the time.

Stephen Morgan wrote: I mean, when Nye Bevan said about the Tories: "So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin", no-one would argue that he was wrong. Or no-one should, anyway. ...
It's therefore perfectly appropriate to denounce feminism, which doesn't require denouncing all feminists ...

Feminism isn't the same as a political party though, Morgan.[/quote]

Except for the Feminist Initiative party in Sweden, of course.[/quote]

A. I'm not in Sweden and neither are you.
B. Just because they grabbed the word "feminist" and stuck it in their name does not mean that what they do matches with what your average feminist would like them to do.

Stephen Morgan wrote: But if I criticised vegetarianism on the grounds, quite rightly, that some land is unsuited to arable cultivation and that a large scale movement from proper food to vegetarianism would result in a decline in global food production generally and a precipitous decline in lysein production, probably also to land degradation caused by failed attempted to cultivate unsuitable land, and also that vegetarianism is unhealthy and tasteless, and denounced in Romans 14, the vegetarians wouldn't respond by saying that there are so many different types of vegetarian that I can't possibly criticise them.

excellent point - so you may feel quite free to go about debating with me on the issues raised by feminists, but stop trying me on feminists as some homogeneous, suddenly multi-national group.

Stephen Morgan wrote:And they don't even have an established political movement, with think-tanks, and vegetarian-studies departments at universities, and prominent social figures and so forth putting forward a coherent policy platform like feminists do.

Are PETA all vegetarians?

Stephen Morgan wrote: Other than the Spanish government's proposal to charge women lower income tax rates on the same income I don't think you could have come up with a policy I would be more likely to disagree with.

Cool! That was kinda lucky, then.

To the meat:

Stephen Morgan wrote:But that's not what I was after. I mean, if we accept the official position here that women are an oppressed group, there would presumably be laws or administrative policies which could be pursued by a government which could remedy the situation. So I would like suggestions as to what they might be.

It's tricky.
Some things that come to mind would be:

-reevaluation of labour/wages. Again, a very complex issue - one couldn't possibly create a new set of law for this over night. I believe one person's unit of labour should always be equal to another person's unit of labour, with wages increasing with years of experience or extra tasks. If this undermines capitalism then so effing be it, but I don't think it has to. There will always be workers content to get a pay cheque, and there will always be innovators. Innovators will be free to collect as much money as their work and initiative allows.

- higher legal protection for spouses who are assaulted by their mates. This should of course be applied to either gender and would have to be administered on a case by case basis, since these matters are often quite unique for each individual. I believe that given our biologies that there would remain more female victims than male victims. This is a complex issue and judges/police need better training. The family unit is essential to a functional society - safety and security of the person inside the home is paramount.

I'd love to see an end to violence/sex combo in movies, television series, ads and music etc but I'm staunchly against censorship. To make this change I'd have to come up with the magic solution to getting people to stop responding positively to that garbage. Got any ideas?

Stephen Morgan wrote:
Most of the victims and infected are men. Any approach based on putting a black woman in charge of fighting it on that basis, rather than the best person for the job, is nothing short of willful murder. I'm not aware of any way in which gender relations may have effected the spread of the disease.

Quick facts:

• There are about 33 million people currently living with HIV.
• Half (or slightly more) are female.
• Sixty-nine percent of those infected live in sub-Saharan Africa.
• Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for seventy percent (and rising) of all new infections annually.
• HIV is overwhelmingly transmitted via either needle-sharing or sex.
• The biological vulnerability to sexual transmission among women and girls is at least double that of men and boys, absent cultural factors.
• In reality, cultural factors are present in sub-Saharan Africa.
• In most parts of it, they're disadvantageous to women and girls. And in some cases, I imagine that they'd only really be fully known and/or comprehensible to African women.
• I mean, it doesn't seem very likely that there'd be anybody else who cared enough to know:

In three African countries, bride kidnapping often takes the form of abduction followed by rape.

Rwanda


Bride-kidnapping is prevalent in areas of Rwanda.[7] Often the abductor kidnaps the woman from her household or follows her outside and abducts her. He and his companions may then rape the woman to ensure that she submits to the marriage.[8] The family of the woman either then feels obliged to consent to the union,[9] or is forced to when the kidnapper impregnates her, as pregnant women are not seen as eligible for marriage. The marriage is confirmed with a ceremony that follows the abduction by several days. In such ceremonies, the abductor asks his bride's parents to forgive him for abducting their daughter.[9] The man may offer a cow, money, or other goods as restitution to his bride's family.[10]

Bride-kidnap marriages in Rwanda often lead to poor outcomes. Human rights workers report that one third of men who abduct their wives abandon them, leaving the wife without support and impaired in finding a future marriage.[9] Additionally, with the growing frequency of bride-kidnapping, some men choose not to solemnize their marriage at all, keeping their "bride" as a concubine.[9] Domestic violence is also common and is not illegal.[11]

Bride kidnapping is not specifically outlawed in Rwanda, though violent abductions are punishable as rape. According to a criminal justice official, bride kidnappers are virtually never tried in court: "'When we hear about abduction, we hunt down the kidnappers and arrest them and sometimes the husband, too. But we're forced to let them all go several days later,' says an official at the criminal investigation department in Nyagatare, the capital of Umutara."[9] Women's rights groups have attempted to reverse the tradition by conducting awareness raising campaigns and by promoting gender equity, but the progress has been limited so far.[9]

Ethiopia

In parts of Ethiopia, a man working in co-ordination with his friends may kidnap a girl or woman, sometimes using a horse to ease the escape.[12] The abductor will then hide his intended bride and rape her until she becomes pregnant. As the father of the woman's child, the man can claim her as his wife.[13] Subsequently, the kidnapper may try to negotiate a bride price with the village elders to legitimize the marriage.[13] Girls as young as eleven years old are reported to have been kidnapped for the purpose of marriage.[14] Though Ethiopia criminalized such abductions and raised the marriageable age to 18 in 2004, this law has not been well implemented.[15]

The bride of the forced marriage may suffer from both the physical consequences of early sexual activity and pregnancy, and the early end to her education.[16] Abductions of schoolgirls still occur in Oromiya, for example.[17] Women and girls who are kidnapped may also be exposed to sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS.[16]

Kenya

Forced marriages continue to be a problem for young girls in Kenya. The United States Department of State reports that children and young teenaged girls (aged ten and up) are sometimes married to men two decades or more their seniors.[18]

Etcetera, since I seem inadvertently to have left a few lines about Kenya back on Wiki where I found them. But there's a link right here, if you're interested.

(BTW, he said "African woman," not "black woman.")
_____________________

Finally: In general, women and girls in sub-Saharan Africa with HIV typically have a significantly lower standard of living than men and boys do. Consequently, they have significantly less access to anti-retro-viral drugs. Additionally, I know beyond doubt that you wouldn't and couldn't speak with such casually Eurocentric ease of encouraging prophylactic use if you knew how many men you were innocently consigning to death both in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere by doing so.

But I really don't know if there's anything I could possibly say to you about it that wouldn't be too devalued by my having said it to do more good than harm.

So I'm stumped.

Please advise.

Oops. Missed an increment.

Stephen Morgan wrote:I don't really know anything about Africa to be honest. I've heard about the myth that having sex with virgins cures AIDs, of course, but it seems unlikely to have a major effect on the rate or direction of spread. Not, at least, compared with the lack of proper birth control and retro viral medication. And the prominent African politicians who occasionally claim condoms give you aid, and the Pope and so forth, anyway.

Damn. I wish that'd been all I had to say. Mind if I play around with the phrasing a little?

Thanks!
________________

compared2what? wrote:

________________

Hmm. Yep. That's how I would have put it. Definitely.

Why, oh why can I never be the lucky one, I ask you? It's just so unfair.

Canadian_watcher wrote:

Stephen Morgan wrote: But by adopting a label for oneself one accepts a certain set of core beliefs, or at least offers moral support to them. ...

So a feminist associates himself, by adopting the name, with certain positions, and offers moral support to those organisations and positions which operate most prominently under the feminists rubric.

sure.. a certain set.. not all. Besides, since you're okay with admitting that there are lots of different types of socialism yet you call yourself a socialist, can't you accept that I am a feminist but not a radical feminist? I believe both of those labels are still floated, and one is clearly something different from the other, even though people confuse them and attribute to them different things. I for one don't think bra-burning is all that 'radical.' Valerie Solanas, OTOH, espouses views that are radical.

If you believe feminism is all about justice and equality that's like saying Thatcher was a radical socialist. A radical believes in what a moderate believes in, but to a greater extent, or with a greater fervour. A radical socialist may want a greater spread of nationalisation and common ownership, or may wish for assets to be expropriated without compensation rather than with, or may wish for socialism to come about through a quick and bloody revolution rather than through democratic means. They want the same things, the nationalisation and so on, but they want it in a more radical fashion. So it can't be the case that feminists want equality but radical feminists want female supremacy.

Stephen Morgan wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:Just like 'single-Dad.' Those guys maybe didn't ask to be single parents, but that is what they are. They probably refer to themselves as such but this doesn't mean that they are all the same. Victims of crime aren't born that way, but they belong to a group and they aren't all the same. Widowers aren't all the same and weren't born that way. Social liberals aren't all the same and weren't born that way.

Not all the same, but all having things in common. And social liberals are the only group there of which membership is voluntary.

Really? People don't voluntarily become single fathers? [/quote]

Yeah, sometimes I suppose. It's not like single mothers, where a woman can become one in a premeditated manner never intending to have a father in the picture, or can use the family courts to exclude a father from the picture, though.

Stephen Morgan wrote:Nonetheless you choose to call yourself a feminist. It may be shorthand to you for the wide array of your positions, but it denotes certain things about you, that you regard the feminist part of that array as the most important, or at least most presentable.

that is not correct. Again, if one is a vegetarian does that mean that one views not eating meat as the most important thing about themselves?

Certainly if one describes oneself primarily as a vegetarian. If one has a range of positions which one condenses to the core position of vegetarianism.

Stephen Morgan wrote: That you regard the sexual differences in society as the most important, and that you wish to work on behalf of women in that arena.

again, not so. I feel as you do - that economic and class differences present society with its most difficult problems. If you look into women's history from a supportive point of view rather than to try and find ways that women's historians might have lied and tricked, you will find that feminists have done a lot of good fighting for class equality. (and racial equality, and the environment.. etc.)

I disagree. Some individual feminists have been useful for noble causes, but not feminism as a movement, which, along with those things it has caused, has been harmful.

Stephen Morgan wrote:. I wouldn't go around claiming that it's not possible to criticise socialism because of the variety of socialist positions available, that would make the term meaningless and there wouldn't be a point to espousing it. No point calling yourself something if it doesn't constitute nailing your colours to the mast. In fact only when arguing with feminists have I come across this "nailing jelly to a wall" approach to nomenclature.

if people criticise you for being a socialist when they really mean Marxist, do you object? People confuse those two ideologies all the time.

I've never come across that. I've only heard "marxist" used for a school of thought on economic analysis, not on policy prescriptions.

Stephen Morgan wrote: But if I criticised vegetarianism on the grounds, quite rightly, that some land is unsuited to arable cultivation and that a large scale movement from proper food to vegetarianism would result in a decline in global food production generally and a precipitous decline in lysein production, probably also to land degradation caused by failed attempted to cultivate unsuitable land, and also that vegetarianism is unhealthy and tasteless, and denounced in Romans 14, the vegetarians wouldn't respond by saying that there are so many different types of vegetarian that I can't possibly criticise them.

excellent point - so you may feel quite free to go about debating with me on the issues raised by feminists, but stop trying me on feminists as some homogeneous, suddenly multi-national group.

I will evaluate feminism as a whole on the results which it has generated, such as laws and policies which feminist pressure has brought about, and on the actions and words of the leaders of the movement, which is to say those feminists with most worldly power, most ideological influence, most inclusion in Women's Studies courses stock literature, and so on. Zionists are a diverse group, but we've still got Israel.

If you don't want to be associated with such things renounce the name feminist.

Stephen Morgan wrote:And they don't even have an established political movement, with think-tanks, and vegetarian-studies departments at universities, and prominent social figures and so forth putting forward a coherent policy platform like feminists do.

Are PETA all vegetarians?

PETA is an organisation which runs a network of so-called animal shelters which kills the animals which they no longer find convenient to keep around, also often blamed for outcompeting locally-run no-kill shelters for funding and thereby eliminating them. If one is a member of an organisation which practices flufficide one would only be a vegetarian as a lifestyle choice, no on moral grounds. So while there may be vegetarians in PETA, their vegetarianism is not a function of their PETA membership.

Stephen Morgan wrote: Other than the Spanish government's proposal to charge women lower income tax rates on the same income I don't think you could have come up with a policy I would be more likely to disagree with.

Cool! That was kinda lucky, then.

To the meat:

Stephen Morgan wrote:But that's not what I was after. I mean, if we accept the official position here that women are an oppressed group, there would presumably be laws or administrative policies which could be pursued by a government which could remedy the situation. So I would like suggestions as to what they might be.

It's tricky.
Some things that come to mind would be:

-reevaluation of labour/wages. Again, a very complex issue - one couldn't possibly create a new set of law for this over night. I believe one person's unit of labour should always be equal to another person's unit of labour, with wages increasing with years of experience or extra tasks. If this undermines capitalism then so effing be it, but I don't think it has to. There will always be workers content to get a pay cheque, and there will always be innovators. Innovators will be free to collect as much money as their work and initiative allows.

Anything can be done overnight! When Labour came to power in 1945 they had a country with a massive trade and budget deficit, an ongoing war with Japan, a run on sterling, big debts to the Americans, all manufacturing facilities in the country running for war production, all foreign assets stripped by the Americans, half the merchant fleet destroyed and so on. In five years they revolutionised society, massively increased the stock of council houses, for the first time ensured everyone had access to secondary education, potentially tertiary education, introduced free health care, brought all of the natural monopolies under democratic control, took control of the distribution of goods, nationalised the Iron and Steel industry, introduced a basic state pension for all, and so on and so forth. So if a government tells you they can't get something done it's because they're lying to you.

Obviously I have no problem with undermining capitalism, although I object to the fetishisation of "innovation" and "entrepreneurialism" and all that sort of stuff. I don't see why they ought to be able to collect as much as their work and initiative allows. University education would need to be free and funded by the old grant system, too, or people would need a higher value on their labour to make up for expenditure on training. Of course I believe in democratic ownership and voluntary association.

One problem might be hazard pay. People should get a bonus if their work is particularly dangerous or unpleasant. The EU courts have been trying to level out wages between male and female dominated lines of work. Obviously they've stayed clear of well-paid professions, like medicine, and have stoically looked the other way when a line of work systematically excludes men, as is generally the case in the "nurturing" professions. One thing they have done in several counties in England is enforce a levelling of wages between bin-men and dinner ladies. As the job of the bin-men is more physically demanding, more unpleasant and slightly dangerous, this seems unjust. Although the actual reason for the original disparity in pay is that bin-men are amongst the more industrially militant of the careers still alive in this country.

On those whole, though, not an idea I disagree with, although I don't think it would benefit women. Young women currently earn more than young men, without working more. In later life the greater wages given to men are generally a function of greater experience, not taking time off to be with children, and so forth, and with working longer hours.

- higher legal protection for spouses who are assaulted by their mates. This should of course be applied to either gender and would have to be administered on a case by case basis, since these matters are often quite unique for each individual. I believe that given our biologies that there would remain more female victims than male victims. This is a complex issue and judges/police need better training. The family unit is essential to a functional society - safety and security of the person inside the home is paramount.

This one I disagree with. I disagree that things should be administered on a case-by-case basis, for starters, as that leaves too much discretion in the hands of judges and police, generally a power-mad group with little sympathy for anyone and with a firmly established reputation for ignoring or persecuting male victims. I assume spouses includes unmarried cohabitees. If that was not your intention I disagree with you there too. I disagree also that there need to be stronger protection, as there are already things like temporary restraining orders which can see a man evicted from his home without even being charged with a crime, and which are all to easy to abuse. I also disagree about our biologies, as studies consistently show a similar number of male and female victims of heterosexual intimate partner violence, a similar number of male and female instigators and of mutual patterns of violence, a slight majority of female victims of intimate murder which could conceivably be accounted for by the greater female use of poison and other murder methods which are hard to detect post-mortem, and so on.

Also, thinking back to that documentary, psychological treatment programmes have been shown to be effective and should be used.

I'd love to see an end to violence/sex combo in movies, television series, ads and music etc but I'm staunchly against censorship. To make this change I'd have to come up with the magic solution to getting people to stop responding positively to that garbage. Got any ideas?

I find sex and violence quite appealing in movies. Not generally both in the same film, though. I have very low-brow tastes. Censorship is like prohibition, it doesn't work, whether its repressive or just de haut en bas preachy.

damn it, I lost most of this post. Oh well. I cannot make a career out of this, anyway. Here's the part that remains....

Stephen Morgan wrote: Also, thinking back to that documentary, psychological treatment programmes have been shown to be effective and should be used.

I didn't say they shouldn't be used, but in the mean time they would have to find appropriate treatment and the key would be the abused partner's safety, so there would have to be a separation of the parties. Are you starting to see how one, blanket law might not fit every scenario?

Stephen Morgan wrote: I find sex and violence quite appealing in movies. Not generally both in the same film, though...

Yes, or at least not at the same time in the same film/video. Unfortunately this is all too often the case on most television shows on US networks.

Stephen Morgan wrote:A radical believes in what a moderate believes in, but to a greater extent, or with a greater fervour.

Sadly, no, you are incorrect, sir.

A radical believes that societal problems must be addressed at their root. (Latin, radix = "root"; radicalis = "of the roots"; radish = "a root vegetable the name of which can serve as a handy reminder of the etymological origins of other words"). Due to societal problems typically being societal in origin, radicals therefore typically believe in the revolutionary political transformation of society

A moderate, on the other hand, has no very strong political beliefs, per se. Hence, he or she believes in "compromising."

Radicals are not merely moderates except more so, therefore. Each is a discrete political tendency that mutually excludes the other -- ie, one cannot be a radical moderate or a moderate radical.

As always, it is my pleasure to serve you.

Stephen Morgan wrote:I will evaluate feminism as a whole on the results which it has generated, such as laws and policies which feminist pressure has brought about, and on the actions and words of the leaders of the movement, which is to say those feminists with most worldly power, most ideological influence, most inclusion in Women's Studies courses stock literature, and so on. Zionists are a diverse group, but we've still got Israel.

If that be your will, go for it, I say.

Stephen Morgan wrote:If you don't want to be associated with such things BY ME renounce the name feminist, BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY OR DO, I WILL RESOLUTELY DISREGARD IT AS IF YOU WEREN'T THERE IN FAVOR OF WILLFULLY ASSOCIATING YOU WITH THEM.

Fixed.

Also, I have no idea what makes you think that you're in a better position to tell people who self-identify as feminists who they are and how to identify themselves than they are. But whatever it is, guess what?

You're not!

Just for the hell of it:

Stephen Morgan wrote:I will evaluate feminism socialism as a whole on the results which it has generated, such as laws and policies which feminist socialist pressure has brought about, and on the actions and words of the leaders of the movement, which is to say those socialists with most worldly power, most ideological influence, most inclusion in Women's Socialist Studies courses stock literature, and so on. Zionists are a diverse group, but we've still got Israel.

I see. Well, if you don't want to be associated with Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hugh Gaitskell and Emma Goldman (among others), stop calling yourself that.

Canadian_watcher wrote:I for one don't think bra-burning is all that 'radical.' Valerie Solanas, OTOH, espouses views that are radical.

No one thinks bra-burning was all that radical, and no sensible person even thinks it was all that feminist. Because it was actually pretty much entirely a meme propagated by socially conservative media outlets in association with the feminist movement for purposes of diminution and mockery.

Valerie Solanis was primarily a very disturbed person who was not very centrally involved in any kind of political movement, although I suppose she could also legitimately be described as a radical feminist.

You know, it's really kind of a lucky thing for Stephen that he doesn't know a whole lot more about feminism than he does about the politics of HIV/AIDS in Africa, given that for some reason he seems to feel that evaluating it as a whole based on his casually uninformed assumptions about iton the results it has generated gives him the unilateral right to confer an identity of his own devising on people who describe themselves as feminists.

Because I, for one, would describe myself as a radical feminist, by which I not only wouldn't mean that I agreed with Valerie Solanis, but also wouldn't mean that I agreed with Andrea Dworkin or Shulamith Firestone -- who neither agree with one another nor with Valerie Solanis -- which would really just leave him in an impossible position wrt what wholesale identity to impose on me if he knew what I was talking about. Or cared.

Happily, moot point on both scores.