Feminism and Society — As seen through feminists' eyes (and as seen through the eyes of others who still use common sense)
A collection of quotes by Bill Wood
Index
|
Introduction by F4L:
With the exception of this introduction, and as the
by-line for this page identifies, the quotes (and by implication all of
the few comments inserted between the quotes) were contributed by Bill
Wood. Nevertheless, Charles Johnson, in a critique of Fathers for
Life, offers this observation:
As a case in point, I offer Fathers for Life’s
compilation of quotes, apparently collected by Bill Wood (with
interspersed commentary by an unnamed author) claiming to show that
feminism has roots in communism.
Logic is not a strong point of feminists, regardless of
which sex they belong to. Feminists deprecate logic. They
hold that logic has no redeemable qualities. They dismiss logic as
being "patriarchal linear thinking." According to feminist doctrine,
women's feelings (they call them "women's way of knowing") trump all
facts and all logic.
Many women become offended when someone states that they are
feminists. They are likely to express that it is necessary to
oppose feminism or even to eradicate it, a view held by
Queen Victoria amongst
others.
Most women are often more practical than men are likely to
be, want little to do with feminism, although, being practical, they are
unwilling to become equal to men or to receive the sort of treatment
meted out to men. The grandmother of one of our friends stated, "I
don't care for equal rights for women and want no part of them. If
I were to abide by them, I would have to give up far too many of the
privileges available to me because I am a woman."
Although selfish, that is a realistic and practical view. In
consequence of that view, men in all of the world now have a
life
expectancy that is on average ten percent shorter than that of women.
On the other hand, many men, especially feminist men, view any
criticism of feminism as an attack against womanhood, even if the
criticism is nothing more than that someone may insist that men should
have the right to a long life expectancy — as long as the life
expectancy of women — or that the traditional nuclear family is the best
system for creating the next generation of functioning, productive and
respectful citizens.
There are far more male than female feminists. Feminist men
are so all-pervasive in our society that many men don't even realize
that they are feminists but nevertheless have a set of rules of
behaviour (the code of chivalry)
that helps to keep feminism entrenched throughout civilization.
One of those feminist men wrote to Fathers for Life and complained that some
of the quotes in this page that illustrate the Marxist roots of radical
feminism (a.k.a.
Marxist- or socialist-feminism) are misrepresentations:
There are plenty of places to find Marxist
influences on feminism, or attempts to combine Marxist and feminist
politics. But MacKinnon and Hartmann’s essays are not among them.
Frankly it's hard to regard the selective use of these quotations as
anything other than (i) incredibly sloppy, or (ii) dishonest.
(Charles Johnson,
feedback@radgeek.com, 2005 02 25)
Charles Johnson demanded that Fathers for Life must make
a few corrections to this page, corrections he deems necessary. It
was explained to him that Fathers for Life is not in the habit of
editing the contents of contributions (other than for format and
spelling) to our website, and that he should contact the author of this
page, Bill Wood. He became so upset by the refusal to comply with
his demands that he threatened that, unless the edits he demanded were
made, he would construct a web page in which he would show Fathers for
Life for what he thinks it is. He did that, and called his web
page "Fathers for
Lies".
Even if his allegation were to be correct, and if Fathers for Life
is truly and deliberately lying in an instance of less than a handful of
quotes by not formating the quotes in a manner that more clearly
identifies who said what, this page (one of more than 1,400 web pages at
Fathers for Life) contains more than a hundred quotes with whom he found
nothing wrong.
Going by feminist "logic", and projecting from those few instances
of perceived errors to the whole website of Fathers for Life, Charles
Johnson feels that Fathers for Life needs to be called "Fathers for
Lies". That is not merely feminism but feminist extremism.
A rational assessment of the circumstances that Charles Johnson finds so
objectionable would be that at worst perhaps a minuscule amount of the
information at Fathers for Life is incorrect (provided that Charles
Johnson is right), but that all of feminism is wrong.
Nevertheless, feminist men feel that as long as even only a few of
the precepts of feminism are right, one must project from them to all of
feminism and insist that all of feminism is correct. In the
converse, feminists hold that if only a few of the statements and
assumption made by a representative of the dreaded and hated patriarchy
are wrong, then it is justified to insist that all Fathers Rights
activists and the whole patriarchy are wrong. So it is when
feelings are used to trump facts and when perceptions replace reality.
In the words of "Dr. Phil", who is loved by millions of feminists,
feminism's beneficiaries and their fellow-travellers throughout the
world,
There is no reality! There are
only perceptions!
— Phil McGraw, The Dr. Phil Show, 2003 11 20
(Quoted in Catholic Feminism)
Rational people beg to differ: Objective reality trumps
subjective "reality", and ultimately the truth always emerges as the
victor.
— Fathers for Life, 2006 08 13
(Update 2006 11 22: Interestingly but not surprisingly,
Dr. Phil contradicted himself in another piece of advice he offered to any
of his fans who should find themselves to be wrongly accused:
Accept that there is no way you can erase what has
happened. Even though the accusations may be unfair and untrue, the
situation is real. You need to get out of denial about that in order
to deal with it in the here and now. (Full
Story)
|
NOW AND FEMINISM – HATE GROUP PROMOTING TERRORISM
When the evidence and the logic are both against you, it is necessary to claim that evidence and
logic are counterrevolutionary props of the status quo ... facts and rationality,
when inconvenient, as they usually are, may be dismissed as "patriarchal constructions of
knowledge" ... Emotion must be allowed to trump intellect if the whole enterprise is not to be revealed as the hoax it is.
— Robert H. Bork (1996)
Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline
Regan Books/HarperCollins, NY (pp.193-225)
Feminism is no longer about equal opportunity for women. It is a thuggish,
devious synthesis of Marxism and lesbianism used by ruling elites to undermine individuals and
weaken society. It is to society what AIDS is to the body.
— Feminism Defined, by Bruce Eden of Divorce Reform in New Jersey
Why is there "an explosion of angry demand on the part of women who as a
group were the freest, healthiest, wealthiest, longest-lived, and most comfortably situated people
the world had yet laid eyes on."
— Midge Decter, "You're On
Your Own, Baby," The Women's Quarterly, Winter 1996, p.4
Domestic Violence
“Believing what [feminists] say about family violence is like
believing what the tobacco companies say about cancer... [M]isleading statistics are a
deliberate fund raising tactic for women's shelters. The shelter movement almost never
mentions scientific studies."
— Sam and Bunny Sewell,
Family Resources & Research.
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 academe
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... For some people, there can be no surer evidence of a conspiracy than
the fact that no conspiracy is apparent. After all, a really effective conspiracy would be
invisible. Feminists' ideology is a fantasy of persecution.
— Robert H. Bork (1996)
Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline
Regan Books/HarperCollins, NY (pp.193-225)
NOW apparently ENDORSES Domestic Violence against children. And just in
case you think it is just HOUSTON NOW, think again. This little excerpt from the article
tells the tale of the NATIONAL SUPPORT by NOW.
"From what we know right now, [Yates's] psychosis is so obvious and her mental
illness is so heart-wrenching that clearly she's entitled to treatment and not punishment,"
declared Terry O'Neill, a NOW vice president in Washington. She said the group's national
leadership ‘completely supports’ [NOW's Texas state president, Deborah Bell’s]
efforts, which have been denounced by victims' rights advocates, media pundits and others.”
Dianne Clements, a Rosenthal supporter and head of Justice for All, Texas's biggest victims'
rights organization, reacted angrily to NOW's criticism. "I don't believe they should be
using their political power and prestige to help a woman who has acknowledged killing five
children," Clements said. She accused NOW of "prejudging" Yates based on liberal
ideals before a word of testimony has been heard.
"They've decided to seek absolution
for Andrea Yates," Clements said. "They've absolutely accepted that she's not responsible
for what she did before they've heard any facts in court. . . . None of us can say why she killed
those children, whether it was because she was psychotic or she was just plain evil."
"Such a [post-partum depression] defense, however, is not novel," wrote Dallas lawyer
Brenda Barton Neuwirt in the Southern Methodist University Law Review. In a 1998 article, she
recounted successful postpartum psychosis defenses by a California mother who intentionally ran
over her infant with a car and a New York woman who smothered two of her babies and tried to smother a third.
She also cited the highly publicized D.C. Superior Court case of LaTrena Pixley, who pleaded
guilty to second-degree murder in 1993 in the suffocation of her infant daughter. At her sentencing,
after a defense lawyer submitted a psychiatrist's report attributing the crime partly to postpartum
depression, the judge stunned the court by ordering Pixley, then 20, to spend weekends in jail for three years.
Yates's sympathizers tend to lose sight of an important element of the tragedy.
"You know what I think [Rosenthal, the D.A.] saw when he looked at this case?"
Clements said. "I think he saw the same thing I saw: five beautiful children, dead."
— NOW Rallies to Mother's Defense. Group Says Woman Needs Help, Not
Prison, in Drowning of 5 Children.
By Paul Duggan, Washington Post Staff Writer,
Monday, September 3, 2001; Page A03
The National Organization for Women (NOW), which couldn't bring itself to lend aid and
comfort to rape victim Juanita
Broaddrick, is going all out to help a woman who drowned her five children.
According to
the ultra-liberal feminist organization, NOW is helping to raise money for Andrea Yates on the grounds
that their involvement might help raise people's consciousness about post-partum depression.
Now opposes the death penalty except for the victims of the abortion industry which they vigorously support.
Yates admitted to police that she drowned her children one-by-one in a bathtub. She revealed that when
it came the turn of her oldest child he fled and she had to chase him down and drag him back to the tub.
Not surprisingly, NOW has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), several other women's
and health groups and anti-death penalty organizations in the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition.
One reason for their support, observers say, could be that the pro-abortion NOW may view
such child killing as merely retroactive abortion, and therefore worthy of their support of the killer.
— NOW Throwing Lifebelt to Mom who Drowned Five Kids
Phil Brennan. Thursday August 30, 2001, NewsMax.com.
“The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to
kill it."
— Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood,
in Women and the New Rage, p.67
In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the
first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most
intelligent in the world"
— Gary Bauer, Abetting Coercion in China, The Washington Times,
October 10, 1989
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her
children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if
there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."
—
Interview with Simone de Beauvoir,
"Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma"
Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the
biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men,
different from any people who have previously existed.
— Alison Jagger,
Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation:
Feminism and Philosophy
(Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
FEMINIST "RELIGIOUS" DOGMA AND CREEDS
The feminist "[holds that] love without marriage is holy, and that marriage
without love is illegitimate... Advocates a free contract in marriage, and that separation
may occur at the will of either "mate”… [holds that] divorce shall be made
easy… "[M]otherhood" is a mere animal function, and that even a cat may have
kittens; that motherhood has been made too much of in the past. [She] Advocates with the Socialists
that the State has a superior right to the parents over the nurture, conduct and education of the
children… advocates the "control of births" by artificial measures.
[The feminist] suggests that any woman may reject motherhood, and any woman with "mother
love" may accept motherhood whether she is married or single… The Feminist is a
man hater, except as she may be able to use him for her purposes… She claims that man
has subjected her to "sex slavery" and "economical servitude," from which she
demands "liberation," so she may be made a "free woman”...
— Benjamin V. Hubbard
(in Socialism, Feminism, and Suffragism,
1915, pp. 142-144)
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from
families and communally raise them."
— Dr. Mary Jo Bane,
feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College
and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman
"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners
of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while
contributing to the freedom of women."
— Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179
Forty-two amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs
were filed on behalf of "Roe." A "woman's brief" argued, as
author Marian Faux summarizes it, "that even if a fetus were found to be a legal
person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her
will." Prominent women such as theologian Mary Daly, Barnard College president
Millicent McIntosh, anthropologist Margaret Mead, and former U.S. senator Maurine B.
Neuberger (D-Oregon), all signed the document that stated:
"that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still
could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will."
Consider this statement a moment. Put another way, even if a fetus were a legal
person, a woman could not be compelled TO LET IT LIVE (i.e. COMMIT FIRST DEGREE MURDER).
And we wonder why Child Abuse is so high among those same women that buy into the Feminist
party line and do not value marriage, OR LIFE!!! Was infanticide (child murder) the
feminist goal all along??
“[The unborn victims of violence act]
would establish penalties for those who harm a fetus, either knowingly or unknowingly, while
committing a federal crime-such as bank robbery, kidnapping or terrorism. This bill
is yet another attempt to limit and restrict a woman’s right to choose.”
— N.O.W. September 15, 1999, Legislative update.
Apparently, NOW’s version of “choice” also includes FORCED ABORTIONS
during the commission of a crime. The “choice” is no longer a woman’s.
According to NOW, If she WANTS the child, TOO BAD IF IT IS MURDERED DURING A CRIME!
"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, in The Women's Room
"All men are good for is f&%$ing, 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, Ice And Fire
“…[I]n every realm of male expression and action, violence is
experienced and articulated as love and freedom."
— Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women.
"Women's Liberation … in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of
privilege... Sexism is NOT the fault of women -- kill your fathers, not your mothers".
— Robin Morgan, Editor of Ms. Magazine
"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.
Even the language of the [feminist] movement mirrors the mood of fascism.
The apocalyptic and hate-filled rhetoric of radical feminists expresses their eagerness to inflict harm.
— Robert H. Bork (1996)
in Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline,
Regan Books/HarperCollins, NY (pp.193-225)
“The [Domestic Violence] law was originally drafted to protect women from
violence in the home. In its present form, it not only runs roughshod over any due process protections
for the men accused, it is also used to prosecute people, mainly men, for actions which 1) are perceived
as threatening by the alleged (female) victim, and 2) have not yet happened, but may happen”
and “Radical feminists have constructed elaborate 'dangerousness assessment' tests that reduce to
gender profiling: Men are always dangerous, while female malfeasance is rationalized and excused.”
“[W]e've done one better than [George Orwell’s] "1984." We don't just prosecute
for "thought" crimes. We prosecute based on the thoughts of someone else.”
“[W]omen intent on "giving him a lesson he'll never forget," can use this law to
throw a man out of his own home, take away his legal rights to even see his children, and set the
stage for the financial rape that will follow by virtue of being in possession of the marital home,
kids, and property. All of this is based on her statement that she has "fear" of him. No
claim of actual violence is required.”
— Do Restraining orders Cause Domestic Violence?
by Mark Charalambous. Massachusetts News,
September 1, 2000
"The implications of linking our research agenda with our political agenda and
with intentionality are profound for feminist research. Perhaps the most awkward rite of passage for
all researchers is the ethics approval requirement of each discipline and/or institution. In order
to carry out a research agenda linked with a political agenda we must examine the institutional
barriers to our enterprise."
— Sandra Kirby "What do Feminist Methods Have to do with Ethics?"
in Women Changing Academe, (Winnipeg, 1991) p.168.
(Kirby is now Chair of Sociology at UW.)
Perjury has become the coin of the realm in [Domestic Violence Court ]. People’s
homes are invaded because of lies. People are arrested because of lies. People go to prison because
of lies. People stay in prison because of lies, and sometimes, bad guys go free because of lies.
Lying has become a significant problem in [Domestic Violence] court cases because the rewards to
[the Lying party] can be so great and the consequences so minimal. Perjurers are seldom punished;
neither are the law enforcement officers who ignore or accept their lies.
— The damage of lies,
By Bill Moushey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer,
November 29, 1998
"If there is one area of the entire [legal] process [Judge Jones] openly
questions, it is the matter of … restraining orders." … "It's a necessary
law, but it's an abused one. I've seen it used too many times as leverage in divorce cases, not
for women in imminent fear of physical danger. One third of them are not legitimate,
merely used as an 'I'll fix you.' Don't forget, once a [restraining] order is in place, if a
defendant violates it, he's now got a criminal case he's looking at."
— Retiring Judge Reveals that Restraining orders Are Huge Problem.
April 2, 2001 Massachusetts News
When it comes to the murder of intimates, as criminologist Coramae Richey Mann
documented in her 1996 study of female killers, When Women Kill, murderesses are seldom
helpless angels: 78% of the women in Mann's study had prior arrest records and 55% a history of
violence. Only 59% claimed self-defense.
"[W]omen report using violence in their relationships more often than men" and
"wives hit their husbands at least as often as husbands hit their wives."
— Hitting the Wall
After 20 years of domestic violence research, scientists can't avoid hard facts,
Mother Jones Magazine,
Nancy Updike, May/June 1999
(Mother Jones is a radical feminist / Socialist publication. Certainly
NOT pro-male by any stretch of the imagination)
Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica is a "rape manual" because
"science is a male rape of female nature"; Beethoven's Ninth Symphony expresses the
"throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release." (Quotes
by Sandra Harding of University of Delaware and Susan McClary, "who applies feminist
theories to music," respectively. Quoted in John Leo, "PC: Almost dead.
Still funny," US. News & World Report, December 5, 1994, p. 24.)
— Robert H. Bork (1996)
in Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline,
Regan Books/HarperCollins NY; (pp.193-225)
Lenore Walker, speaking at a Laguna Beach conference, as reported in the SF Chronicle "Our research and most other studies show that wife-battering occurs in 50 percent of families throughout the nation." The SF Chronicle comments, "Only the most crazed man-hater could believe that."
Lenore Walker, after visiting one of the early shelters for battered women, wrote "I was struck by what a beneficial alternative to the nuclear family this arrangement [communal housing and child raising] was for these women and children." (The Battered Woman, p.195)
"The Violence Against Women Act slipped into law in 1994 without most members of Congress quite knowing what they were passing. We have Andrea Dworkin's word on this. Dworkin is surely a contender for the North American title of most overwrought, man-hating feminist. She told the New Republic at the time that the only possible explanation for the bill's popularity in the Senate was the 'senators don't understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass.' In plain English, she seemed to mean that Congress was naively institutionalizing the radical view of domestic violence as antifemale terrorism by a relentless oppressor class — men.
— U. S. News, page 12, John Leo. January 24, 2000 N.O.W. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - June 12, 2000
NOW claims that VAWA is Gender Neutral and that it provides protection for men and children when a simple reading of VAWA shows that it CLEARLY EXCLUDES help for children and men.
NOW's LDEF (Legal Defense Education Fund) sponsors and helped to WRITE the VAWA legislation and therefore NOW is AWARE that the language of the bill specifically excludes children and is gender biased. Yet NOW is KNOWINGLY LYING to the Congress of the United States of America and elicits help from Congress and the Judiciary to destroy more families and children. "...it is important to stress that the Violence Against WOMEN Act [emphasis added] is gender neutral. Funds are available to support programs which assist men as well as women; if the language in the act were not gender neutral, it could not meet a Constitutionality challenge." [Obvious "talking point" propaganda]
"And, any statistics that our opponents may cite that suggest that as many women as men are batterers are simply inaccurate and cannot be substantiated by sound scientific research."
A NOW Legislative Alert dated June 12, 2000 FRAUDULENTLY states: ". . . the Violence Against Women Act is gender neutral. Funds are available to support programs which assist men as well as women. . . ." and then says ". . .if the language in the act were not gender neutral, it could not meet a constitutionality challenge."
—N.O.W. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE - June 12, 2000
HATCH PROMISES TO BRING VAWA REAUTHORIZATION
TO SENATE FLOOR VOTE
NOW LDEF to Rep. Nancy L. Johnson, October 4, 1999, gender based language is unconstitutional when it ". . . tie[s] the federal benefits available under the act to gender . . . violate[s] the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. . . ."
"Further, to the extent that Act targets certain grants to state programs offering gender-specific benefits, it would operate to encourage states to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
As recently set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Saenz v. Roe, 119 S. Ct 1518 (1999), Congress cannot authorize states to accomplish indirectly what Congress itself is constitutionally prohibited from doing."
The VAWAII act specifically states in part "Ineligible activities" include "projects that focus on "children or men."
ALL HETEROSEXUAL SEX IS RAPE, AND ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS
"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
— Catherine MacKinnon
"All men are rapists and that's all they are" — Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room" (quoted again in People Magazine) "All men are rapists and that's all they are ..."
— Feminist Marilyn French, People Magazine (Percent of reported rape or near-rape incidents = .07% [The FBI's Uniform Crime Report lists for the year 1996])
"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which ALL MEN KEEP ALL WOMEN IN A STATE OF FEAR" [emphasis added]
— Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will; p. 6
"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership."
— Andrea Dworkin
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
— Andrea Dworkin
"Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks."
— Andrea Dworkin
in the Philadelphia Inquirer,
May 21, 1995
"Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman,"
— Andrea Dworkin, Liberty , p.58.
"One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible."
— Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 21.
"In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea is one of them."
— Gloria Steinem
"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
"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..."
— Sheila Jeffrys
"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,
Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape,
in Going to Far, (1974)
"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."
— Letter to the Editor: Women's Turn to Dominate,
Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia; Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia, February 9, 1996
"It is not only men convicted of rape who believe that the only thing they did that was different from what men do all the time is get caught."
"If sexuality is central to women's definition and forced sex is central to sexuality, rape is indigenous, not exceptional, to women's social condition."
"Under law, rape is a sex crime that is not regarded as a crime when it looks like sex. The law, speaking generally, defines rape as intercourse with force or coercion and without consent., Like sexuality under male supremacy, this definition assumes the sadomasochistic definition of sex: intercourse with force or coercion can be or become consensual."
—Catherine A. MacKinnon, in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State,
1989, First Harvard University Press (paperback in 1991)
[a legal treatise comparing and contrasting feminism with COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM]
"Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike....[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it."
— Catherine MacKinnon,
quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, "Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation,"
Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991
"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
— Catherine MacKinnon in
Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129
"[Acquaintance rape] is more common than left-handedness, alcoholism and heart attacks."
— Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth
(in the feminist attempt to build a case that
"one in four" women have been raped in America)
“Rape is a violent expression of a pattern of male supremacy, an outgrowth of age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men.”
— From a pamphlet [whose title is] Woman Against Myth,”
by Betty Millard
published in 1948 by CPUSA (the Communist Party of USA.)
"[R]ape represents an extreme behavior, but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture."
— Prof. Mary Koss of Kent State University (1982)
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
— Catherine Comins, Vassar College,
Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52
As cited in Andrea Dworkin's Right-Wing Women, "...I submit that any sexual intercourse between a free man and a human being he owns or controls is rape."
— Alice Walker in
Embracing the Dark and the Light, Essence, July 1982.
(Feminists believe that marriage = ownership)
"Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike....[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it."
— Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers,
Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation,
Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991
"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, (editor of MS magazine)
A young woman at the University of Pennsylvania who wore a short skirt complained of a "mini-rape" because a young man walked past her and said, "Nice legs." (Camille Paglia and Christine Hoff Sommers, "Has Feminism Gone Too Far?" Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg, Produced by New River Media, Washington, DC, November 4, 1994.) At the University of Maryland, some female students posted the names of male students selected at random, young men about whom they knew nothing, under the heading "Potential Rapists." The message was that all men are potential rapists, though the men actually named probably did not find much comfort in that...
Far more serious are the accusations of actual rape when nothing of the sort occurred. A female student came to a male student's quarters with her toothbrush, planning to stay the night. The next morning she was seen having a peaceable breakfast with the man. Later she charged him with rape and he was briefly held in jail. (John Leo, "De-escalating the gender war" U.S. News and World Report, April 18,1994, p.24.) Accusations of date rape are flung freely by women who consented and later changed their minds about what they did.
— Robert H. Bork (1996)
Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline
Regan Books/HarperCollins, NY (pp.193-225)
"Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual women's erotic attraction or attachment to another human animal which happens to be male. Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices... Those definitions... are about the oppression and exploitation of women [by men]."
— Marilyn Frye, Willful Virgin: Essays in Feminism, 1976-1992
( Freedom: Crossing Press,1992) p.132 Feminism, Occult and Witchcraft.
Is NOW actually the National Organization of Witches?
“…[I]t is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft"
— The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971.
The whole Feminist cult is rankly atheistical, and they despise the teaching of St. Paul and of the church. They proclaim the "New Religion" and the "New Freedom of Women," for by these they are "emancipated" from all moral and religious restraint.
— Benjamin V. Hubbard -- (Socialism, Feminism, and Suffragism,1915, pp. 142
"Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace and inspiration from real women... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world"
— Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," "The Humanist", July/August 1988, p.37
"By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God"
— Gloria Steinem, editor of 'MS' magazine.
"God is going to change. We women... will change the world so much that He won't fit anymore."
— Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions
(Quoted at beginning of From Father God to Mother Earth)
NOW is the time to take back control of our lives. NOW is the time to make reproductive freedom for wimmin of all classes, cultures, ages and sexual orientations a reality. NOW is not the time to assimilate to bureaucratic puppeteers who want to control, degrade, torture, kill and rape our bodies. NOW is the time to drop a boot heel in the groin of patriarchy. NOW IS THE TIME TO FIGHT BACK. NO GOD, NO MASTER, NO LAWS.
— Profane Existence, May/June 1992, p.1.
(And rage must be stoked with falsehoods and irrationality. Try to imagine writing a reasoned statement about bureaucrats who want to torture, kill, and rape women's bodies. It cannot be done.
—Robert Bork's portrayal of this statement, from
Slouching towards Gomorrah)
Over the years, feminists have laid claim to a wide range of issues calculated to portray the victimization of women and the urgency of their cause. Rape, abuse, domestic violence, problems with discrimination and self-esteem, and even slavery, are common themes in feminist literature. Fortunately, none of these is as serious or as widespread as the leaders of the movement would have us believe.
In her book, Who Stole Feminism?, Christina Hoff Sommers investigates the campaign of disinformation and distortion being carried on by some in the movement. Though Sommers is, herself, a feminist, her motivation is to separate fact from fiction and to help clarify the issues. One of the statements she examines is the charge that 150,000 women die of anorexia each year. Both Gloria Steinem and Naomi Wolf helped perpetuate this rumor in their bestselling books. But on tracing the source of the statistic to the Anorexia and Bulimia Association, Sommers found that the original report had stated only that from 100,000 to 200,000 women may suffer from such conditions; but the number of deaths is closer to 70. Hardly the epidemic the feminist authors implied.
There are many such examples. Law professor Catherine MacKinnon claimed in a widely publicized report that half of all women will be victims of rape at least once in their lives. The original projections from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, however, say that approximately 8 percent of women will be victims either of rape or attempted rape at least once in their lifetime—considerably fewer than half.
[F]eminist leaders are not interested in fair treatment or equal rights alone; it is apparent they want exceptional privilege enforced by law, and to get it, large numbers of them have entered the legal professions.
A feminist lawyer, professor of law at Columbia University, and now a justice of the United States Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has championed the radical redefinition of the role of women in society, including the elimination of all laws that grant respect, preference, or advantages for women… Ginsburg has repeatedly opposed laws from a more genteel age which, in some states, have made cursing in the presence of women a misdemeanor, or in another case protected widows from usury and mistreatment. Her published views on prostitution, homosexuality, pornography, military service for women, lowering the age of consent for sexual activity, and many other issues are equally alarming.
These radical views make one wonder what sort of perverse logic is behind this kind of feminist litigation. Better treatment for women is apparently not the issue. Their goals are the feminization and subordination of men, and their tactics are to cry ‘victimization’ and ‘conspiracy.’"
In a 1986 case in which a woman had charged a man with rape, then later admitted that she had agreed to sex and had cooperated with the accused at the time, the Supreme Court agreed with the feminist argument that "‘voluntariness’ in the sense of consent" is not sufficient grounds to overturn a conviction for rape. The Court held that material evidence, including oral statements by the parties, was immaterial if the woman felt she had been abused.
Conservative, Christian, and anti-feminist organizations need to be alarmed about the precedents being set by the bizarre rulings of the activist courts. "The feminists want the battered woman syndrome to free any woman from conviction of violent crime," warns Phyllis Schlafly. "The feminists are even pushing the Catherine MacKinnon fantasy that all heterosexual sex should be considered rape unless an affirmative, sober, explicit verbal consent can be proved."
In addition to a basic disagreement with the aims of militant feminism, a majority of American women have repudiated the movement’s drift toward lesbianism, goddess worship, and other sordid practices. Witchcraft, which most Americans once thought to be dead and gone, has reappeared, revived primarily by feminists; and even in mainline Protestant denominations there has been a new movement toward the occult, angel worship, and even demon worship. The Re-Imagining conference sponsored by feminist organizations within the National Council of Churches, was one notorious attempt to enshrine the goddess Sophia as a Christian deity; but events like this have alerted many women to just how extreme modern feminism has become.
—Issues Tearing Our Nation's Fabric. Chapter 7, Feminism.
The Center for Reclaiming. Coral Ridge Ministries. FEMINISM - Roots in Communism
Like Marxism, feminism can explain everything from advertising to religion by following its single thread, the oppression of women."
— Carol Iannone,
The Feminist Confusion, Second Thoughts: Former Radicals Look Back at the Sixties,
eds. Peter Collier and David Horowitz
(Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1989, p. 149)
“Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism” — Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges, The unhappy marriage of Marxism and Feminism
— Catharine A. MacKinnon
in opening page of Chapter 1, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State,
1989, First Harvard University Press (paperback in 1991)
(a legal treatise comparing and contrasting feminism with COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM)
“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism…”
— Catharine A. MacKinnon, in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.
1989, First Harvard University Press. Page 3.
Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.
— Catharine A. MacKinnon,
in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.
1989, First Harvard University Press. Page 10.
Catherine A. MacKinnon is a University of Michigan FEMINIST LAW PROFESSOR!! Do you think “her” lawyers are learning Republican government OR are they learning Communism?
"When I was in college it was the McCarthy era and that made me a Marxist."
— Gloria Steinem. Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions,
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1983.
"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 Solanas,
The opening paragraph in her
SCUM Manifesto
(Society for Cutting Up Men.)
[This is CLEARLY SEDITIOUS AND TREASONOUS]
'...Women's liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influential neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible. By defining between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength.'
— Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse
"Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred, just as Marxism was the intellectual organization of class hatred. Feminism's business is fashioning weapons to be used against men in society, education, politics, law and divorce court. The feminist aim is to overthrow "patriarchal tyranny." In this undertaking, the male's civil rights count for no more than those of the bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in National Socialist Germany."
— What civil rights has wrought.
By Paul Craig Roberts, July 26, 2000
Townhall.com - Creators Syndicate.
"…[ M]odern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism… Communists pioneered the political, economic and cultural analysis of woman´s oppression… Communists pioneered women´s studies, and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children´s rights… It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism morphed into a movement dedicated to gaining power by promoting gender conflict. The “diversity” and “multicultural” movements represent feminism´s attempt to forge “allegiances” by empowering gays and “people of color.” Thus, the original CPUSA (Communist Party USA - CPUSA) trio of “race, gender and class” is very much intact but class conflict has never been a big seller. Feminists wish to destroy a Western Civilization that is dominated by white men who believe in genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes)… Many feminists are embarrassed to discover they are Communist dupes. They try to point out the differences between themselves and Marxists but these differences are matters of emphasis. Their embarrassment, however, is nothing compared to ours when we acknowledge that we have been subverted. They have taken over our minds. Feminists dominate the mass media and the education systems (both primary and secondary) and use these for indoctrination. They have great power in the legal system, many parts of government, and are currently subverting the military… The evidence is everywhere. The term “politically correct” originated in the Communist Party in Russia in the 1920´s. We use it everyday to refer to adherence to feminist dogma… Communism is alive and well and living under an assumed name."
— American Communism And The Making Of Women´s Liberation.
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
Toogood Reports. October 3, 2001
"Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity, and precision on which the former depend."
— A quote from Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge,
Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies
(New York, Basic Books, 1994), p. 116
Women's lib is a "ladies" auxiliary of the radical left. The hard core embraces Marxism, although Gloria Steinem will admit only to being socialist. Prime purposes of feminism are to establish a lesbian-socialist republic and to dismantle the family unit.
— The Declaration of Feminism or The Document "The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations--for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right--these institutions are real and they must be destroyed."— Andrea Dworkin
[THIS COMMENTARY IS CLEARLY SUBVERSIVE AND DESIGNED
TO UNDERMINE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!]
Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole... patriarchy
— Gloria Steinem, radical feminist leader, editor of 'MS' magazine.
"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."
— Robert H. Bork (1996)
in Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline
Regan Books/HarperCollins, NY (pp.193-225)
"Like Marxism, feminism can explain everything from advertising to religion by following its single thread, the oppression of women."
— Carol Iannone, "The Feminist Confusion,"
Second Thoughts: Former Radicals Look Back at the Sixties
eds. Peter Collier and David Horowitz
(Lanham, MD: Madison Books, 1989), p. 149. THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY
"Destroy the family," as Lenin said, "and you destroy society." Thereby he merely repeated what Socrates had said before and what Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx put into words. Lenin set out to do just that, hoping that a new society -- with the State as the ultimate father -- could be constructed.
"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare."
— Female Liberation, by Roxanne Dunbar.
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ...
— Functions of the Family,
Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.
"Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women."
— Is Marriage the Answer?
by Barbara Findlen, Ms magazine, May-June, 1995
"[The nuclear family is] a cornerstone of woman’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation."
— Alison Jagger, Feminist Politics and Human Nature
"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male."
— Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State
(New York, International Publishers,1942) p.58]
"The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." (ibid., p.67)
Patricia Ireland of NOW referred to the Congress of the United States of America as "twisted" for supporting such notions as marriage and family, in a publication titled Father's Count Act will hurt Women and Kids, January 28, 2000, by Patricia Ireland
NOW Action Alert -- October 20, 1999 -- Fathers' Rights Bill Advances in the House. This Action alert explains that the Father's Rights legislation before Congress is "bad for women and children" because it will "promote marriage" and "disseminat[e] information about the advantages of marriage", "promote successful parenting" and "disseminat[e] information about good parenting practices", and "help fathers and their families ... leave ... welfare".
A plain reading of the Action Alert shows that when read in full context NOW will do ANYTHING to destroy marriages, families, and even children. We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.
— Sisterhood Is Powerful, Robin Morgan (ed), 1970, p. 537:
"The Feminists -v- The Marriage License Bureau of the State of New York ...All the discriminatory practices against women are patterned and rationalized by this slavery-like practice. We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."
— Sisterhood Is Powerful, Robin Morgan (ed), 1970, p. 537.
"Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training them to look upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their 'true' role."
— Andrea Dworkin
"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men."
— The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971
"... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all."
— Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon,
WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969
"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that"
— Vivian Gornick, feminist author,
University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981
"The belief that married-couple families are superior is probably the most pervasive prejudice in the Western world."
— Judith Stacey
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."
— Sheila Cronan
The little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn't work.
— Toni Morrison
"[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children."
— From Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p. 294
Barbara Ehrenreich, as quoted by Stephen Chapman, from Time: " Ms. Ehrenreich extols the "long and honorable tradition of 'anti-family' thought," waxing nostalgic for those early feminists who regarded marriage as just another version of prostitution. This deeply defective institution "can hardly be the moral foundation of everything else," she argues, pining for the day when "someone invents a sustainable alternative."
Barbara Ehrenreich in Time: "Only with the occasional celebrity crime do we allow ourselves to think the nearly unthinkable: that the family may not be the ideal and perfect living arrangement after all that it can be a nest of pathology and a cradle of gruesome violence,... Even in the ostensibly "functional," nonviolent family, where no one is killed or maimed, feelings are routinely bruised and often twisted out of shape. There is the slap or the put-down that violates a child's shaky sense of self, the cold, distracted stare that drives a spouse to tears, the little digs and rivalries..."
Miscellaneous Quotes of Interest
"Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.
— Andrea Dworkin. The Root Cause, speech, 26 Sept. 1975
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
(published in Our Blood, ch. 9, 1976).
"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist."
— National NOW Times, Jan.1988
"In one sense the right is right...to accuse the gay and lesbian rights movement of threatening homogenization....if gay and lesbian liberationists ever achieve full equality, they will do away with the social need for the hetero/homo division. The secret of the most moderate, mainstream gay and lesbian civil rights movement is its radically transformative promise (or threat, depending on your values)."
— Gay historian, Jonathan Katz,
The Invention of Heterosexuality, 1995, p.188.
Lesbianism refers to the rejection by women of heterosexual sex, and the female sex role (wife, mother), along with the adoption of the male sex role. In The New Victorians, 1996, Rene Denfeld writes that "women encountering feminism are frequently told they should become lesbian, an assertion that runs from the subtle to the blatant." (p. 45)
"So long as feminism remains institutionalized it will purvey coercion. Feminists may be beyond rational persuasion. . . But they are in the end asking women to make themselves unattractive to men, and to forego love and children. Feminism will be forgotten, commanding only the loyalty of barren women whose genetic lines are running to extinction."
— Michael Levin, Professor of Philosophy,
City College of New York in Feminism and Freedom, p. 306
"It is true, as Professor Goldberg points out, that all the claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed.... Men have always been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home."
— Feminism Against Science,
National Review, November 18,1991, p.30
"Just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be, ... not just the elimination of the male privilege, but of the sex distinction itself; genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally."
— Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex
(New York: Bantam Books, 1972) pp.10-11
"Heterosexual hegemony ... is being simultaneously eroded and reconstructed. ...The forms of sexuality considered natural have been socially created and can therefore be socially transformed." (219) "New social policies would focus on transforming social relations and would be based on empowering of lesbians, gay men, sex-trade workers, women and people of colour." (emphasis added)
— The Regulation of Desire: Sexuality in Canada,
by Gary Kinsman, Black Rose Books, 1987, p. 229
"Heterosexuality like motherhood, needs to be recognized and studied as a political institution. . .the model for every other form of exploitation."
— Adrienne Rich,
Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,
5 No.4 (1980) 637
"Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and the spray of semen...[Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny... "
— Cheryl Clarke, Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance,
in This Bridge Called Me Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color,
ed. Cherrie Moraga (Women of Color Press,1983), pp.128-137.
"The opposite of heterosexual desire is the eroticising of sameness, a sameness of power, equality and mutuality. It is homosexual desire."
— Sheila Jeffreys,
Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution
(London: Women's Press,1990) p.300
"There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things - their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women."
—How The Americans Understand The Equality Of The Sexes, (1840),
Democracy in America, Vol. 2, Ch. XII
"The House has become a three-ring circus, but the clowns aren't funny and the new ringmaster seems distracted."
— Washington, DECEMBER 14, 1998 1:49 PM
PRESS RELEASE - Statement of NOW
Executive Vice-president Kim Gandy Urging Women to Lobby Against Impeachment .
"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."
— Carol Iannone,
The Feminist Confusion, Second Thoughts: Former Radicals Look Back at the Sixties.
Lanham, MD, Madison Books, 1989, p. 153.
"Many people suppose that feminism today is a continuation of the reform movement of the past. They occasionally notice a ranting Bella Abzug or an icy Gloria Steinem but imagine them to be merely the froth of extremism on an otherwise sensible movement. That is not the case; the extremists are the movement. What the moderate academic feminists Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge write about radical feminism in the universities is true of the movement as a whole. Today's radical feminism is "not merely about equal rights for women.... Feminism aspires to be much more than this. It bids to be a totalizing scheme resting on a grand theory, one that is as all-inclusive as Marxism, as assured of its ability to unmask hidden meanings as Freudian psychology, and as fervent in its condemnation of apostates as evangelical fundamentalism. Feminist theory provides a doctrine of original sin: The world's evils originate in male supremacy."
— Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge,
Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies
(New York, Basic Books, 1994), P. 183
The gender perspective of radical feminism ... attacks not only men but the institution of the family, it is hostile to traditional religion, it demands quotas in every field for women, and it engages in serious misrepresentations of facts. Worst of all, it inflicts great damage on persons and essential institutions in a reckless attempt to remake human beings and create a world that can never exist.
Perhaps the first thing to point out, however, is that radical feminism in its largest aspirations is doomed to failure. That makes the harms it inflicts on people and institutions in pursuit of its unattainable ends all the more inexcusable. Radical feminism shares the most destructive idea in the original draft of the Port Huron Statement: human nature is infinitely malleable and hence infinitely perfectible. This idea, encrypted in the substitution of "gender" for "sex," is essential to the feminist enterprise of removing all differences between men and women in the roles they play in society. If certain talents are predominantly male and others predominantly female by nature, that enterprise is defeated. Hence, feminists insist that the differing roles of the sexes have nothing to do with biology. What a society's culture can construct, it can deconstruct. Culture is everything and Culture can be changed so that all male-female differences, other than in their reproductive organs, will disappear. Women will then appear in every profession and occupation in proportion to their representation in the population at large. The statistical imbalances we see today are merely the results of conditioning and discrimination.
Even if this feminist contention were correct, its totalitarian implications are obvious. Culture is a stubborn opponent. To defeat it requires the coercion of humans. The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture. The feminists are having a similarly corrupting effect on our culture with only the weapon of moral intimidation. The contention that underneath their cultural conditioning men and women are identical is absurd to anyone not blinded by ideological fantasy.
The early kibbutz movement in Israel had the same ideology as today's radical feminists: sexual equality meant sexual identity, and sexual differentiation was inequality. For a brief period, the ideologues attempted to raise children apart from their families and to raise boys and girls in ways that would destroy sex roles. The program was as extreme as the most radical feminist could want. But it collapsed within a very few years. Boys and girls returned to different sex roles. The American sociologist Melford Spiro, who studied the kibbutz, wrote that he had wanted to "observe the influence of culture on human nature or, more accurately, to discover how a new culture produces a new human nature." He "found (against my own intentions) that I was observing the influence of human nature on culture."
— Melford E. Spiro, Gender and Culture: kibbutz women revisited
(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1979), P. 106.)
Silencing Sommers. Clinton holdovers have their way with HHS.
National Review Online. Stanley Kurtz, December 5, 2001 (Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute has done extensive scholarly research proving the FRAUD of millions, possibly HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars for feminist programs and schemes funded by US TAXPAYERS!)
"Sommers was delivering an invited speech at a conference on "Boy Talk" (a program sponsored by the Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention (CSAP) of the Department of Health and Human Services) when CSAP official Linda Bass summarily interrupted, and commanded Sommers to end her talk. Minutes later, as Sommers was forced by a hostile crowd to defend her claim that scientific studies ought to be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of government drug-prevention programs, Professor Jay Wade, of Fordham University's Department of Psychology — an expert on "listening skills" — ordered Sommers to "shut the f*ck up, bitch," to the laughter of the others in attendance."
"[HHS claims that Sommers was "over her alotted time but the] tape makes it clear that Linda Bass, the HHS official who shut Sommers off, said nothing at all about Sommers's time being up. Bass simply insisted that any discussion of "Girl Power" was out of bounds — although it would seem to be impossible to properly evaluate a proposal to create a "Boy Talk" counterpart to "Girl Power" without considering the effectiveness of the Girl Power program itself.
So what exactly is "Girl Power," and why were HHS officials so determined to prevent anyone from raising questions about it? The Girl Power program was a cornerstone of Clinton HHS secretary Donna Shalala's pro-androgyny feminist agenda, and a favorite of Hillary Clinton's. It's obvious from the transcript that the officials who run "Girl Power" were unwilling to allow any questions about the efficacy of the program to be raised. Sommers's daring to imply that overcoming femininity in girls and masculinity in boys might not be the most effective way to fight teenage drug abuse is the real reason she was put upon and effectively ejected by this crowd of HHS consultants and administrators.
The highly questionable premise of the Girl Power program is that making girls less traditionally feminine will somehow cause them to be less likely to smoke, take drugs, or get pregnant. Of course, most people would expect the opposite effect. Isn't it precisely because girls are nowadays less bound by traditional codes of feminine behavior that we are seeing increases in smoking, drug-taking, and premarital sex among girls? Given the exceedingly debatable assumption upon which it rests, Christina Hoff Sommers can certainly be forgiven for asking to see some empirical research confirming that the Girl Power program actually succeeds in reducing substance abuse by making girls less traditionally feminine.
But of course it would be naive to think that reducing drug abuse is the real purpose of either the Girl Power or Boy Talk programs. A careful reading of the reams of slick, expensive pamphlets put out by HHS under the heading of Girl Power makes it clear that the problem of drug abuse is just a convenient bureaucratic excuse for housing these programs in the Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention division of HHS. The obvious purpose of Girl Power and Boy Talk is feminist social engineering.
The truth is, Health and Human Services' Girl Power and Boy Talk programs are simply government-funded attempts to promote the training for sexual androgyny mandated by feminist Carol Gilligan and her followers. Studies by Gilligan, and such groups as the American Association of University women — studies that describe alleged "crises" of sexual identity among American girls and boys — are the only "evidence" that HHS officials will allow to be invoked in assessments of these programs. Of course, in a series of brilliant studies, psychologist Judith Kleinfeld — as well as Sommers herself, in her extraordinary book, — have already thoroughly debunked Gilligan's notion of a "girl crisis." That is why Sommers was cut off by HHS officials as soon as she was about to raise questions about the shaky empirical foundations of the Girl Power and Boy Talk programs.
Do Girl Power and Boy Talk really reduce teen drug use? It doesn't matter. Is there really a "girl crisis" or a "boy crisis?" It doesn't matter. Ultimately, the Clinton holdovers at HHS aren't interested in these questions, because the real rationale for their pet programs never really had anything to do with teen substance abuse — or even educational competence — to begin with. All of these rationales are simply bureaucratic window dressing for channeling literally millions of government dollars into a misguided and chimerical attempt to break American girls of their femininity and American boys of their masculinity. Christina Hoff Sommers understood this, and that is why she was silenced, insulted, and ejected from a conference before she could speak the truth. Will the Bush administration acquiesce in this outrage?
—Stanley Kurtz, December 5, 2001 NOW and Feminist Promotion of
MARRIAGE-HATRED ENCOURAGES CHILD ABUSE!
This heading shouldn’t shock ANYONE – after all, they are the “abortion queens” and promote domestic violence against children – let’s not forget Houston NOW’s support of Andrea Yates as a victim while ignoring FIVE MURDERED CHILDREN!!
"While in most instances adolescents from recently disrupted household were more negatively affected by their parents' divorce, some findings did identify long-term effects of earlier disruption. Adolescent girls who had experienced parental divorce when they were younger than six or between six and nine years old reported becoming involved with alcohol or drugs in proportions higher than did girls from intact families. Adolescent girls whose experience of divorce occurred before they were six
times more frequently reported skipping school than did girls from intact families or girls whose parents divorced when they were between the ages of six and nine."
"These findings underscore the vulnerability of adolescents whose parents have divorced within the last five years. The impact of the marital disruption was most pronounced among girls, who skipped school more frequently, reported more depress behavior, and described social support in more negative terms than did boys from recently disrupted homes."
— The Effects of Marital Disruption on Adolescents: Time as a Dynamic,
A. Frost, PhD; B. Pakiz, EdM
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(4), October, 1990
"Among teenage and adult populations of females, parental divorce has been associated with lower self-esteem, precocious sexual activity, greater delinquent-like behavior, and more difficulty establishing gratifying, lasting adult heterosexual relationships. It is especially intriguing to note that, in these studies, the parental divorce typically occurred years before any difficulties were observed..
"At the time of the marital separation, when (as is typical) father leaves the family home and becomes progressively less involved with his children over the ensuing years, it appears that young girls experience the emotional loss of father egocentrically as a rejection of them. While more common among preschool and early elementary school girls, we have observed this phenomenon clinically in later elementary school and young adolescent children. Here the continued lack of involvement is experienced as an ongoing rejection by him. Many girls attribute this rejection to their not being pretty enough, affectionate enough, athletic enough, or smart enough to please father and engage him in regular, frequent contacts".
"Finally, girls whose parents divorce may grow up without the day to day experience of interacting with a man who is attentive, caring and loving. The continuous sense of being valued and loved as a female seems an especially key element in the development of the conviction that one is indeed femininely lovable. Without this regular source of nourishment, a girl's sense of being valued as a female does not seem to thrive."
— Long-Term Effects of Divorce on Children: A Developmental Vulnerability Model
Neil Kalter, Ph.D., University of Michigan,
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(4), October, 1987
"Because divorce is a process, not an isolated event, the effects of the divorce may be cumulative and early intervention would therefore be beneficial.
The continued involvement of the non- custodial parent in the child's life appears crucial in preventing an intense sense of loss in the child.... The importance of the relationship with the non-custodial parent may also have implications for the legal issues of custodial arrangements and visitation. The results of this study indicate that arrangements where both parents are equally involved with the child are optimal. When this type of arrangement is not possible, the child's continued relationship with the non-custodial parent remains essential."
— Young Adult Children of Divorced Parents: Depression and the Perception of Loss
Rebecca L. Drill, Ph.D., Harvard University
Journal of Divorce, V. 10, #1/2, Fall/Winter 1986
"The results of the present study suggest that father loss through divorce is associated with diminished self-concepts in children...at least for this sample of children from the Midwestern United States ."
— Children's Self Concepts: Are They Affected by Parental Divorce and Remarriage
Thomas S. Parish,
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1987, V 2, #4, 559-562
Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and neglect data system, put out by the US DHHS "Section 7.2 — DCDC data reveal that 184,152 perpetrators (62.3%) were female, and 111,473 (37.7%) were male." From the "Executive Summary" The Advisory Board put forth 26 recommendations for solving child abuse problems. Rec. 23 reads: "State and local agencies should design prevention programs for men. Programs should integrate services on child abuse and domestic violence and address the need for interagency training. Specific strategies must reach men and alert women to the potential role of men in abuse." [THERE IS NO RECOMMENDATION REGARDING WOMEN.]
Clinical Observations on Interferences of Early Father Absence in the Achievement of Femininity by R. Lohr, C. g, A. Mendell and B. Riemer, Clinical Social Work Journal, V. 17, #4, Winter, 1989
"In an earlier study by Kalter and Rembar at [Children's Psychiatric Hospital, University of Michigan], a sample of 144 child and adolescent patients, whose parents had divorced, presented [for evaluation and treatment] with three most commonly occurring problems:
63% Subjective psychological problem (defined as anxiety, sadness, pronounced moodiness, phobias, and depression)
56% Poor grades or grades substantially below ability and/or recent past performance
43% Aggression toward parents
Important features of the subgroup of 32 latency aged girls were in the same order:
69% indicating subjective psychological distress
47% academic problems
41% aggression toward parents.
[Note: These same destructive traits are likely to be carried over into adulthood and perpetuated yet again on their own children. Hence the cycle of destruction continues as noted in the extremely high rates of female perpetrated child abuse.]
********************
[Excerpt from US House of Representatives written testimony of Richard Weiss and William Wood re: HR1488. Hearing held March 16, 2000]
It is finally becoming widely understood that father-absence is one of the most destructive forces to children in our society --; fatherless homes account for 63% of youth suicides, 90% of all homeless and runaway children,[51] 85% of all children exhibiting behavioral disorders,[52] 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger,[53] 71% of all high school dropouts,[54] 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers,[55] 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions,[56] and 85% of prison youths.[57]
Contrast this with 37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights[58]. Non-compliance with court ordered visitation by custodial mothers prevents 77% of non-custodial fathers from being able to "visit" their children[59]. Non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. 40% of custodial mother SELF-REPORTS indicate they interfered with the father's visitation to "punish" them,[60] ~50% see no value in the father's involvement with the child,[61] and many use the children to retaliate against the father for their own ongoing personal problems.[62]
The court system does not enforce orders for "visitation" but jails for non-compliance with a "child" support order. This is a clear indication that the whole DIVORCE INDUSTRY is about money and children are just the "poker chips" in this high stakes "game". Their destruction is just "collateral damage" for the marriage hating special interests pushing their junk data.
[51] U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census
[52] Center for Disease Control
[53] Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978
[54] National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools
[55] Rainbows for all God`s Children
[56] U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988
[57] Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992
[58] p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991
[59] Visitational Interference - A National Study, Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W. (September 1992)
[60] p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.
[61] Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125
[62] Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, November 1989
******************** 1) BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS/ RUNAWAYS/ HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS/CHEMICAL ABUSERS/SUICIDES
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God's Children.)
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
RE: Youth Suicide and Divorce/ Single parent Homes:
"In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families."
— David A. Brent, (et. al.) Post-traumatic Stress Disorders in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34 (1995): 209-215.
"Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide."
— U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, D.C., 1993.
"Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent."
— Jean Beth Eshtain, Family Matters: The Plight of America's Children.
The Christian Century (July 1993): 14-21.
"A family structure index - a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed - is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males."
— Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult, and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?
Social Science Research 23 (1994): 57-81 2) JUVENILE DELINQUENCY/ CRIME/ GANGS
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes
— Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes
— U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home
— Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)
California has the nation's highest juvenile incarceration rate and the nation's highest juvenile unemployment rate.
— Vincent Schiraldi, Executive Director, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, What Hallinan's Victory Means, San Francisco Chronicle (12/28/95).
These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:
5 times more likely to commit suicide,
32 times more likely to run away,
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders,
14 times more likely to commit rape,
9 times more likely to drop out of high school,
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances,
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution,
20 times more likely to end up in prison,
than are children from two-parent families.
Juveniles have become the driving force behind the nation's alarming increases in violent crime, with juvenile arrests for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault growing sharply in the past decade as pistols and drugs became more available, and expected to continue at the same alarming rate during the next decade. — Justice Dept. Issues Scary Report on Juvenile Crime,
San Francisco Chronicle (9/8/95).
"Criminal behavior experts and social scientists are finding intriguing evidence that the epidemic of youth violence and gangs is related to the breakdown of the two-parent family."
— Crime Wave Forecast With Teenager Boom,
San Francisco Chronicle (2/15/95).
"New Evidence That Quayle Was Right: Young Offenders Tell What Went Wrong at Home,"
— San Francisco Chronicle (12/9/94). 3) TEENAGE PREGNANCY
"Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages. All these intergenerational consequences of single motherhood increase the likelihood of chronic welfare dependency."
— Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
Atlantic Monthly (April 1993).
Daughters of single parents are 2.1 times more likely to have children during their teenage years than are daughters from intact families.
— The Good Family Man, David Blankenhorn.
71% of teenage pregnancies are to children of single parents.
— U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. 4) CHILD ABUSE
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that there were more than 1,000,000 documented child abuse cases in 1990. In 1983, it found that 60% of perpetrators were women with sole custody. Shared parenting can significantly reduce the stress associated with sole custody, and reduce the isolation of children in abusive situations by allowing both parents' to monitor the children's health and welfare and to protect them. 5) POVERTY
"The National Fatherhood Institute reports that 18 million children live in single-parent homes. Nearly 75% of American children living in single-parent families will experience poverty before they turn 11. Only 20% in two-parent families will experience poverty."
— Melinda Sacks, Fatherhood in the 90's: Kids of absent fathers more "at risk"
San Jose Mercury News (10/29/95 ).
"The feminization of poverty is linked to the feminization of custody, as well as linked to lower earnings for women. Greater opportunity for education and jobs through shared parenting can help break the cycle."
— David Levy, Ed., The Best Parent is Both Parents (1993). 6) KIDNAPPING
Family abductions were 163,200 compared to non-family abductions of 200-300. The parental abductions were attributed to the parents' disenchantment with the legal system.
— David Levy, Ed., The Best Parent is Both Parents (1993),
citing a report from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice (May 1990).
Ninety percent of divorced fathers have less than full custody of their children."
— Jonathan M. Honeycutt, Ph.D.(c), M.P.A., M.A., I.P.C.
Director of Research, Clinical & Consulting Psychotherapist,
National Institute for Divorce Research, Panama City, Florida.
The State of Fatherhood
37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights.
— p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991
"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse."
— (citing Fulton) Frequency of Visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers,
Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991, p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6,
"Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s continued contact with his children...."
— Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)
Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated %16.
— EDK Associates survey of 500 women for
Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36
"The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children."
— Increasing our understanding of fathers who have
infrequent contact with their children,
James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)
"A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their children."
— Visitation and the Noncustodial Father,
Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery,
Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)
"Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce."
— Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery,
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)
"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father's efforts to visit their children."
— Ahrons and Miller,
Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July `93
"Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their marital or post-marital relationship."
— Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing,
Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989 See also:
__________________
Posted 2001 12 14
Updates:
2002 11 11 08 (reformated)
2002 12 22 (format changes)
2004 02 16 (format changes)
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College
Students)
2006 08 13 (added introduction) | 
