Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up

I doubt Polonnius would advocate I-feminism because of its very strong pro choice stance.


And polinius, I have not officially declared you anything. If you wish to describe yourself as a feminist that is up to you!

Feminism simply asks for equality between genders. If you want that then you are feminist. The argument is how we reach equality and in what form

I consider myself Humanist first. But a liberal, sex positive feminist second because I concede that equality (how I would define it) has not yet been reached.

You're damn right. Catholic teaching opposes killing the unborn, infanticide and euthanasia. Exteme anarchic licence can be pursued with impunity only an a desert island, but in society such notions only create chaos.

Man-made law has included the right to kill Jews (Hitler), businessmen and smallholders (Stalin) and unborn babies (feminists). Human life is the most precious of values and can expect protection only under natural law (called God's law by some).

Again Polonius. Different feminists, different viewpoints.

There are pro life feminists, who would be rather unhappy at your depiction of them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_feminism

It's more than evident that those supporting feminism cannot debate, in specific manner, the issues and facts I've presented. Instead they generalize. I've given Englishman a question on breast funding vs prostate funding but he declined to answer because he can't argue the point made. A couple of women here said they'd have a retort on one of the video's but again, they didn't have an answer; and so it goes. For example:


The comment is meaningless because anyone can say that about anything.

Feminists demand "equality" but not when it suits them. I call that Pick-and-Choose Feminism which seems to dominate in all forms of feminism with the exception of IFeminism which is run by Wendy McElroy. She is as harsh on your standard hypocritical feminist as I am. I spoke with her about 12 years ago and congratulated her on her objectivity which is a virtue lacking in the rest of feminism. One of my links in these threads is hers' where she admonishes feminists who ignore domestic violence against men.

The problem with feminism as I've often reiterated is that its agenda has been advocated and run by misandrists. One of my links quotes a few of their male-bashing comments. It's noticeable that their defenders in this thread try to ignore those quotes. Poor Englishman thought that only 3 female leaders spoke that way (sigh). I've got a couple more for you:

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." ............Catherine Comins, "Vassar College" Dean of Students
Imagine that? It's a positive thing to be falsely accused of rape. Only a feminist can believe that.

"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." Gloria Steinem made that a popular refrain. Certainly brings the sexes together doesn't it?

There is a large litany of such anti-male comments from feminist leaders but I've made the point. Those in charge of the feminist agenda, the leaders who are writers, magazine editors, womens community organizers are the engines that drive feminism so attempting to show differences within feminism is moot.


The minority viewpoints have little impact compared to the hard-cord feminist book industry and lecture tours.


I've given stats from organizations not affiliated with feminist research which is junk science. No one dared to take apart the Feibert Studies because they couldn't. Name-calling does not count. Evidently, people like Wendy McElroy, Erin Pizzey, Dr. Helen Smith (I'll name others if you challenge me) that I've quoted don't count either, even though they are women. The objective Feibert Studies are extensive and come from dozens of different sources not affiliated with each other. That's what makes them unchallenged. csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Studies provided by feminist advocates who first come up with an agenda-driven answer put out their made-up numbers to fit their conclusions.{eg, 1 in 4 women are raped). These are used by those who seem to have a need to feel like victims, um, feminists for instance.

Fair enough.


Fair point as well but you must acknowledge that criticism is just as easily levied against "the other side of the gallery" too.


The kind that attack males in various ways. I'm not going to spend my time keeping up with some silly labels these Liberal Arts types assign themselves.


That is good news. I'll support anyone who's going to honestly work for a healthy balance.
One of the main problems as I've seen it, is that many "human rights" movements tend to accompany fact with emotion. That isn't necessarily a bad thing but an unfortunate spin off of of this is there are people who can't get beyond an emotional response of violation of human rights number x.

I've noticed this is particularly true with the multi-culti troopers and feminists. It's like any idea or program that is flown under those banners gets immediate acceptance. Some people know and see this. They are the Al Sharptons of feminism. There's no filter with these "feminists" so some of us are going to be the f*ckers that p*ss off the mainstream until the mainstream gets itself sorted.

I'll respond to your link next time I reply. (I wonder how many people actually watch the links we all have provided)
Thank you for the first well-thought out reply I've read on this thread.


From your link:
Equality feminism: Focuses on gaining equality between men and women in all domains (work, home, sexuality, law). Argues that women should receive all privileges given to men and that biological differences between men and women do not justify inequality. Most common form of feminism represented in the media.

Essentialist feminism: Focuses on "true" "biological" differences between men and women, arguing that women are essentially different from men but equal in value (i.e.,"separate but equal").

I would hope not one person would be opposed to either of these ideals.
But 23 types of feminism?

Again, as I've previously stated, I have seen the effects in western courtrooms and there is now an imbalance in society which some feminists have brought about.

E.g. A woman recently stomped on her (now deceased) husband's head until he was dead and received a 2-year prison sentence in the UK. I cannot imagine a man receiving the same leniency and cannot imagine the outcry from women's groups if that were to happen under any circumstances. Speculation? Yes. Is it accurate?

Another example of inequality that I would argue has been a result of irrational feminism is now men can actually, by law, be made to pay alimony to children they have not even sired.

As a man, I have good reason to feel threatened by these symptoms of irrational feminism. While neither of those 2 situations are things I should ever have to worry about, they do tell a story of courts that increasingly hold bias against one gender for no rational reason.

Please explain?

Basically if a judge decides that after a divorce or the end of a common-law partnership that a man, despite not being the biological or adoptive father, was perceived as or acted as the father figure to a child then he can be made to pay alimony for that child or children. As far as I know this has happened in the U.S. and the U.K.

I read about these cases a year back and noted women's groups made no outcry about diminished maternal responsibility or even individual responsibility. Now, even when women make incredibly bad life choices, the courts protect them and penalize the man almost exclusively.

There is a small dads' rights movement in Poland which accuses family courts of nearly always favouring women in their rulings. Usually the judges are also women and that ensures judicial 'impartiality' (LOL!)

And now I'm just going to go back to lurking again and rolling my eyes from the sidelines.

Where's the facepalm smiley when you need one?

Gabbi, why not just point out what exactly has got you rolling your eyes. Zimmy has consistently stated that feminists on this thread refuse to engage in specifics and he seems to think you know your logic won't hold up to scrutiny once we get into specifics. So?

There have been a variety of cases with a variety of ways men paid for kids that weren't theirs. They include the man who thought the kids were his while raising them with his unfaithful wife.

How about this? . When young teenage boys have sex with older women, (ages range from 23 to 55). they can still owe child support. Nice link too.

fathersandfamilies.org/2008/08/25/on-courts-ordering-boys-to-pay-child-support-to-women-who-statutorily-raped-them-part-ii

How about this one:
A woman kills 2 boys while she's driving under the influence of narcotics.
A man kills a woman while driving drunk.
Her sentence was 8 out of a maximum 12 years plus a lifetime ban on driving (can she appeal that in 10 years?) and 50, 0000 pln to each family (100,000.00 total).

His sentence was 25 years.
So are the lives of 2 boys only worth, at a combined rate, 30% of 1 woman's life?
Or does she get a lesser sentence simply because she's a woman.
Why do feminists remain so quiet when I say the courts are biased against males.

Will you lot (feminists) at least admit it's true or haven't you the integrity to even do that?

No court can force a man to pay for a child that is not his. The man has to accept the child is his, he may have been tricked but if he can prove this he doesn't have to pay and gets a refund of money already paid plus interest.

One can scrabble around for all sorts of exceptional examples and falsely try to draw comparisons but basically its all bollox and as surreal as the invitation to discuss with youtube.

Its well known that family courts are biased against men and that they usually interpret the term "best needs of the child" as best needs of the mother. Using this as a stick to attack feminism is really clutching at straws because there is a lack of any (other) reasonable argument. Imposing your own personal preference of what a family looks like also lacks a reasonable argument as there are always exceptions and qualifiers to any point of view.

This is another example of feminist hypocrisy. They are clamouring for equality, except ('Animal farm' style) they wish to be more equal than men. Either you're equal or you get preferential treatment. They want it both ways. Examples include:

--lighter sentences for wiomen committing the same crime;
--family courts favouring women in divorce and custody cases;
--parity but only with regards to high-paying, decision-making posts (the men can keep their dirty, danegrous jobs).
--same prizes for poorer sport performance (equality of higher-performance men's and poorer women's divisions).
--more state funding of research on breast cancer than prostate cancer, both of whcih claim roughly the same number of lives each year.
Know fo any other examples?

Do you really see the world in us vs them terms?

This is not about me but about feminism. There are too many PF-ers who launch into ad hominem attacks when they run out of arguments. Justify, explain or overturn the points in the preceding post. They have all come up in the course of this thread, so I have only compiled them.

It's nothing at all to do with feminism you are describing something that doesn't exist in order to pigeon hole the world.

Criticising an individual for that is not ad hominem but instead a valid criticism of circumscribed discussion, a form of "debate" that should be left in the playground.

That's how it should be but that's not how it is. townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2013/03/25/jailed-for-nonpayment-of-child-support--but-its-not-his-child-n1548325/page/full
From the link: "Judges and prosecutors are fully aware of the DNA tests exonerating these men, but still rule against them. They hold men to super high technical standards that are not equally applied against women."

Today, 40 states can still order a man to pay child support even if the children are not his. No woman has (yet) been charged with fraud for lying about who the father is.

people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20138571,00.html

Feminists who demand "equality" somehow are not demanding it when it comes to these sorts of cases. How surprising, eh? As you noted......

That is incorrect. The conclusions you have arrived at as a result need other justification or you should abandon those conclusions.


This is faulty logic. Therefore unjust.


This is not the stick we are using to attack feminism, this is the stick feminists are using to attack men or stand by and let others do it. This is a consequence of not questioning the motives of people who claim to be "doing the right thing" just because they play the victim card. Have you not been paying attention?


Over the past hundreds and hundreds of years, the nuclear family has produced the most stable and productive family unit known to civilization. Based on historical evidence and NOT personal preference, the winning formula for what a strong family looks like has made itself evident. If you argue that then either you know something that some of us don't or you're choosing to ignore the evidence. Which is it?


I don't agree with you on many things but these are all very true observations.

Clever repartees instead of addressing the speicifc issues being raised. Typical of many PF-ers.

Plenty. I prefer to hold my fire until the already stated examples are explained away; such as fathers made to pay child support for kids that aren't theirs or judges ruling that adult women who have sex with 14-year olds are eligible to collect child support from their young victims. That's how upside-down the world has become. Hopefully, it won't be like that after Polish feminists organize. .

Female defenders offeminism as it really ishave fled because they cannot defend the many specific cases of discrimination against men.No mention of health care funding that favors women; no acknowledgment of women committing domestic violence; no talk of all the special women-only programs that benefit women; etc, etc. The record is clear and history will judge this 'mad phase' of feminism harshly.

I've posted the following quote before but its been some time so here it is again. This woman nails it!
"Men in teams subordinated self-sacrificing, disposable got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch mens teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements - a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean spirited to acknowledge."........ Camille Paglia (author , speaker and professor)

All you have demonstrated is that the US has a screwed up public service system cos everyone is screaming about tax dollars and big government.

The articles that you have provided and the supporting links within them don't really tell anyone anything that is not common knowledge ie family courts often secret courts are biased against men.

Within the system that has been established no court can force you to pay for a child that is not yours.


No one has said those things but feel free to argue against them any way.

Would you like to give some reasonable arguments of how feminism damages society? As pointed out above a few exceptional examples and falsely drawn comparisons are all that has been offered plus arguing against imaginary statements.


The logic is not faulty, would you like to demonstrate how family courts are not biased against men?


It is very much your personal preference, women have traditionally raised children in an extended family with men playing a much reduced roll than that imagined by the supporters of the "traditional family".

It was economic reality that made people live in extended families, the industrial revolution that broke the tradition changing the economics to allow the idea of the nuclear family to emerge. Of course the very wealthy could afford to be the masters of their own houses but the reality is that the huge majority of people for the greatest period of time did not live in nuclear families.


Each point you attempted to make has been addressed, you just tried to create a them and us dichotomy

At last you recognise that not all feminists are man-haters! Eventually we'll get you to realise that most feminists are like the woman sitting next to you at work or laying next to you in bed, who like and love men and just want to deal with any remaining impediments that make it harder for them to achieve their full potential and enjoy the same freedoms as men.

No one has admitted as much but even you can probably discern that this is common place among special interest group sympathizers. If you've never considered that then you owe it to yourself to pay closer attention.


A big negative on that one Barney.
No, in no way shape or form has it been my preference that women have traditionally and successfully raised children among the humans over human history. That's nature at work and if you don't believe me then try observing most of the other species we share the planet with. It's one of those things that you should be smart enough not to argue. Now you may be correct in that men and women haven't lived together as husband and wife for that long at all but unless you're suggesting there's a more effective and efficient family unit for society than the nuclear family then so what?


The question at this point is if you're capable of accepting any criticism of feminism. I posted a very good presentation that's roughly half an hour long by Prof. Sommers in which she describes the War Against Boys being waged by society at the behest of selfish and short-sighted feminists:

youtube.com/watch?v=cqOTj9NDv80
Obviously you don't think it a good idea to try and mentally and emotionally sabotage the development of boys just so some women can feel better about themselves so why not speak out against that? Or do you think she hasn't made her points?


You don't understand. I didn't intend to say that "Its well known that family courts are biased against men and that they usually interpret the term "best needs of the child" as best needs of the mother" is incorrect. What I meant for you to understand is that this bias is unfair and when a court of law is unfair then the logic used to arrive at the unfair outcome was and is obviously faulty. The point of a legal system is to promote justice, when if fails to do this then someone or some people have made some bad decisions using faulty logic.

So YES, the logic used by the courts in which a biased has been established against men is faulty.

Seems like many feminist supporters don't accept that. They certainly don't own up to it as demonstrated here. Their silence is very loud. that's because they like the courts to continue to favor them and don't really believe in "equality".


You decided not to look at the linked evidence eh?


You mean aside from demanding funding for women only in a variety of venues ? For example, feminists appeared before Congress to oppose people who wanted funding for mens shelters under the pretext that "it would harm womens needs." Another example is how Title 9 has affected mens sports. Pushed and lauded by feminists, the effect has been a disaster for mens sports in colleges as hundreds have been eliminated so that womens athletics were proportional.

The list of how feminism damages society is extensive but one of the more culturally insidious ways is how feminism has changed language thus affecting how men are now perceived (note how advertisers tip-toe when showing women in advertising). A short list follows:

*Discrimination against men = "equal opportunity"
*Discrimination against women = "discrimination"

*A woman with grievances = "victim"
*A man with grievances = "angry"

*A woman talking about hating men = "empowerment"
*A man talking about hating women = "hate speech"

*A man assaulting a women = "(domestic) violence"
* A woman assaulting a man = "humor"

*Women standing up for themselves = "empowerment"
*Men standing up for themselves = "chauvinism"

.......it's a lengthy list and we've all heard this from the feminist language police. I have to give credit for this small sampling from a much more extensive list to "A Voice For Men".


You are really thick, sorry to say that but you seem to have missed the fact that I've referenced several women who are what I call rebel feminists. They are in the minority but they at least have the virtue of honesty when it comes to their criticisms of feminism. (I met Ms Paglia at a book signing).

I'm still waiting for you to express your thinking on unequal health care funding and why you defend it by your silence.

Of course everyone is open to criticism my point is that no concrete arguments have been presented to show that feminism is harmful to society, I'm not going to discuss with youtube videos or imagined quotes nothing to do with "paying closer attention" which almost always means "agree with me".

The point about extended families was a direct counter to your suggestion that the nuclear family has for thousands of years been the ideal and has produced the most stable environment for humans and feminism harms this mythic ideal Its simply not true and indeed It is your personal preference to have the nuclear family model as the ideal there is nothing natural about it

I still dont get what is the objection to women talking about the best way to organise society


I did look at the links and supporting links that didn't go to the report cited but to yet another op ed piece. One was written by a lawyer who admitted he was often lost in the regulations which wasnt a very good advertisement for any professional opinion he had.

What did come out was the terrible pubic system in the US.

feminism is harmful to society[/quote]
Well there are various strands of feminism, and some are basically forms of women fighting for masculinity rather than feminism, but femininity that is genuinely fighting for equality of the sexes can only be good,{not sure about women having the same sex drive as men bla bla BS etc} Why are nationalist so hung up on feminism in Poland? Do they not love their mammies?

I agree with the school yard statement.

I've given you and others half-a-dozen examples of how feminism (as practiced) is anti-male and therefore harmful to society. You were incapable like some others here to refute in specific manner any of the cases presented. You merely generalize.


I'll respond to this although I am not the one who talked about nuclear families. Since prehistory the common, obviously 'natural' units were those of a man and a woman often with children. In modern times this unit is much more successful than single parent families as evidenced by Dept. of Labor figures.

marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.crimefamstructure.pdf
From the link: "90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes - 32 times the average.
70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes - 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice,
85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. [Center for Disease Control]
"Recent research strongly suggests that family structure is an important predictor of crime and delinquency. Teens and adults raised in single-parent families are at increased risk of committing crimes"


Your premise assumes that's true. Feminists actions speak louder than their words, which often enough are hateful in themselves.


Funny how that "system" only favors women instead of it being random in its mistakes, eh? So something else is obviously going on and (hint) it's related to feminist "political correctness" and privilege.


I've already explained what the dominant view is and how it is presented in books, articles, tv, special womens programs and even in advertising. For example, pro life feminists are a mere thimble to the ocean of pro choice feminists who dominate this narrative.

Or maybe a foreign bridge?
metro.co.uk/2013/07/04/i-pronounce-you-bridge-and-wife-woman-marries-600-year-old-french-bridge-3869214/

That's a shame because the woman who makes the case does so very eloquently yet still in a straightforward manner. You're doing yourself a disservice by ignoring it.


Okay but I think we can still all agree that the "husband & wife + children = makings of a stable family" is rather tried and true formula and it's got a few thousand years behind it.


They can talk all they want but if they say they want equality and then show that what they really want is inequality then they are liars.