misandry (mis'-an'-dre') n. hatred of men. (1) the attribution of negative qualities to the entire male gender. (2) the claim that masculinity is the source of human vices such as domination, violence, oppression, and racism. (3) a sexist assumption that (a) male genes, hormones and physiology, or (b) male cultural nurturing produce war, rape, and physical abuse. (4) the assignment of blame solely to men for humanity's historic evils without including women's responsibility or giving men credit for civilization's achievements. (5) the assumption that any male person is probably domineering, oppressive, violent, sexually abusive, and spiritually immature.
Patrick M. Arnold, Society of Jesuits
Radical feminism
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-108.htm
It is basic to our premises to understand that we are not speaking here of those persons who consider themselves "feminists" because they support equal rights under the rule of law, equal opportunity in employment and education, equal protection under law, and protection from violence for all persons. These positions are supported by those on the right and the left.
As Jim Kalb states on his Anti-Feminism page:
"In place of family ties based on what seems natural and customary, and supported by upbringing and social expectation, [radical] feminism would permit only ties based on contract and idiosyncratic sentiment, with government stepping in when those prove too shaky for serious reliance. There is no reason to suppose the substitution can be made to work, let alone work well, and every reason to expect the contrary. Feminism does not care about reason, however, or even about experience of the effects of weakened family life. It wants what it wants, and that is the end of anything like the traditional relations between men and women. It is thus ideological and radical to the core; there can be no commonsense feminism, because doing what comes naturally gets a [radical] feminist nowhere.
The harsh things that can be said about anarchism and communism can be said with yet more force about [radical] feminism, because the latter seeks to eliminate something that touches us far more deeply than private property or the state. Like the other two ideologies, [radical] feminism can be presented as a lofty and necessary ideal set up in opposition to a long history of dreadful injustice. After all, things like gender that are implicated in all social life are necessarily implicated in all social injustice. Nonetheless, the practical implementation of [radical] feminism, especially by force of law, can only lead to catastrophe. Like anarchism it calls for categorical opposition to authority and hierarchy, and like communism for ceaseless radical reconstruction of all aspects of life, and consequently for absolute bureaucratic domination of society. Both principles are thoroughly destructive, and the fact they contradict each other does not render them harmless................
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-108.htm
*********************************************
Whatever happened to sugar and spice and everything nice?
Carey Roberts
May 10, 2005
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050510
Last week's column, A Rash of Feminist Hate Speech, triggered a spirited debate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1396094/posts
One wag quipped, "What do you suppose would be the reaction if a group of men got together on a college campus and started talking this way about women?" Another opined that Catherine MacKinnon and her crew sound "exactly like the KKK."
Of course, feminists flamed the article, trying to make the case that female bigotry is a justifiable, even courageous act of self-empowerment.
Scary.
A few years ago, Dale O'Leary wrote an article with the provocative title, "Radical Feminism as a Psychological Disorder." Ms. O'Leary concluded that women who are deeply committed to feminist ideology "are seriously psychologically troubled." www.dvmen.org/dv-108.htm
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050510
Patrick M. Arnold, Society of Jesuits
Radical feminism
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-108.htm
It is basic to our premises to understand that we are not speaking here of those persons who consider themselves "feminists" because they support equal rights under the rule of law, equal opportunity in employment and education, equal protection under law, and protection from violence for all persons. These positions are supported by those on the right and the left.
As Jim Kalb states on his Anti-Feminism page:
"In place of family ties based on what seems natural and customary, and supported by upbringing and social expectation, [radical] feminism would permit only ties based on contract and idiosyncratic sentiment, with government stepping in when those prove too shaky for serious reliance. There is no reason to suppose the substitution can be made to work, let alone work well, and every reason to expect the contrary. Feminism does not care about reason, however, or even about experience of the effects of weakened family life. It wants what it wants, and that is the end of anything like the traditional relations between men and women. It is thus ideological and radical to the core; there can be no commonsense feminism, because doing what comes naturally gets a [radical] feminist nowhere.
The harsh things that can be said about anarchism and communism can be said with yet more force about [radical] feminism, because the latter seeks to eliminate something that touches us far more deeply than private property or the state. Like the other two ideologies, [radical] feminism can be presented as a lofty and necessary ideal set up in opposition to a long history of dreadful injustice. After all, things like gender that are implicated in all social life are necessarily implicated in all social injustice. Nonetheless, the practical implementation of [radical] feminism, especially by force of law, can only lead to catastrophe. Like anarchism it calls for categorical opposition to authority and hierarchy, and like communism for ceaseless radical reconstruction of all aspects of life, and consequently for absolute bureaucratic domination of society. Both principles are thoroughly destructive, and the fact they contradict each other does not render them harmless................
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-108.htm
*********************************************
Whatever happened to sugar and spice and everything nice?
Carey Roberts
May 10, 2005
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050510
Last week's column, A Rash of Feminist Hate Speech, triggered a spirited debate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1396094/posts
One wag quipped, "What do you suppose would be the reaction if a group of men got together on a college campus and started talking this way about women?" Another opined that Catherine MacKinnon and her crew sound "exactly like the KKK."
Of course, feminists flamed the article, trying to make the case that female bigotry is a justifiable, even courageous act of self-empowerment.
Scary.
A few years ago, Dale O'Leary wrote an article with the provocative title, "Radical Feminism as a Psychological Disorder." Ms. O'Leary concluded that women who are deeply committed to feminist ideology "are seriously psychologically troubled." www.dvmen.org/dv-108.htm
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050510
Comment