I hear his other 10,000 nieces are models of discretion

I'll sign up! I'll sign up!

This post may upset some of those ardent anti-feminists in the blogosphere.

We'll see, won't we?

"I want to be accepted here, but I feel that everybody's judging me and rejecting me."

Okay, I judge her, too. A little more meat on them bones (and I mean meat, not fat) and I'll stop rejecting her, as well.

Excellent. And then she'll start sleeping at night again . . . ;)

Do you mean anti-feminists or "anti-feminists"?

Hmm. Not sure. I go along with LMA's end analysis that the definition of feminist is so individualized that every person's is unique.

So I think it follows that every definition of anti-feminist is, too.

So being, I'd have to hear your definitions of anti-feminist and *anti-feminist* in order to understand well enough to respond properly.

Eeek! No!

Well, okay: there are (1) people who acknowledge that society has made mistakes under the rubric of feminism, such as taking anti-harassment codes so far that any semblence of humor is removed from the workplace, or reducing lovemaking among college students to a series of yes-or-no questions that each requires an audible answer. ("May I touch your breast?")

Included in this group would be people who simply reject the label, as I did for years (until I decided it was situationally useful in the blogosphere).

These people can be intellectually engaged.

And then there are (2) people like LaShawn, who simply believe women cannot do certain white-collar jobs, like be President. These people should be gently told why their approach is incorrect.

Harder to define would be (3) those heterosexual males who appear to regard women as creatures who exist to (a) gratify their sexual desires, and (b) look good on their arms when they arrive at a party. They should be laughed at.

And then there are (4) those people concentrated in Latin America and—especially—the Middle East who think women should be beaten and kept under house arrest, and heartily engage in honor killings.

It's this last group that the Feminist Mossad will focus on. Their edge in upper-body mass will do them no good, I'm afraid.

Okay. I should have just copied this in in the first place. Here's what I misstated:

"Since I've started blogging I've used the label on occasion—to distinguish myself from conservatives of the LaShawn stripe—but I generally like to remind people that the word feminist has about as many interpretations as there are people hearing the word."

I'd still have to hear what DC's definitions are to answer his question.

Meanwhile, I'll join your brigade in a heartbeat. I can refer to this, under the law, as "self-defense of a third party."

And while this may not be part of your battle plan - to which I would naturally defer - I myself think it could include not just the honor killings, but the not-always-sterile forcible surgery upon young girls to remove their female genitalia.

Of course, at this point, most men and women alike will get so grossed out they don't want to hear about any of it any more.

Is there a word for that? a female equivalent to the male, *emasculated?* Because there are around 100,000,000 women alive who've had that done to them. So I think there ought to be a word for it.

Emasculation, on the other hand, is actually extremely rare.

It displays a profound hatred not just of female sexuality, but simply of those people - via their parts - who are female-by-definition. To me this practice looks like a fitting physical embodiment of the need for feminism.

The rest is levels and degrees.

To pay someone a higher salary for doing the same job as me, just because they've got a penis and I don't, is ridiculous on its face. To have spent thousands of years passing laws and using social and physical pressure (via wife-beating and other violence) to prevent qualified women from practicing jobs that men want, could only indicate that we're at least as good as them at performing those jobs. If we weren't able to do that work, and do it well, we wouldn't be perceived as a competitive threat. Generally speaking, one only tries to control others because of fear.

And murder is the ultimate form of control.

I'm enraged by female genital mutilation, though I understand related violations were perpetrated upon men in the past in order to improve their singing voices.

To tell you the truth, female "circumcision" (there's a euphemism for you) brings out my Old Testament streak.

Male fear of women is complex. There is, I believe, an unconscious tendency to imbue us with near-supernatural powers due to the combo of sexual desire and the fact that we are often caregivers for males in their infancy/childhood. So we're always larger-than-life, desired, and hated for both those things.

Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: One, and it's funny as hell.

Yeah - that actual real male emasculation did and does happen. But even in its heyday I bet there were never anything NEAR 100 million of 'em. The purpose of castrado was preserving a singing voice, not killing off any hope of healthy sexuality. And rumor has it, the boys were often given something of a choice about it. I haven't heard of a single group who gives the female a choice. So I think that's not such a very comparable thing, really.

Men who were castrated to render them unable to have sex with a member of a harem they were guarding comes a little closer. Still, some societies gave those men a choice, too.

The gender group controlling Who Gets The Knife has always been 99.9% or so male. Not female. Females carry out most of the contemporary mutilations of female children, but the rules are made by the men. So male fear of castration should be directed toward other men, not women.

The fear of females emasculating men figuratively, though, is certainly common enough. I've heard those accusations leveled against all sorts of women, under a wide variety of circumstances, all my life. The great majority of them were ludicrous. The ones that held some validity? Those brought out the same rage in me as when it goes the other direction. Why would I think it was OK to be emotionally vicious to a different social group than mine? I think men need liberating too, and always have. Don't they need liberating from that fear?

Complex fear, yes. I think your insight there is right on the money. But I firmly believe DNA desires are at the top of the list. For men to ensure their DNA comes to fruition, one method is to control women, and the use of force is one technique of control. The fear there is, my DNA will get left by the wayside, therefore I must control at least one fruitful woman. Honor killings *off* some of the eligible females, but the remaining females are more easily controlled. They're afraid, and for very good reason.

Of course, for a man to find the right woman to fall in love with is the DNA-passing method I like the best. But me, I'm just a romantic after all.

All the hollering about humorless feminists? Yeah, I've seen 'em be humorless. I don't like much of anything to be humorless, myself. Still, as I said once before, I don't tell dead baby jokes any more. It can be hard to be humorous about murder and mutilation, too.

Yet...the reason mutilation came to mind in this post - sorry I forgot to clarify it before - is this: Among the several ironies of Ms. Dufour's photo shoot for GQ is, it's extremely unlikely that she escaped mutilation herself. If so, then here she is, doing her sexy poses, with no way of ever truly understanding sexuality in the first place.

Now, that light bulb business there is a whole different ball of wax. Funny as hell, and probably entertaining in many other ways for all concerned. (Darrell, are you watching?)

What? Good heavens, *I* still am not entirely clear. My head is still reeling from fillowing JeffG's debate with the "gender feminists" who rejected the "gender feminist" label, preferring to call themselves feminists while disparaging "equity feminists" who disagree with their radical agenda as "anti-feminists".

When *I* think of anti-feminists, it is the Mohammedian sorts I think of.

Oh!

Well then, doesn't that put you right back here in our court?

Most sensible Americans can see why it's really icky to cut off all the women's parts. And why this is a legitimate feminist issue.

One way to winnow out the American women-haters, the serious and scary ones, is to wait for them to come out saying, Well, that's maybe not so bad...It's a quick and easy way for a gal to figure out who her real male friends are.

I've deliberately avoided stopping by that blogstorm. But while it's of little interest to me for my own sake, I can see it could be a courtesy to others to give it a read.

So 'scuse me a minute while I peruse.

Well then, doesn't that put you right back here in our court?

It depends upon the parameters of said court. By the definitions of the "gender feminists" (TRUE feminists), I'm most assuredly "anti-feminist", as theirs is an ideology that is for the most part a subchapter of the radical left. It is not inconceivable that I might consider myself to have a place somewhere at the "equity" feminist table. Which is a pretty radical thought for me, as for many years now I have associated all things "feminist" with the screeching harpies of the male-bashing gender feminist left.

It has been a particular disappointment to me, that where I thought feminism could actually be most useful, these self-appointed "true" feminists seem to want nothing to do with the plight of their sisters in Muslim countries. That's because modern feminism serves the needs of the radical left first and foremost. And encouraging US hegemony in any shape or form for any purpose, however beneficial to a particular subchapter, is *not* on the agenda.

So, as for the feminist Mossad, I say "SIC 'EM!" Their fear and loathing of the west distills down almost completely to their misogyny. It's too bad the left made such a stink over Abu Ghirab--it diminished the power of Lyndie England. Sorry if it offends some folks, but I have to grin inwardly over the thought of what the images of her playing dominatrix on their sorry asses did to their collective scrotums.

Ah, the humanity! The emotional scarring! How many hot, sweltering S&M nightmares did she inspire? Mumbling "yes...yesss" then waking to scream "NO! NO-O!"

Ok, I know that's not how we win friends and influence people, but still. Any society that requires female "circumcision" needs to have its collective sexual psyche raked over the coals. Repeatedly.

Yes, k, I've been "watching" silently, afraid to make myself known. I was going to volunteer to wear one of those overstuffed protective suits for your training sessions. Or to be a suicide bomber for your cause---when you decide that I'm past my "use by" date.

On a serious note, I would guess Ms. Dufour has NOT been circumcised.(I apologize, Ms Dufour, if you are reading this--I know it's none of my business!) Remember that the Bin Laden family as a whole is very Western in their thinking and good allies to the US. Many trained with the US Air Force and I've only heard great things about them--how they helped out guys they served with in a big and generous way when they needed it. For example, flying the wife of one fellow pilot to specialized doctors when she was diagnosed with "inoperable" cancer by military docs and buying them a specially-equipted house for her recovery. Most Muslim men I know love their daughters as much as anyone can and would never think of doing such a thing to her--that's why they come to the US or the UK, among other countries. I'm sure you know the story about the Bin Laden scion taking a Palestinian wife because it was the "thing to do" in some circles...and little Osama(Usama) coming from that.

And by the way, in my experience, the surest way to keep a woman the way the way she was born is to keep her away from her female relatives, especially her grandmother and aunts. I know. You will say that they are using imposing the rules of the male-dominant society...but still...

And about that light bulb thing...I have several readings of that joke in my mind. I'll stipulate that I enjoy them all. Any pics? Sorry!

And didn't Lyndie Englund contend those photos were just posed? (For example, those wires were not connected to a power source...something about her "hippie' parents being 'amateur"(?) collectors of crime scene photos?

Frankly, my issue with Lynddie was her agreeing to anything that involved taking pictures. I really think a lot of the silliness those people engaged in were untrained (and unsupervised, and inappropriate) means of trying to keep people awake at certain times to limit their sleep time and thereby "soften them up" for questioning. Do I have moments of glee at the thought that some of these jokers might be interrogated by Western women? Well . . . . if I did it would be human, right?

But I cannot forgive those stupid quasi-frat kids for the damage they did to the American military.

Re: genital mutilation, I'm not making a strong analogy with the situation vis a vis the castrati, only pointing out that the action isn't unprecedented.

I also think (in addition to what I stated above) that a lot of men have a certain amount of anger at women because we can make babies and they cannot--and I think it goes beyond the issue of making sure that children a man supports are all his own. However, I do agree that the primary goal in female mutilation is to strip the woman of her sexuality, so she won't be motivated to "wander" (and because the culture is hostile to the female body on general principle).

"Honor killings," however, are not limited to women suspected of adultery: some unmarried girls are killed by their fathers or mothers or brothers because they were raped. Or because they were seen in the company of a man in a non-approved situation.

The life of a woman in most Middle Eastern countries--and the Arab and/or Muslim enclaves in some Western countries (especially in Western Europe) is that of a slave.

I guess you could call me a modern-day abolitionist.

DC, I do believe we're in your Mohammedian court - the *our court* of the moment was our focus on the honor-killers and genitalia-destroyers Over There. And it looks like that's exactly the court you'd had in mind yourself. I've shared your disappointment in the lack of our women sticking up for those women since forever, myself. And it stuns me that Americans in general haven't made that connection between their feelings about us and their extreme misogyny.

It also hits hard that for many years, that mutilation was described in American media, documentaries, etc. etc. as *circumcision,* those rare times it was mentioned. Most recently, I saw a piece on a tribe in Africa where the narrator tried (not very hard) to keep the sneer out of his voice as he described how girls would run away or commit suicide to escape getting married. He tut-tutted that there was no reason anyone could unearth for this strange and silly behavior. They showed a scene where a grown woman talked with a bride-to-be about marriage, and said how after she decided not to kill herself over her own impending marriage, it wasn't so bad after all; that she not only came to accept her fate, but a year or two later she kind of liked being married.

I've no doubt that tribe practices female mutilation. This can require a knife to reopen the woman's flesh on her bloody wedding night. I'd want to run away, too.

The times I've heard or read that issue walked around by Americans in the past - and it was largely American males, at least I don't recall any female voices - it was always excused, downplayed, or even held up as sexually *good* for the women. It may have been a National Geographic show where I heard described how so-called *circumcision* lead the women of the group being filmed to want sex all night. See, the tribe had some little saying about it.

The documentarians seem to have missed the point that the women may have been doing that because it was impossible to achieve orgasm with their sex nerves cut off, and so they kept futilely trying all night. When the sun comes up, it's time to give up trying and go to work.

As you already know, I belong to no ideology myself, feminism included, and don't acquiesce in any group's definitions of what it means to be a True Whatever. I guess that means I'm also an anti-hijacker too, for all sides of any issue. That's one big reason I avoid blogstorms. They use that stuff and actually take it seriously, making *points* with it, and so they aren't that interesting to me. "Your opinion isn't valid because you said *x* which means you're not a real *y*..." proves nothing.

But just because there's some ridiculousness going on about Who's the True Believer, Equity or Gender, or whatever, doesn't mean the concept of equality should be tossed out the window. It's one of the founding principles of our country, after all.

The thing about labels and buzzwords is, one needs to learn them in order to communicate, to understand what others mean when they use them in an argument. Yet they're rarely clearly defined. With buzzwords, maybe it's because they're new, as buzzwords are. With labels, maybe because all and sundry anywhere nearby gets swept up and put in that one box. So learning those words only gets you so far in your understanding. It may, in fact, prevent thinking more than help it. And that's contrary to my own primary goal in all this, which is to try to figure out the truth.

You've said, *Sometimes I don't even know what side of the aisle I'm on. Truth is, I'm a Christian libertarian and there is no aisle for me, nor even a party...It is because of humankind's long sordid history of human authority being turned to evil against the people that I am convinced God is a libertarian.*

And just now you said, *It is not inconceivable that I might consider myself to have a place somewhere at the "equity" feminist table. Which is a pretty radical thought for me, as for many years now I have associated all things "feminist" with the screeching harpies of the male-bashing gender feminist left.*

I like all this very much. Recently I see not just you but many people saying, --I'm really not in that box after all, am I?... and then extending the same thought to the *other side* - so that now, SOME disagreers may be listened to, their points given brain-time.

See, those screechers can't hijack small-f feminism, either. Human authority being turned to evil against the people happens on both sides. (Or all three sides, or 18, or whatever.)

And one of the greatest of those evils is the pressure to conform without thinking. Thinking for ourselves means we're fighting back against that evil. Yum!

It really is too bad that our sisters over there are helped so little by us here. OTOH: I'm not so sure they need us all that much. They seem to be doing remarkably well, in small but positive ways, without us. And one thing the feminists over there keep bringing up is that they don't want to go to the counterproductive excesses of Western women.

Meanwhile, back here at home, maybe we can do something to prevent the upsurge in female mutilations among immigrant populations on our own soil. Big problem in Atlanta.

I had a longer post this AM, but your server ate it.

Perhaps the UN could spend more time on this subject(female multilation) then, rather than concentrating on abortion.

Let's just make it clear. You prove yourself to God by confronting temptation and overcoming sin through a combination of willpower and His Aid, not by lopping off body parts associated with the sin. Barring disease or accidents, you are expected to finish your life with the same number of body parts that He gave you. No exceptions! A man that isolates himself from society to avoid sin has proved nothing. You prove your worth by facing the challenges on a continual basis. Be told! Or rather, listen.

I'd say exceptions can be made for appendices and tonsils, possibly the male foreskin [but let's not have that discussion today], and perhaps excess female boobage [my mother did this, and it made her very happy].

Otherwise, we're in agreement.

All your "exceptions' could fall under my general category of 'disease'...but I won't quibble. I like that agreement part.

But doesn't it take three feminists to pry the bulb out of her.... hands?

Yes. My mother is now cured of "Triple-D-itis."

OK. Amend law to read "medical necessity" instead of disease.

Well... I mean yeah, if she were to take up jogging or something...

I think the rationale was that it gave her back problems, but I secretly think she was just tired of lugging them around after 67 years.

I just think it's funny, because all heterosexual men and women of slender build don't understand what a hassle it can be. I'm not complaining, mind you—it's saved me a pretty penny on car repairs and whatnot for three decades, but it sounds like a tempting option for one's sunset years.

And I do resent the fact that it costs more to have 'em lopped off than it does to get 'em "enhanced." Doesn't that seem a bit unfair?

Once you get the medical diagnosis, insurance should cover reduction surgery. Enhancement is another matter, barring medical necessity. And I better say this time, for example, after a mastectomy, or to correct a birth defect. Blog comments should not require precision! Or forethought. Or correct spelling. Or actual humor. I submit the Left side of the Blogosphere as proof.

Of course, some of us just like giving others a hard time.

It's always appreciated.