California NOW Launches 'I Love Consensual Sex' Campaign
December 5th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
After years of staring across the battlefield at the National Organization for Women and other misguided women's groups, I can usually predict what the feminists will do, but this one caught me by surprise. In a recent blog post on the California National Organization for Women's website called "I Love Consensual Sex," Mandy Benson, President of CANOW, writes:
"Oh yeah. Definitely. Absolutely. I really, really do. Yesssssssss…..I just love consensual sex.
"California NOW in partnership with chapters across the state are launching the I Love Consensual Sex campaign, hosting I Love Consensual Sex Day in April 2008 during Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Most people don’t want to talk about rape, but lots of people want to talk about Consensual Sex. This campaign will open up communication about consent, asking and teaching people what consent is and how to ask for exactly what you want.
"Both Minneapolis NOW (who created this fabulous campaign. Thank you!) and NOW at SDSU have had outstanding success with the campaign. Hundreds of students at SDSU wore I Love Consensual Sex t-shirts raising consciousness and controversy. Many people really didn’t know the definition of ‘consent’, which probably accounts for some crazy percentage of the date rapes that happen at college parties, so we are also considering legislation that would require campuses to teach the definition of consent.
"Want to join the campaign? Want to create your own I Love Consensual Sex Day? Want a fabulous I Love Consensual Sex t-shirt, sticker, button? We want you involved, so just let us know. I want something too…I want to know, what is your definition of consent?"
Now that I'm off the floor, a few thoughts:
1) On a initial level, the campaign seems male-positive, and seems to acknowledge something that some feminists have had a hard time acknowledging--women enjoy having sex with men. That sounds like a good thing.
2) Predictably enough, my suspicion comes in when Benson alludes to a feminist definition of "consent." In some ways feminist groups have done admirable work in helping rape victims. In many others they've tried to make the definition of rape so wide that many consensual sex scenarios fall under it. Feminists have also denied the large problem of false rape accusations, which has also caused great harm.
3) Benson asks feminist blog readers "What is your definition of consent?"--I wonder what those definitions would be?
4) If this marks a shift away from the exaggerations, distortions and rape hysteria of Sexual Assault Awareness Month and towards a more rational discussion about sex, young people, and consent, that's a good thing. I still have a faint hope that the more positive, male-friendly feminism of the '70s will come back and replace today's anti-male feminism. A faint one.
"));
19 queries. 0.473 seconds.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:28 am
It looks like a possible step in the right direction. Once you establish a definition of consent that everyone can actually agree on, then you can atually prosecute or absolve people of their rape accusations.
However, this will still not stop a majority of false accusations that result from regretting having done consensual sex :(
December 5th, 2007 at 10:29 am
NOW talking about being "sex positive" reminds me of Dilbert comics on "employee empowerment". Companies that actually empower their employees don't need to make fancy words to describe the ideals that they fail to live up to.
NOW should take a step back and notice how many times they end up on the same side of the issues as the authoritarians within the fundamentalist Christian conservative groups. Why do they occasionally hit common ground? Simple: they both hate the male libido.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Maybe NOW realizes that American men are smartening up about the dangers of having any contact with American women, and the extraordinary dangers associated with having sexual contact with them.
And maybe NOW realizes that if men completely boycott women in this regard, women will lose a very large percentage of their inter-gender power base in this country.
Which means that women will have no alternative to survive but getting a paying job like men do.
Hey, wasn't that NOW's whole idea? To get women the "freedom" to enter the work force?
Gosh this is confusing.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Agree, Glenn. The idea that the concept of "consent" can be adjusted at the whim of radical feminists is absurd. It is a legal concept, molded by hundreds of years of common law experience -- an experience that should not be tossed onto a scrapheap of indifference at the first whiff of politically correct feminist hysteria. For example, take a look at Blacks Law Dictionary, a standard legal reference: "As used in the law of rape, 'conssent' means consent of the will . . . . There must be an exercise of intelligence based on knowledge of its significance and moral quality and there must be a choice between resistance and assent."
What is so difficult about that? "Consent" means consent, but it does not require "an enthusistic verbal agreement" as I've seen some feminists claim; rather, it may be manifested by words or conduct that evidence a party's assent. It many be implied by the surrounding circumstances, without a word ever being spoken. It can even be fairly implied where a woman verbally says "no" but her conduct manifests the "no" was in jest. The test is whether a reasonable person in the position of the male would understand that the woman consented The woman's secret, subjective intent plays no role in the definition of consent.
If you want to know why rape convictions are so hard to come by, that is why. Let's not allow a bunch of angry 20-something radical gender feminists upset hundreds of years of judicial experience.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Put my parenting time at risk? Put my financial and emotional health at risk by being potentially ordered to pay extra child support (17% plus 17% as compared to 24% of gross income for example) that is required of men who have children with more than one woman?
You love consensual sex, my dears? (I read on Wikipedia that 40% of the membership of NOW are lesbians.)
You as members of NOW have blocked my ability to be eligible for a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting?
Well then, even if you may consider me to be intelligent and attractive, and even if you may consider me to be a good father to the child that you desire to have, I must say no thank you. Sorry ladies.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Let me guess, CANOW will turn the "consensual sex" campaign into a campaign to promote consensual sex among gays and lesbians.
Not that I am against gays and lesbians, but I see CANOW trying to subvert a generally healthy campaign into a purely liberal campaign.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:33 am
[If you want to know why rape convictions are so hard to come by, that is why. Let's not allow a bunch of angry 20-something radical gender feminists upset hundreds of years of judicial experience.]
Good going judge, I like the way you address this issue.
Shouldn’t the same “hundreds of years” of legal precedent to a “right to contract” stand the same test of time? Should we surrender hundreds of years of sound reasoning to satisfy the whim of people who want to redefine our laws and constitution to fit their twisted perception of a perfect society?
If marriage is to be restored as a viable institution, doesn’t it follow that a child born outside of that “legal contract” should not be used to enslave the alleged father? How else do we discourage single females from getting pregnant to benefit from the welfare state which is designed to replace that father? How do we protect an individuals “right to a contract”?
How do we protect the constitutional rights of all Americans when the “mob” can pick and choose who will have these rights and who will not? We must protect the rights of even the most irresponsible and criminal, if we are to protect our own, and that includes unborn children.
All of our citizens are entitled to the equal protection of our laws and anyone who stands in the way is a domestic enemy. That includes the Supreme Court if they think they don’t have to protect the rights of the unborn child.
Kevin Merck
December 5th, 2007 at 11:52 am
While I think this could be a big step in bringing men and women to the Promised Land (that being equality) what worries me is this, "What is the definition of consent?" The more extreme feminists have a very hard time admitting that false rape accusations happen (In fact I kinda wore out my welcome at Melissa McEwan's blog over this topic) and on the rare occasion that they do they will often follow up with a comment that boils down to, "He was probably a jerk anyway and deserved it." Allowing them to define consent all on their own is a very dangerous thing for men indeed. I can see it now.
"Victim": "I never gave consent to have sex. He raped me."
Defendant's lawyer: "Ma'am we have photographic eveidence of the defendant tied to the bed and you on top having sexual intercourse."
"Victim": "That doesn't matter. I didn't give consent."
December 5th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Well, goodness, we all know that "consent" is something which can't be freely given in a Patriarchy. Even when the woman thinks she's given consent, she's only been deluded into it.
Orgasms? It's how a woman eroticizes her oppression.
I've heard the phrase "enthusiastic consent" used as the litmus test on feminists blogs. But who's to say that a woman's enthusiastic consent hasn't been a result of delusion as well? Golly, there's just no way of not raping a woman, as near as I can figure.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Enthusiastic consent? So unless she's overjoyed about the prospect of sex, she's being raped?
I've had sex with previous girlfriends without really feeling like it. it doesn't mean they raped me, because I still consented.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I have no problem with this as long as NOW doesn't go into patronising and offensive tirades about how guys should 'make sure' they have consent.
If she says no, you do not have consent. Cease and desist. A girl does not have to explicitly say 'yes you may have sex with me' to avoid rape.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
callum: you see, if a woman isn't not completely overcome with lust, she's being raped.
But then again, if she's overcome with lust, it's not exactly a sober decision... so if I have sex with a woman who's excessively aroused, that could be rape as well.
Golly... so many conundrums.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
My first reaction is a positive one, if only for the implication of consent or consensus. Consent as a manifestation of love, and sex meaning sexuality, the slogan translates into ‘I love sexuality based on conscious love and mutually agreed upon definitions’. A very good idea and certainly one that I embrace. Maybe the context of a sexual assault awareness month is less well chosen and that may be a lost opportunity. The phrase ‘Most people don’t want to talk about rape, but ..’ implies the notion of rape as the opposite of conscious consensual sexuality. That could mean that women getting deliberately pregnant without conscious consent would become potential rapist of men. Maybe the ‘I love consensual sex’ would receive a better understanding if placed outside the context of the sexual assault awareness month.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I'm unconvinced. Without an explicit retraction of the feminist view that all sex is rape, and without a statement that admits that many women make false allegations, and without an honest discussion involving men on what consent is this effort is meaningless. And I suspect it is just another way to expand the definition of rape in the proverbial "camel nose under the tent" method.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
I too am taking this with a grain of salt. If it's encouraging greater sexual freedom for people (men and women), great. But I fear that this just the usual anti-rape, breaking the silence, women-are-in-so-much-danger campaign in disguise. I'm not supporting anything until I hear what they mean by "consent."
December 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
"But I fear that this just the usual anti-rape, breaking the silence, women-are-in-so-much-danger campaign in disguise. "
Have no fear; this is a women-are-in-so-much-danger campaign.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I agree with Kevin -- excellent points. And Sungjun -- that's hysterical because it's so true. And Callum gets it exactly right.
The last thing anyone needs is to be lectured to by a bunch of radical feminists on what consent is. We know what consent is, as I noted above -- it's a legal concept. I suspect the radical feminists couldn't care less what MEN think consent is, but in fact that's the legal test -- would a reasonable person in the position of the male believe that the woman has consented? If so, then she HAS consented, as a matter of law (I suspect the radical feminists would FLIP OUT if they knew that's the law).
I am all for telling our young people that sex has to be consensual, but what is repugnant is when they lecture to YOUNG MEN ALONE that consent means something other than what we all know it means, and what the law has long recognized it means.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I guess it would be interesting to see what "consent" is ... after all, we have been bombarded with The List of what "rape" is...I just wonder if their definition of consent is the same as every other woman's definition of consent. I think most men with even a modicum of heterosexual experience will agree: all women are different. I don't think they will be happy until the first date is one inclusive of legal council, a judge, and an executed contract. How romantic is that... Now, instead of buying dinner, you'll be expected to pay court costs.
AP, we can only hope that our pressure is beginning to take effect. It will be good for all parties if men and women do not hold some special power over each other.
As an aside, I was impressed with ER last week for underscoring this power struggle and MALE empowerment. While it has become commonplace in TV/movies for women/girls to be told that they shouldn't determine their self worth based upon the attentions of men/boys, most shows still try to communicate the idea that the value of men/boys is still dependent upon the number of women/girls they can attract. On ER, the one character (Nila) explicitly said to her young, male mentee (sp?) that he should not let his girlfriend or any other girl question or determine his value or his manhood. The way she said it and the context in which it was said was very much from the perspective of male empowerment.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Putting aside the definitions I wonder if Mandy Benson has ever given one second's thought to male consent. Feminist advocacy has left Mexican men without this right and it would be foolish to assume that other countries or states will not invoke similar legislation in the future.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Judge: "I am all for telling our young people that sex has to be consensual, but what is repugnant is when they lecture to YOUNG MEN ALONE that consent means something other than what we all know it means, and what the law has long recognized it means."
Excellent point. I believe a parallel can be drawn here between DV and SA politics in that both issues are being portrayed by feminists as gender issues. In reality, gender has little to do with it. DV is bad as is SA, but much of the problem is not that men (or women) are worse, it is in how people are being socialized. In terms of SA, just as DV, women are being socialized as victims and men are being socialized as perpetrators. For SA, instead of saying that many men and many women have different points of view on consent and teaching BOTH GENDERS how to communicate better and how to invest in that communication, they simply give a List of ever changing sexist, one-sided rules and call them facts. The false belief that women can never share some responsibility for putting herself in a predicament is particularly disingenuous since this basically takes any investment she should make in communicating her desires out the window. So instead of teaching what consent really means to both genders, they just say to men: you're always at fault even when, from your point of view, you are not because her ever-changing point of view is paramount.
Now some feminists will take the above statement as being pro-rapist (ie: misogynistic and the like) without really reading what I said. Of course I am not pro-rapist. What I am saying is that human relations are a lot more complicated then her-good, him-bad and SA will never been addressed until the HUMAN (not the gender) side is taken into account.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
"Now some feminists will take the above statement as being pro-rapist (ie: misogynistic and the like) without really reading what I said. Of course I am not pro-rapist. What I am saying is that human relations are a lot more complicated then her-good, him-bad and SA will never been addressed until the HUMAN (not the gender) side is taken into account."
*applause* Precicemente. My thoughts exactly.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I remember some short video online awhile back that had a guy and girl (looked to be about college age) about to go past making out. Suddenly they stopped and two attorneys showed up, one representing him the other her. The rest of the video was the attorneys negotiating the terms of the impending act, never refering to the actual acts only the paragraph number they were described in. "She'll do paragraph 3 only if he agrees to do paragraph 4." etc. Mmm, who's for inviting their legal representation to the bedroom? Then with a contract signed by both parties they can prove it was consentual. BTW, the video was quite humorous.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Very excellent point Lance. One of the wosrt things feminists and MRAs can do is go into an issue under the assumption that one gender is always the victim and the other is always the perpetrator. Rape is not an issue of men forcing women to have sex against their will, it is about one person forcing another to have sex against there will. People need to acknowledge that fact that there are are male perpetrators, female perpetrators, male victims, and female victims. Quoting a study is a good way to bring attention to a problem but MRAs and feminists often take those stats too far and begin to argue that because some/a lot/most victims/perpetrators are female/male then all victims/perpetrators are female/male. And I've also seen people "disprove" a stat simply because it is not the majority.
From Lance:
"So instead of teaching what consent really means to both genders, they just say to men: you're always at fault even when, from your point of view, you are not because her ever-changing point of view is paramount."
It sickens me how some feminists will use this type of logic. A generic translation of what Lance said would be, "Since you are privileged you cannot understand how it feels to be a victim of sexism." I have gotten that reply several times on Melissa McEwan's blog (mind you not from Melissa herself who seems to be quite open minded but some of the feminists there will circle the wagons quickly if the smell a hint of openmindedness).
December 5th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
I don't get it? NOW is today encouraging men to 'rape' women in CA (since all such intimacy is rape according to a number of feminist leaders)?
If you partake, always use a condom that yoy provide ... and after carefully removing said condom, flush it down the toilet so it can't possibily have any of its contents stolen.
Mike
December 5th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I'm thinking that CANOW means consensual sex between two women. After years of hearing from hardcore feminists that ANY sex between a man and a woman is rape. Or that a woman cannot actually give consent because of her oppressed state. Or that the patriarchy has held women down for soooo long that women cannot give meaningful consent. Or that in romantic seduction, at least the rapist buys you dinner etc... I'm convinced this ad is for woman on woman sex.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
The other side of this "consent" business is that it's an unwritten law that women have that if you have to ask, the answer's no. If you ask, you spoil the moment. If you ask, then you can't pretend "it just happened". If you ask, you can't read her mind and therefore aren't right for her. I remember a TV news programme where they did some vox pops on the issue, and the women nearly all said a variation on "a man should know when a woman is willing". Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Danny, I share your disdain of this bit of feminist illogic:"Since you are privileged you cannot understand how it feels to be a victim of sexism."
All I can say is that this little mantra might play well in women's studies classes and on radical feminist blogs among early 20s recent graduates of women's studies classes, but it does not resonate at all in the real world. If you asked ten people on the street if that sort of thinking makes sense, at least nine would say "no." That is why radical gender feminism will eventually collapse under the weight of these mantras that nobody buys.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
"If you partake, always use a condom that yoy provide ... and after carefully removing said condom, flush it down the toilet so it can't possibily have any of its contents stolen."
That's probably bad for the plumbing.
This campaign is just sort of insulting to people's intelligence. And it's a dumb slogan - it's like "I love food" or "I love sleep". Um, don't most people love or at least like consensual sex?
"Many people really didn’t know the definition of ‘consent’, which probably accounts for some crazy percentage of the date rapes that happen at college parties, so we are also considering legislation that would require campuses to teach the definition of consent."
I have a problem with some law declaring that a college has to teach a certain thing, no matter what that thing is.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
"Um, don't most people love or at least like consensual sex?"
Not at the risk of financial slavery and loss of parenting time.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
I always remember this definition of rape touted on college campuses:
Rape is the feeling of regret - before, during, or after!
December 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
They want to teach people how to ask for what they want, ay? Well, it looks like the feminists are trying to hurt women again. We must understand what would happen if men started asking for consent from women. The word, "no", would be used often, but the word, "yes", would be implied as often or more. Sense women are afraid of being defamed by other women for audibly consenting to sex, I don't see how this campaign would help any. That is unless NOW offers to teach men to understand the subtle sexual signals that women send. Even then, it may not work, simply because human interactions are quite a bit more complicated than asking questions and getting answers.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
..I just spoke with another 19 yr. old boy who was arrested a few months ago over a false rape accussation, The girl made the accussation after her boyfriend found out she was fooling around on him!!
..They held the boy in jail, and the public defender recommended the boy plead guilty to a lessor charge which he did just to get out of jail!!...
Now the girl is now telling her girlfriends the truth, that she lied,
So the boy begs his probation officer to talk with these girls, and the boys probation officer says that if he doesn't assume full responseability for raping her, he's simply going back to jail!!
The probation officer says to the innocent boy, If he brings it up again, that he didn't do it, and heres the proof that she's lying..then he's going back to jail for violating his probation!!
..I'm trying to talk this boy into going to a big media source with his story..But he's afraid, he like all men/boys who never want to talk about a false rape..they just want it to go away!!
..I say until the Rape hysteria and Klan like lynching of innocent men/boys starts to subside...It's only human to tell our young boys the truth....
..If you have sex with a girl, consensual or not...you are now putting you're life in her hands!!
After having sex, she has 30 days to decide whether it was rape or not!!
To not warn our boys is barbaric!!
December 5th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
edit...If you have sex with the girl, consensual is now what she says it is ( she will easilly lie if you don't call the very next morning)...you are putting you're life and future at her disposal!!..And she has 30 days After that intercourse to decide if you raped her!!
December 5th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
You know, sometimes I wonder whether or not, should I get into a sexual relationship, I would occasionally turn her down when she says she's ready for sex, if only to prove the point to her that a woman can't use it to control me. I don't have much of a drive to begin with (why do you think I've survived being a virgin into my college years?), and satisfying my urges is nothing that can't be done almost as well with a hand, some Kleenex, and a good imagination, if you get my drift.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
..One positive thing about this young boys experience is he will live through it!! Now that he's found other men who were falselly accussed, he's finding some comeraderie!!!
And when our "falselly accussed" generation take the steering wheel...you're mis-placed chivalry that is choking my generation by letting girls make false accussations... will be lifted,
And girls/women making false accussations, and causing Klan type violence will go to jail!
December 5th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
I know what you mean all right, Alex!
December 6th, 2007 at 12:40 am
"since all such intimacy is rape according to a number of feminist leaders)?"
"After years of hearing from hardcore feminists that ANY sex between a man and a woman is rape."
Sigh.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Does anyone know the definition of consent that they are using for this particular campaign?
December 6th, 2007 at 10:26 am
MCA:
This young man has no choice. Either he goes public and fights it or he remains a WRONGLY CONVICTED sex offender for the rest of his life.
People randomly kill and injure people who are on sex offender registries, and feel that it is justified regardless of the nature of the actual offense.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3842804&page=1
AN
December 6th, 2007 at 11:23 am
male-friendly feminism of the '70s will come back and replace today's anti-male feminism.
= = = = =
That is funny that is when I was turned off to feminism because that was my encounter mentioned elsewhere on your blogs when I had my first run in with a feminazi who lambasted me for holding a door open for her and accusing me of believing that she was helpless . . .
b
December 6th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
..Alfred, thats exactly right, he doesn't want to stand up because it's like a bad nightmare that just won't go away!!..In our current (re-birth of klan type rape hysteria)..Nobody believes that a man possibbly didn't do it, and she is blatantly lying!!......nobody,..
Missplaced, chivalry is a term we should use to describe the actions of older generations of males who thought they were just "protecting females"..when they allowed anti male propaganda to stir up an almost Klan type anti male hysteria!!.
...My generation who we will call " The falselly accussed" generation are being choked with anti-male hysteria and false accussations ...to the breaking point!!
..we will in fact lift you're perverted sense of missplaced male chivalry....And girls/women that make false accussations will be jailed....
December 14th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
"Male-friendly feminism of the '70's" ??!! Glenn, what planet were you living on? I am 51, and there was NEVER anything "friendly" toward men coming from feminism in my lifetime. There are different types of feminism, you may say. To which I reply, there are different types of bad. By the logical demands of the term, there is nothing for men in or from feminism. There never has been, and there never will be. It is evil and must be exterminated if both women and men are not to lead sad, separated and degraded lives.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Jay, go over and visit this site: http://www.ifeminists.net
Unless you are expecting women to return to the kitchen, you should see a lot from Wendy that you like. She is a pretty good libertarian, and she is cognizant and supportive of men's rights groups.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Lance, thank you. I am very familiar with ifeminists.net, and agree that Wendy and the other commentators there represent a fair and refreshing (albeit still minority) take on things. However, I find any use of the term "feminist" sexist, offensive, and inherently hostile to men, and I wish they would abandon the term for something more postive and accurately descriptive.
As for " Unless you are expecting women to return to the kitchen," I am not sure what you are implying (would that be a bad thing?), but I observe that it is women themselves who are increasingly desperate to find some way to return to the home and family, as feminists, and consumerism, trap them into the role of work drones. To prove themselves the "equals" of men, women have been largely exiled from their traditional domain and the source of much of their actual social power. It is gradually dawning on women that they have made a tragic and terrible trade. In the quest for "independence" from men and motherhood, women have been turned into wage slaves, and men have been turned into women's competitors and adversaries. Their children, meanwhile, have paid the most exorbitant price for women's self-absorption. Now that women have been "freed" of the shackles of motherhood and homemaking, they are beginning to clamor for the right to be mothers, and are desperate to find a way to restore men's eroded trust and affection. Women who don't want to be viewed as nothing more than wannabe men with presumably available vaginas are the ones who are increasingly seeking to turn back the clock, not me. Of course, there is no way to turn back the clock, there is only bearing the ultimate consequences of one's, and one's "sisters' " disastrous choices and Faustian bargains.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Jay: "I find any use of the term "feminist" sexist, offensive, and inherently hostile to men, and I wish they would abandon the term for something more postive and accurately descriptive."
I agree. I would prefer equalist or gender egalitarian.
Jay: "would that (women returning to the kitchen) be a bad thing?"
A resounding YES. Why should anyone be resigned to one vocation or duty purely based upon something they have no choice over: their gender. For instance, my wife and I are both full-time, professional scientists. I would have only married a full time professional. in my experience, professionals are far more rational, far more hard working, and far more respectful of the realities and responsibilities of ones career. It would not have been a thought in my mind to marry anyone but a professional. A different choice would have been fine for a different person, but why should someone other then myself make it for me?
The problem with gender relations today is not that men and women aren't where the belong. It is reconciling the fact that with rights and opportunities comes responsibilities. Anti-feminist organizations such as NOW and chivalrous men both share a lot in common: they believe that women must be protected. Another issue is, depending upon the group, women and men are either looked at as polar opposites of one another with 100% difference, or they are looked at as ~100% similar. Both beliefs are false. Men and women are far more similar then they are different, and most of the perceived differences are generalities not hard-and-fast differences, but the key differences that do exist should be accounted for as well (such as in differences in learning styles and the like). The only hard-and-fast difference is women have vaginas and men have penises - and even that difference is sometimes debatable.
So instead of women's studies classes (or men's studies classes), or other anti-scientific pursuits, the question of gender similarities/differences should only really be discussed and explored within the confines of biology class. Until that occurs, we are going to continue to have people trying to put other people in nice, little boxes instead of allowing all people - all individuals - to explore their potentials based upon their own individual strengths and weaknesses. But to do that, we need to discontinue giving women a free pass when it comes to their responsibilities in a free and equal society.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Another offensive term: "patriarchy" and "male privilege". If either were true, women and men wouldn't live longer then men, men wouldn't be more likely to commit suicide, men/boys wouldn't be dropping out of school in record rates, men wouldn't be (literally) working themselves into the ground for no recognition.
December 16th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
"Another offensive term: "patriarchy" and "male privilege". " So, true, Lance, and especially because these terms are supposed to shame any opposing view into silence, while allowing the fictionalization of history ("herstory," indeed!). But think, haven't the feminists got themselves in a logical bind? If indeed the patriarchy and resulting male privilege do exist, then they are inevitable, and feminism and women's "liberation" is simply a luxurious indulgence we men have allowed our women in this time of relative peace and plenty, and is thus ultimately a farce and a joke on women. If on the other hand, there has never been a patriarchy -- at least not without a corresponding matriarchy, and there has never been male privilege that has not been balanced by female privilege, then feminism is nothing more than a transparent and fraudulent power grab, and men had better learn to defend themselves. You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Jay: "But think, haven't the feminists got themselves in a logical bind?"
That is true - and I think some (perhaps many?) are beginning to realize this and question the "philosophy" of mainstream feminism. As evidenced by the push by some groups to indoctrinate younger women. The fact is many younger women already understand that they have equal opportunity, and they just aren't all that interested in pushing the fight because they feel that it is already won. Hence why NOW et al and the like to create the so-called crises of DV and rape as being galvanizing forces in their struggle to remain relevant. And in so doing they have morphed from being generally equal-minded to female supremacy under a false guise. They in fact work hard - very hard - to keep women as victims. The same can be said for the NAACP and other "movement" groups (which are also beginning to loose favor with minorities as they realize the collective ruse of fear-mongering). By doing so they are providing us with an opportunity. As the poison of female supremacy grows, both men and women will begin to grow weary of the gender wars and women will realize that they are only victims in their own minds.
Perhaps some of this false-victimhood is the realization that with opportunities and rights come very real responsibilities. As these realizations occur, scared NOW-inspired women (and chivalrous men) are trying in vein to hold off these realities. By creating one-sided laws and (false) "respect" through legislation and media efforts, these allied groups are fighting all the harder through deceit and fear.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:04 am
The problem with NOW in particular is the fact that an organization with a worthy cause becomes a monster eventually - and yes, I believe equality of opportunity is a worthy cause. I also believe this is the cause the radical core used to recruit their less radical members.
The pattern is the same as MADD, or any big lobby. They start with something that's a problem no one can argue with (their cause). Like, for MADD, it was people being convicted of many, many drunk driving accidents being released to drive again with relatively little consequence. Around this cause, an organization develops. For the people in this organization, it's not a cause any more - it's a job. They may believe they're doing good things for the world, but the bottom line is their livelihood now depends on the health of the organization. When they have accomplished their goal, for the organization (which is now growing into that monster) to continue to survive, they need to find new frontiers to push their cause. The laws are the tools to do this. Basically, when your enemy is dead, you need a new enemy to justify keeping your army.
BTW, I only used MADD as the example because they have left a much cleaner paper trail where their laws are concerned. I felt that would make what I was saying clearer.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:10 am
[...] In my December blog post California NOW Launches 'I Love Consensual Sex' Campaign, with a dash of cautious optimism I discussed a blog post by Mandy Benson, President of CANOW, [...]