The anti-feminists above try to make out that the feminists are the ones with the problem in relation to behaviour towards others of different opinions. Well I (still) hold a differing opinion to you anti-feminists.

Basically, for this difference I was thought to be a "retarded-woman-posing-as-man"; accused of "helping evil women like yourself"; or "making the mistake Chamberlain made at the start of WWII by appeasing the Nazi aggressor"; it was said that "you and feminists like you" are comparable to nazis.

It was also said that "you love WRD". This was somehow linked to "Hitler sign[ing] the treaty stating there would be no hostility without hesitation".

You will also most likely be thought of and called (depending on whether they are trying to portray themselves as tough guys or reasonable folk) "retard", "ridiculous", "whipped", "bully", "liar," (not to mention post that the moderators deleted where from memory the group’s slag merchant also waffled on about hairy-armpits and red-faced lesbians) - all the while the very people who decry this from feminists had nothing to say indeed some even jumped in to try an rationalise this nonsense and add a little salt.

Well to be a feminist, according to the above article’s author you must tend to be a humanist but it seems to be a anti-feminist judging by their dysfunctional approach above you can be as selective as you wish. And you label others hypocrites.

Christina Hoff Sommers "Who Stole Feminism?"

"Students are quick to learn that open criticism of the feminist classroom will not win them support.... Conformity is the safest practice it."

"The traditional, classically liberal, 'humanistic' feminism that was initiated more than 150 years ago was very different" (When compared to feminism today.)

"Misandrism (hostility to men, the counterpart to misogyny) was not a notable feature of the women's movement until our own times."

Christine Stolba, published 'Lying in a Room of One's Own" which is a critical study of feminist textbooks used to miseducate students. She divides her book into three categories;

Errors of fact!

Errors of interpretation!

Sins of Omission!

(The "Errors of Interpretation" occur in large part because the textbooks construe every study, statistic, or piece of evidence to mean that women are miserable and oppressed, and that men are privileged oppressors. Among the "truths" that the textbooks tell us are: women are under siege from virtually all sectors of society; little has changed for women in the past three decades; believing that women have achieved equality is "modern sexism"; and most women are not naturally attracted to men but are the victims of "compulsory heterosexuality" maintained through (male) "social control." )

Mary Wollstonecraft said in 1792: "…I here throw down my gauntlet, and deny the existence of sexual virtues, not excepting modesty. For man and woman, truth, if I understand the meaning of the word, must be the same; yet the fanciful female character, so prettily drawn by poets and novelists, demanding sacrifice of truth and sincerity, virtue becomes a relative idea, having no other foundation than utility, and of that utility men pretend to arbitrarily judge, shaping it to their own convenience.

Women, I allow, may have different duties to fulfil; but they are human duties, and the principles that should regulate the discharge of them, I sturdily maintain, must be the same.

To become respectable, the exercise of their understanding is necessary, there is no other foundation for independence of character; I mean explicitly to say that they must only bow to the authority of reason, instead of being modest slaves of opinion.”

Now take this in context of the 1792 and her intro para: " To account for, and excuse the tyranny of man, many ingenious arguments have been brought forward to prove, that the two sexes, in the argument of virtue ought to aim at attaining a very different character: or to speak explicitly, women are not allowed to have sufficient strength of mind to acquire what really deserves the same virtue. Yet it would seem, allowing them to have souls, that there is but one way appointed by Providence to lead mankind to either virtue or happiness.”

She goes on to point out that women have been coerced into behaving in a particular way to afford the “protection of man”.

What a miserable way to live? Thank God for feminists.

Two hundred years later it’s still being implied that students who agree with feminists, must lack the “strength of mind” to see other perspectives (see posts above for that underlying belief in the inability of mostly female students to think for themselves).

Of course, if you’re a woman who colludes with male expectations, especially conservatives like Sommers et al, then, you’re a real Princess.

Ronnie, "She goes on to point out that women have been coerced into behaving in a particular way to afford the “protection of man”." - not just the women coerced into that one.

Protection of (and providing for) women is something advocated by both men and women.

It's not a conspiracy by men or women but rather a pattern that is so deeply ingrained that many see it as a core value.

It has had a biological role in the past that has little place in our current society (a shortage of men does not currently make polygamy socially acceptable).

Patriarchs and feminists have pushed for laws and implementation of laws which treat women as less able to make adult choices, less responsible for themselves. Where families split feminists and patriarchs want the state to be a substitute protector and provider for women.

Some feminists have spoken against this recognising the harm it does to women (something I wish James and others would get their heads around) but all to often the belief is not addressed clearly enough to be rejected. The protected will always have a different set of freedoms and responsibilities to the protectors.

Many women continue to see themselves as victim and therefore see the special treatment as redressing those wrongs rather than perpetuating a protected status.

Ena wrote a great response earlier regarding options for men unhappy with their sex lives within marriage, what she says there applies for many of the complaints by feminists about their lot as well.

Feminists have played a vital role in moving past the restrictions of traditional roles for women and men, there is an ongoing need to continue to to move forward on issues where womens and mens freedom to make real choices are limited by perceptions about their gender rather than by the abilities of the individual.

R0bert

Re: “protection of man”. RObert once again you ignore context (and content) and jump without considering the whole. I share some responsibility here because I thought it was clear that in (1792) men had great deal of control over women and I summarised (curse the word limit). You though glossed over that Mary Wollstonecraft wrote this in 1792 when women were victims of male ignorance and convenience and ignored that women back then were coerced and forced into certain behaviours. MV went on to say: “If then women are not a swarm of ephemeron triflers, why should they be kept in ignorance under specious name of innocence? Men complain, and with reason, of the follies and caprices of our sex, when they do not keenly satirize our headstrong passions and grovelling vices. – Behold, I should answer, the natural effect of ignorance! The mind will ever be unstable that has only prejudices to rest on, and the current will run with destructive fury when there are no barriers to break its force. Women, are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, outward obedience, and scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should they be beautiful, every thing else is needless, at least, twenty years of their lives.”

So, for Wollstonecraft , the power structure disabled women. Indeed it was such that women perpetrated their own disempowerment. Feminists, like Wollstonecraft, are still trying to enable women by correcting oppressive unfair power structures.

Hence, in part, through the efforts of feminists, the state provides an option to escape from a controlling income earner and abusive situations. Some women (and men) are for a while victims until they take positive action. I think it is morally and ethically correct for the state to help dependant women or men through a marriage split - for the state to be “ substitute protector and provider for women” (more precisely dependent spouses) until they find their feet.
continued

18th century Britain was under going a huge economic and social change. Prior to the industrial revolution, Britain had a very rigid social structure system.

Throughout the industrial revolution and Victorian era there were men and women working for the improvement of living standards for the large numbers of poor people.

Were they feminists or humanists?

All it took during the industrial revolution was one industrial accident and a family would go from working class poor to abject poverty in an instant. There was no social security.

The victorian era is seen as a time of rigidity, yet more recently letters are starting to appear which put a different spin to common perception of this era which has been influence by the published literature of the time.