Man falsely accused of rape released from prison 9 years later

[PeterVenkman]

This may be the single funniest thing you have written.

To be honest, I am feeling attacked and insulted by you. I'm afraid that if I responded even half as rudely as your last reply, then I would be banned from this site and its forums (again). Your final little quip, that it is so funny to you that I believe I am a better person because of my involvement with feminism, is offensive because you have no idea who I am or what I do. Why would you scoff at my honest and heart-felt belief that I am a more understanding and respectful person because of feminism? It's not like you know me well enough to explain why that isn't true...

Regarding Robin Morgan: In the interest of fairness, I humbly request that you actually read the essay that contains this quotation. After reading the entire essay and thinking about it, please come back and tell me if you really truthfully believe she is talking about (1) a husband proposing to have sex with his wife and she agrees, or (2) a wife offering sex to the husband because she is guilty they haven't had sex in a week.

I think you will find that the real point she is trying to make is that it could be considered sexual assault when a woman feels pressured into initiating sex. If fear is the reason why a woman desires sex and not affection and desire, then it can be considered sexual assault. Your examples seem to expose their own gendered assumptions. Your second example of Morganian rape is a wife that offers to have sex with her husband because she feels guilty for not having sex in a week. That example presupposes that the wife "owes" her husband something and feels guilty if she doesn't provide it. The unspoken assumption is that sex is something she does for him, and something she owes him no less, not something she does for herself. I stand by the fact that this quotation seems reasonable to me. If a woman's desire for sex is born out of fear rather than genuine affection and desire, then it's not authentic consensual intercourse.

Regarding Dworkin: I keep reading the entire paragraph you pasted from Intercourse, but I simply cannot draw a line between the earlier misattributed quote and the new paragraphs. In fact, I think the new paragraphs are fairly interesting...after all, one of the fundamental questions of feminism really is whether an occupied people can be free. Although a lot of the penetration analysis sounds more like queer theory / heteronormativity philosophy than feminism. Third wave feminists would take issue with the gender stereotypes present in the quote you provided.

Regarding Griffin: Ultimately, I think you are the one misinterpreting her words. If you actually read any of these books or thought about them seriously without cherry picking quotations that served your argument, I believe you would see that her argument is more nuanced. There is a book called "GUYLAND" by Micheal Kimmel, which I actually disagree with very much, but it is good at showing how the average young man in America follows a "fraternity boy" mentality and valorizes power over women. I believe reading that book, or Griffin's own writings in their entirety, would show that she is not saying what you think she is saying.

They say you should read the scriptures with humility and an open heart. It doesn't seem to me that you are approaching any of these texts with humility or an open heart. Indeed, you view them as a source of evil when they have actually been a vehicle for equality and happiness for millions of people. You say that my interpretations are "pathetic" and "indefensible", but I think I have actually done a good job trying to understand those quotations and think about them in context.

So we have different experiences. I've shared some of my experiences working in the feminist movement to support my argument. Maybe you could share some of these experiences where you were attacked by mobs of angry women who demanded your head because of your sex so I could better understand where you are coming from...then I could understand how both of our perspectives have been validated by our personal experiences.

I don't like totalizing claims about feminism, and I've questioned your use of totalizing claims. You treat the entire movement as if it has a cohesive structure and message, when in reality feminism is a collection of movements with infighting and disagreements about every virtually every aspect of their ideology. I feel comfortable summarizing third wave feminist arguments because they are a cohesive sub-group within feminism.

Regarding Abortion: I am pro-choice, along with many other feminists. But that's not what this thread is about and feminism cannot be reduced to a stance on abortion. It is so much more than that. The truth is that there have always (and always will be) feminists who are pro-life. There have always (and always will be) disagreements within feminism, but all agree that gender is an important order in the world and it has the power to cause pain and oppression in a myriad of ways.

Regarding the girl and father that is the topic of the thread: In truth I don't know what happened, and neither do you. I can hypothesize all I want about that case, but my objection is not with the news story, my objection is to your characterization of feminism. The attitude with which you have made your arguments doesn't help.

[MarginOfError]

Shows how well you do in getting things straight. More or less what I expected from you.

Peter refuses to acknowledge the open hostility toward men in the quotes I provided. I wonder* why you aren't taking him to task for that?

*I don't really wonder.

Too bad

This sums it up

Ultimately, I think you are the one misinterpreting her words. If you actually read any of these books or thought about them seriously without cherry picking quotations that served your argument, I believe you would see that her argument is more nuanced.

So when you decide to acknowledge that there is more than one way to view and interpret the world than just the way of Vort, we can have a real discussion.

Until then, I'll refrain from having much involvement in the Vort-wants-to-argue-not-discuss show.

[NeuroTypical]

I wonder - could it be possible for Venkman to admit that some feminists hate men and think all sex is rape? Could it be poasible for Vort to admit that some feminists neither hate men nor think all sex is rape?

I mean, I don't really care one way or the other if either of you ever budge an inch or not. But it might make it easier for y'all to live on the same planet as the other...

[Bini]

I wonder - could it be possible for Venkman to admit that some feminists hate men and think all sex is rape? Could it be poasible for Vort to admit that some feminists neither hate men nor think all sex is rape?

I mean, I don't really care one way or the other if either of you ever budge an inch or not. But it might make it easier for y'all to live on the same planet as the other...

I think Peter's most recent post gives an example in how there are differences of opinion within the feminist movement. Some are pro-choice, some are pro-life. As he openly states, there are and always will be disagreements within feminism - this is true with every group. So with that in mind, it would make sense to conclude that some feminists hate men and some feminists don't.

[bytor2112]

Some feminists would like Vort...some Peter....some neither

[Bini]

Some feminists would like Vort...some Peter....some neither

I logged in just to hit the Laugh button :]

ETA. Nice job with the rhyming too. *thumbs up*

[Vort]

Marilyn French was the feminist who actually wrote the words "All men are rapists," putting the words into the mouth of Mira, the heroine and principle character of her first novel, The Women's Room. French herself freely admitted, "There is nothing in the book I've not felt." So your claim that "A majority of my academic work focuses on feminism and I have never in my life come across a feminist who made this claim" suggests you have important deficiencies in your knowledge of an area you profess to be learned in.

You have pointedly avoided responding to the majority of what I wrote. I will respond to you, but first I will attempt to summarize the points I brought up and that you failed to address; I am sure it was mere oversight on your part that you accidentally forgot to respond to them.

• You claim to be a lawyer. Analyze this sentence, hereafter referred to as Morgan's definition of 'rape':

"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."

Based on your lawyerly parsing of this statement, tell me whether the following would qualify under Morgan's definition of 'rape' and provide your analysis as I will provide mine:

• A husband proposes sex to his wife, and she agrees.

VORT'S ANALYSIS: Because the wife did not initiate sexual intercourse, by Morgan's definition of 'rape' she has been raped.

• A wife proposes sex to her husband because she feels guilty about not having had sex in a week.

VORT'S ANALYSIS: Because the wife did not initiate sexual intercourse "out of her own genuine affection or desire" but rather because of guilt (misplaced or otherwise), by Morgan's definition of 'rape' she has been raped.

This, of course, is EXACTLY how "rape" will be interpreted by those who read her book and attempt to apply what she wrote. Or do you seriously believe that Morgan was too stupid to write her ideas clearly, and that she just accidentally blundered into the way she put it?

• You are seriously, truthfully arguing that, since Griffin said that the only difference between a "professional rapist" (didn't realize there were men paid to rape) and your average everyday heterosexual man is one of degree, not type, that she is therefore saying that they are of a different species?
• Consider the Brownmiller quotation:

[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear

Given Brownmiller's use of the words "all men", how do you argue that she was merely defining "rape" and not in fact targeting "all men" with her definition of rape?

• How is your experience with feminism and feminists any more valid than mine?
• What happened to your disdain of "totalizing claims"? Or do those rules only apply to those who don't buy into your political agenda?
• If modern feminism does not demand a pro-abortion belief for full inclusion, why are the only two examples you provide of "pro-life feminists" from the century before last?

PeterVenkman said:

To be honest, I am feeling attacked and insulted by you. I'm afraid that if I responded even half as rudely as your last reply, then I would be banned from this site and its forums (again). Your final little quip, that it is so funny to you that I believe I am a better person because of my involvement with feminism, is offensive because you have no idea who I am or what I do.

All I know about you is what I see on this list, mostly based on our exchange. Here is what I have seen of you:

Feminism has taught me to respect other people and care for others.

Like you respect and care for the father who served almost a decade in federal prison for a crime he did not commit, based on the lies told by (gasp) a woman?

Or are you going to continue to insist that we do not and cannot know what "really" happened because the daughter said one thing as an eleven-year-old and another as a twenty-three-year-old, and therefore this isn't really an example of a woman lying about rape?

Please tell me, in all sincerity: If you are so compassionate and fair-minded, why were you not hollering for people not to rush to judgment about the supposedly "rapist" father in the days, weeks, and years before the daughter recanted her false testimony? Are you currently urging your feminist colleagues to withhold judgment from convicted rapists because they don't know what actually happened?

PeterVenkman said:

Why would you scoff at my honest and heart-felt belief that I am a more understanding and respectful person because of feminism? It's not like you know me well enough to explain why that isn't true...

I do not scoff at it, I disbelieve it, based on your unbelievably callous attitude toward the falsely accused father who rotten in jail for nine years based on the lies of an eleven-year-old.

PeterVenkman said:

Regarding Robin Morgan: In the interest of fairness, I humbly request that you actually read the essay that contains this quotation. After reading the entire essay and thinking about it, please come back and tell me if you really truthfully believe she is talking about (1) a husband proposing to have sex with his wife and she agrees, or (2) a wife offering sex to the husband because she is guilty they haven't had sex in a week.

Why? She said what she said.

Let's suppose I said, "All women are whores". Then at some later point, I said, "Well, I didn't actually mean that all women are whores. I meant that such-and-such women are whores."

Would you accept that as a reasonable explanation? And when feminists proceeded to quote me as having said, "All women are whores," would you quickly correct them and say, "Well, now, you know, Vort clearly did not mean that"?

I thought not.

PeterVenkman said:

If a woman's desire for sex is born out of fear rather than genuine affection and desire, then it's not authentic consensual intercourse.

And therefore rape. Even if the woman's fear is not of her husband, but of societal norms that tell her it's abnormal to have sex less than once or twice a week. In your mind, and Morgan's, she is still the victim of rape.

Or, again, are you arguing that poor Ms. Morgan simply is not intelligent enough to write what she actually believes?

PeterVenkman said:

Regarding Dworkin: I keep reading the entire paragraph you pasted from Intercourse, but I simply cannot draw a line between the earlier misattributed quote and the new paragraphs.

Would you like me to spell it out for you? I thought the correspondence was so obvious as to be quickly apparent to anyone who read it, but if it is not, I can elucidate.

PeterVenkman said:

Regarding Griffin: Ultimately, I think you are the one misinterpreting her words. If you actually read any of these books or thought about them seriously without cherry picking quotations that served your argument, I believe you would see that her argument is more nuanced.

Here are her words:

"If the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference."

My interpretation of this sentence is that the difference between a "professional rapist" and an "average dominant heterosexual [male]" is one of quantity, not of quality. In other words, they are of the same essential type, only differing in quantity of expression. Please point out where my interpretation has gone awry.

PeterVenkman said:

They say you should read the scriptures with humility and an open heart. It doesn't seem to me that you are approaching any of these texts with humility or an open heart.

Perhaps because they are not holy scripture.

PeterVenkman said:

Indeed, you view them as a source of evil when they have actually been a vehicle for equality and happiness for millions of people.

Can you demonstrate in any sort of convincing manner that these specific quotations and works "have actually been a vehicle for equality and happiness for millions of people"? Because I disbelieve that claim.

PeterVenkman said:

So we have different experiences. I've shared some of my experiences working in the feminist movement to support my argument. Maybe you could share some of these experiences where you were attacked by mobs of angry women who demanded your head because of your sex so I could better understand where you are coming from...then I could understand how both of our perspectives have been validated by our personal experiences.

Okay.

Feminists have told me that I am a rapist because I am a man. (I was married and sexually active at the time, so of course they were accusing me of raping my wife. Had I been unmarried and celibate, I have little doubt they would still have painted me as such.)

Feminists have told my sons that they are worth less than the girls around them because they are men. (In fact, some in the Church have told them that, but that is another issue.)

Feminists have decried the nuclear family as a sexist institution that must be abolished and have sought to normalize "alternative lifestyles", thus undermining the sanctity of the nuclear family that they hate.

Feminists have continued insisting that women are underpaid even as their income, when corrected for experience, education, training, and seniority, actually exceeds that of men.

Feminists have promulgated philosophies that have resulted in inequitable hiring practices, such that I have witnessed less-qualified women hired for a job over more-qualified men solely due to sex. I suspect but cannot prove that this has actually happened to me in at least one case, but I know from personal experience that it does happen.

PeterVenkman said:

I don't like totalizing claims about feminism, and I've questioned your use of totalizing claims.

And yet you make similar claims, speaking for all feminists. How do you justify such an inconsistent attitude, where you excoriate me for engaging in exactly the same behavior that you yourself do?

PeterVenkman said:

Regarding Abortion: I am pro-choice, along with many other feminists. But that's not what this thread is about and feminism cannot be reduced to a stance on abortion.

And it is not honest of you to pretend that it has been so reduced. No one suggested that feminism is synonymous with pro-abortion rights. But when your examples of influential pro-life feminists consists of two nineteenth-century figures, that says a very great deal.

PeterVenkman said:

Regarding the girl and father that is the topic of the thread: In truth I don't know what happened, and neither do you.

In the sense that I do not know if you are a real person or if Antarctica is where the south pole is, I agree. But any reasonable and unbiased person knows beyond reasonable doubt that this young woman, as a girl, lied about her father's activity. It is appalling to me that you are even now unwilling to admit that she outright lied about being raped. I understand why you refuse: It's a cardinal rule of feminism to insist that Women Do Not Lie About Rape. But it's also false, and you should have the integrity to admit it when it's shown.

PeterVenkman said:

I can hypothesize all I want about that case, but my objection is not with the news story, my objection is to your characterization of feminism. The attitude with which you have made your arguments doesn't help.

I believe so-called "feminism" is one of the truly great evils of our time. I recognize and acknowledge that I believe some things in society to be better, in part because of the efforts of self-proclaimed "feminists". I also see a great deal of harm that they have wreaked. On the whole, I think they have done far more harm than good.

Here is a perfect example of a girl whose false allegation of "rape" -- against her own father! -- resulted in an innocent man being sent to prison for almost a decade. Yet EVEN AFTER SHE ADMITS TO LYING, you still refuse to acknowledge that an innocent man spent almost a decade in prison over a false allegation of rape. Instead, you prevaricate with statements like, "I don't know what happened and neither do you."

Yet if a man admitted to raping a woman ten years earlier, would you then say, "Hey, we don't know what really happened"? Or would you immediately claim to know the truth -- that he had raped her?

It is this sort of deep dishonesty that I perceive to which I object.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Vort

[guast]

Yes, and there is nothing to discourage them from making the false claims in the first place. I realize this girl was a child when she made the accusations, but there are plenty of women who make false accusations--Duke Lacrosse players, anyone?

Not true. It's a case-by-case thing and depends on a lot of factors but there are certainly laws against these kinds of laws. I prosecuted a woman who lied about something much less significant than rape which resulted in a man sitting in jail for 40-50 days until it came to light she had lied. I sent her to prison.

(I just realized that I must have posted this in the wrong thread - I meant to post this in the thread about the article concerning the wrongful rape accusation, not the "Vort vs. Feminism" thread)

Edited April 6, 2012 by guast

[PeterVenkman]

A few quick thoughts:

1. @MoE, Loudmouth Mormon, Bini, Bytor:

I truly appreciate your input on the issue and I am open to your discussion. You are right that it would be irresponsible of me to question totalizing claims while at the same time making totalizing claims in defense of feminism. I do defend the discipline because, as a whole, it has done a lot of good in the world, but I can also admit that there are some radical people within feminism that are rigid and unproductive (just like in any group). There are a group of quotations at play in my conversation with Vort which I think were taken out of context because they were written by people that simply don't believe that all men are rapists. That doesn't mean such quotations don't exist. For example:

"sex is part of a package that includes love, security, and emotional support; giving up sex would result in giving up all this . . . women in this culture can never freely consent to sex." - Sex, Power and Conflict(1996), David Buss, Pg. 125

This sort of perspective is very rare within the discipline, but it is a more accurate reflection of an unproductive element of feminism than the examples Vort has provided. I strongly disagree with the claim that feminism is evil. Part of the whole project of feminism is consciousness raising, and I feel I have a duty to respond when opponents of feminism try to persuade others that it is bad. That does not mean that I agree with every feminist author or subscribe to every feminist belief.

2. @Vort

I feel that as this conversation progresses it becomes narrower and morphs into something else. For example, there are many times in your response when you say my "absolute refusal" to accept the father's victimhood or the injustice of this case is terrible/bad/disgusting/etc. but I never said he should be in jail for a crime he didn't commit, or that he should be punished in any way if he was innocent. I've intentionally tried to stay away from talking about the facts of this case precisely because I don't know what happened. However, I do have a hard time believing than an 11 year old concocted a sophisticated psychological plan and story to frame her father. Other than that, I have no idea what happened.

Just remember our original positions please. You said feminism was "vomitous" and a main source of all of the evil in the world. It was a totalizing claim about an entire discipline of thought which generally advocates equality. I disagreed with your characterization that feminists believe "all men are rapists." YOU provided quotations from 4 people that you think show feminists believe all men are rapists. I've explained why I think you are misinterpreting the intended meaning by the authors, and I am confident that anyone who has spent some time actually reading feminist literature would agree. However, you keep trying to stick me to these quotations as if they are a core tenet of my beliefs within the feminist movement and they certainly are not. I'd be happy to talk with you about the feminist beliefs that really resonate with me if you are interested.

Marilyn French . . . suggests you have important deficiencies in your knowledge of an area you profess to be learned in.

I guess you are right. I haven't read The Women's Room by Marilyn French, therefore I have important deficiencies in my knowledge of feminism and cannot speak on behalf of the movement. That is silly. Can you tell me more about the book? What is it about? Is there some surrounding context that might make the heroine of the novel speak those words?

You claim to be a lawyer. Analyze Morgan's definition of 'rape'

My interpretation of that sentence is that rape occurs when there is no consent for sexual intercourse. The consent must derive from the woman's genuine affection and desire. Consent derived from threats, intimidation, physical force, fear, or leverage do not qualify as consent derived from genuine affection and desire.

Now, you'll say: "but what about the word 'initiated' and I will say, "the word initiated is used here because Morgan is making the argument that rape can occur even if the woman initiates the sexual encounter because that initiation was conducted out of fear rather than affection. The idea that no man may initiate consensual sexual contact without committing rape is the converse of the intended meaning of this quote, it is not her argument."

• A husband proposes sex to his wife, and she agrees.

Venkman's analysis: my initial reaction is that this is not rape. However, we might need more information. Why does she agree? Is it because of genuine affection and desire? Or is it because of threats or intimidation?

• A wife proposes sex to her husband because she feels guilty about not having had sex in a week.

Venkman's Analysis: Based on my interpretation of the Morgan quote, yes. Guilting someone into having sex with you is sexual assault. If you don't want to do it and you are pressured to do it, then it is rape. Psychological intimidation is definitely a cause of rape.

This, of course, is EXACTLY how "rape" will be interpreted by those who read her book and attempt to apply what she wrote. Or do you seriously believe that Morgan was too stupid to write her ideas clearly, and that she just accidentally blundered into the way she put it?

I do not believe that Morgan was too stupid to write her ideas clearly, nor do I believe she blundered into her argument. I think she is making a larger argument about desire and sex and social forces and the power dynamics that gender creates in relationships. I believe she is making a larger argument about women's liberation and empowerment. Namely, that women should choose to have sex when they want to have sex, and not be led to believe that it is something they owe to their partners or are obligated to "provide".

You are seriously, truthfully arguing that, since Griffin said that the only difference between a "professional rapist" (didn't realize there were men paid to rape) and your average everyday heterosexual man is one of degree, not type, that she is therefore saying that they are of a different species?

Yes, but now we are in a different vein of feminism, which is important. This is eco-feminism. In this context, there are some people that feed on masculinity. They breathe it in and project it everywhere. Gendered power is like a drug to some people, and it is sedimented with compulsive and repetitious behavior. Masculine power drives some people to commit sexual assault. Masculine power exists within all of us (male and female), as does feminine power. The professional rapist does not get paid to rape, but the professional rapist is someone who is addicted to masculine power like an alcoholic. Your average everyday heterosexual man is more like the light drinker, who has some masculine power now and then (get in a fight, take advantage of someone or intimidate them), but generally rejects an intensity of masculine power that leads to rape. There's a brightline...clearly indicating that not all men are rapists.

Given Brownmiller's use of the words "all men", how do you argue that she was merely defining "rape" and not in fact targeting "all men" with her definition of rape?

This is more of a second-wave phenomenon but it involves the use of gender categories. She is using "all men" and "all women" to get you to think about gender categories, which is a social (group) manifestation of gender. She says rape is a conscious form of intimidation by which the category of men keep the category of women in fear. In other words, her argument here is that the existence of rape is a way of creating a culture of fear in women. The cultural possibility that any man could be a rapist creates a foundation for fear. Indeed, most sexual assaults are committed by people that are close to the victim. Friends, neighbors, parents. The fear that is engendered by this narrative can then be used to support other related gender narratives, like masculine protection of femininity against threats. This type of argument only says fear is created by the fact that anyone could be a potential rapist. It does not say that all men are going to do it.

How is your experience with feminism and feminists any more valid than mine?

My experience is not any more valid than yours. I asked you to share your personal experiences. But the flip side is also true...your experience is also not any more valid than my own. Our personal experiences are counter-points. Other people will have to make up their minds on other grounds.

What happened to your disdain of "totalizing claims"? Or do those rules only apply to those who don't buy into your political agenda?

Well, I don't think it qualifies as a totalizing claim to say that third wave feminists would be skeptical of the use of gender stereotypes, which is where this accusation of yours came from. Let me give you a different example. I feel comfortable saying that marxist feminists do not like capitalism, because it is specific enough that it is not an over-generalization. However, I would consider it a totalizing claim to say that all feminists are anti-capitalists because that is not even close to true. I guess its a judgment call, and you can call it subjective if you want, but I think you've made totalizing claims about feminism, while I've tried my best to draw important distinctions.

If modern feminism does not demand a pro-abortion belief for full inclusion, why are the only two examples you provide of "pro-life feminists" from the century before last?

1. Just because they are from the First Wave does not mean they are insignificant or irrelevant to the movement.

2. Abortion is a very complicated moral issue, and there are feminists on all angles of the debate. Ultimately, the one place where most feminists tend to agree is not on the morality of abortion, but on bodily integrity and a woman's right to make decisions that affect her body and life. Most feminists in the discipline understand how sensitive complex abortion is, and choose to stay away from the moral judgment, narrowing the conversation to women's rights. It is certainly a site of major self-reflection for many feminists though.

Like you respect and care for the father who served almost a decade in federal prison for a crime he did not commit, based on the lies told by (gasp) a woman?

See above. I never said I didn't have respect or care for that man. I never said he should spend time in jail for a crime he didn't commit. To be honest, I agree with the very first point you made before this whole debate about feminism...assuming the facts of the story are accurate, what happened to him was terrible, but the woman should not be imprisoned for righting a wrong she committed when she was 11 years old.

Or are you going to continue to insist that we do not and cannot know what "really" happened because the daughter said one thing as an eleven-year-old and another as a twenty-three-year-old, and therefore this isn't really an example of a woman lying about rape?

I have no idea what happened in that case, and I won't presume to know what happened.

If you are so compassionate and fair-minded, why were you not hollering for people not to rush to judgment about the supposedly "rapist" father

As a general rule, when it comes to my opinion and belief about an occurrence, I tend to side with the victim. Maybe its feminist weakness, maybe it was being made fun of as a child, but I would prefer to stand with the victim when provided with 2 different stories about something that caused pain to someone. This is not to say I am not open to some evidence that changes the story. It's just my default position, and I'm ok with that.

I do not scoff at it, I disbelieve it, based on your unbelievably callous attitude toward the falsely accused father who rotten in jail for nine years based on the lies of an eleven-year-old.

This is just silly. I challenge you to find any place in my posts where I was "unbelievably callous" toward the father. I said it may be more complicated than it seems. If you consider that "unbelievably callous" then whatever.

Why? She said what she said.

But she also said a lot more before and after that part.

Let's suppose I said, "All women are whores". Then at some later point, I said, "Well, I didn't actually mean that all women are whores. I meant that such-and-such women are whores."

I thought not.

You are jumping the gun with a bad example. We are talking about a quotation in context of a larger essay or book, not a later explanation of a gaffe. For example:

Let's suppose you said: "The guy in the corner just told me that all men are rapists."

then someone heard you say that, and attributed the statement "all men are rapists" to you, when you only spoke it aloud to attribute it to someone else?

Or let's suppose you said: "At first glance, the amount of patriarchy that controls society may make it look like all men are rapists. However, feminist consciousness raising creates a hope for change."

then someone heard you say that and erased everything but "all men are rapists"

Do you see how context is important here?

again, are you arguing that poor Ms. Morgan simply is not intelligent enough to write what she actually believes?

Answered above already

I thought the correspondence was so obvious as to be quickly apparent to anyone who read it, but if it is not, I can elucidate.

Please do, I am intrigued to hear your intellectual analysis of her arguments about penetration. Like I said, her argument here seems more like queer theory, which isn't really what this conversation is about, but it is intriguing nonetheless.

My interpretation of this sentence is that the difference between a "professional rapist" and an "average dominant heterosexual [male]" is one of quantity, not of quality. In other words, they are of the same essential type, only differing in quantity of expression. Please point out where my interpretation has gone awry.

Answered above. See my alcoholic example.

Perhaps because they are not holy scripture.

I try to approach almost all ideas with humility and an open mind. The world is a weird and exciting place if you open yourself up to it. I know of no scripture that says you should not encounter new ideas with curiosity and rigor.

Can you demonstrate in any sort of convincing manner that these specific quotations and works "have actually been a vehicle for equality and happiness for millions of people"? Because I disbelieve that claim.

I never said they did. My claim about equality and happiness was about the feminist movement, not your 4 quotations. I do believe that feminism as a whole has been a vehicle for equality and happiness for millions of people. I will provide more examples if you'd like.

Feminists have told me ... I suspect but cannot prove that this has actually happened to me in at least one case, but I know from personal experience that it does happen.

You've mixed personal experiences of your interactions with self-proclaimed feminists with arguments about the damage you think feminism has caused, and I think the two should be separate. For example, I have no right or ability to question your personal experiences or your sons' experiences, but the nuclear family / alternative lifestyles, income disparity and hiring practices arguments are threads in and of themselves. I am happy to have a separate conversation with you about each of those issues if you are interested, because I am passionate about each of them.

And yet you make similar claims, speaking for all feminists. How do you justify such an inconsistent attitude, where you excoriate me for engaging in exactly the same behavior that you yourself do?

We went over this one already. Specificity negates totalizing claims.

And it is not honest of you to pretend that it has been so reduced. No one suggested that feminism is synonymous with pro-abortion rights. But when your examples of influential pro-life feminists consists of two nineteenth-century figures, that says a very great deal.

Been over this one already too. See above conversation about abortion.

In the sense that I do not know if you are a real person or if Antarctica is where the south pole is, I agree. But any reasonable and unbiased person knows beyond reasonable doubt that this young woman, as a girl, lied about her father's activity. It is appalling to me that you are even now unwilling to admit that she outright lied about being raped. I understand why you refuse: It's a cardinal rule of feminism to insist that Women Do Not Lie About Rape. But it's also false, and you should have the integrity to admit it when it's shown.

I have no idea if she lied about being raped. I have no idea if she lied then or if she is lying now. But it is silly to say any reasonable and unbiased person could see the facts, because we weren't there and we don't have them. I am not refusing because of the principles of feminism, I'm refusing because I wasn't there and I don't have any evidence at all to make a judgment call.

I believe so-called "feminism" is one of the truly great evils of our time. I recognize and acknowledge that I believe some things in society to be better, in part because of the efforts of self-proclaimed "feminists". I also see a great deal of harm that they have wreaked. On the whole, I think they have done far more harm than good.

That's really too bad. I've watched it change people's lives and inspire them to be amazing people. I've seen feminist literature help people understand the nature of their suffering and develop methods for coping with the pain. I've watched people that were exposed to feminism learn how to compromise, and be more thoughtful and reflective about the power that gender wields.

Yet if a man admitted to raping a woman ten years earlier, would you then say, "Hey, we don't know what really happened"? Or would you immediately claim to know the truth -- that he had raped her?

Why would someone do that? I can tell you the difference, and why I would claim to know the truth, through an example:

One exception to the hearsay rule is the statement against interest. If someone says something that makes them legally liable for a crime, that statement bypasses the hearsay rule. Why? Because we don't expect people to make statements that incriminate themselves. If you have nothing to gain from making a statement like admitting to a rape 10 years ago, why on earth would you lie about something like that?

I sincerely hope that I haven't failed to address any of the points that you have brought up. The oversight on my part cannot be overlooked. Please let me know if this response is comprehensive enough to help you understand my position.

[JudoMinja]

First off, I want to say that I have really enjoyed reading over this conversation. It has provided a rather enlightening view of many details about feminism which I've never personally studied. I can frankly understand both views, because my feelings about the feminist movement lie somewhere in the middle here. There are some areas where I'm agreeing with Vort and some where I'm agreeing with Pete.

I personally feel that the feminist movement started as a good thing. I believe that there was some very serious inequality and that advocating for lawful support to remove this inequality was a good idea. Because of the feminist movement, I can vote, I can enter the work force, I can get an education, I can get more support should I find myself in an oppressive situation, and it is far easier for me to have an "equal voice" among peers.

However, I also feel that with time this movement has become warped. After pushing for and receiving such necessary measures to ensure woman's equal standing with man, feminists continued to push for more and more that was completely unnecessary- some of them very hatefully. Instead of a society where men and women can stand as equals, it seems to me that feminists in general and as a group are pushing for a matriarchal society. Angry and bitter towards men for the oppressions of history, women are pushing to get back at them and put them under the very same oppression.

While much of what has come from the feminist movement has been good, there has also been much bad. Like, for example, the growth of alternative lifestyles. Certainly we need to be compassionate and understanding of those who live alternate lifestyles through necessity and make sure they have the equal opportunities to provide for their families, but when these lifestyles are sought out simply because women do not feel they are getting their chance to "live" or be "fulfilled" because they are stuck at home while their husband works... then they have a very warped understanding of what it means to live. Families are falling apart and the feminist movement is at least partially responsible.

In general, I've found that those who label themselves "feminist" in todays world are those who take extreme views and think that anyone who advocates for traditional roles is either striving to be oppressive (if male) or too oppressed to understand her "rights" (if female). Perhaps this is because most of the feminists I've talked to are those who wish to voice complaints about the Priesthood not being given to women... but I can understand why the word feminism carries such an "evil" taint when looking at it in the context of current usage as opposed to historical.

I believe in equality and womens rights.... as well as rights for men, children, blacks, whites, Jews, Muslims, etc, etc. Unfortunately, I think that groups that focus on the rights of only one of these fail in their efforts to continue seeking "equality" because they are putting those rights for which they are advocating over the rights of anyone else.

Now, I want to take a moment to respond to one specific thing from the Pete/Vort conversation that caught my attention:

Guilting someone into having sex with you is sexual assault. If you don't want to do it and you are pressured to do it, then it is rape. Psychological intimidation is definitely a cause of rape.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. If I applied this definition of rape to my past situation with my ex, then just about every time I had intercourse with him I was raped. If I applied this definition of rape to my parents relationship, then just about every time they've had intercourse my mother was raped. This is far too loose a definition.

While coersion is most certainly wrong, while I consider it very wrong to use tactics like intimidation to obtain ones desired goals, I don't think that consenting to sex when you are pressured into it constitutes rape. Sure there are some cases where this holds true- where the "pressure" was extreme enough that the individual felt they really had no choice but to go through with it. But something as simple as consenting out of guilt? Come on.

This is one of the points where I begin seeing a problem with the current feminist views. I think it would be almost impossible to find a man who, under this definition, was not guilty of rape on at least one occassion. And he wouldn't even know he was guilty if the woman never said anything to stop him. That is just absolutely and profoundly rediculous.

I believe that once a person consents they've lost the priviledge of being able to cry rape.

[Vort]

You are right that it would be irresponsible of me to question totalizing claims while at the same time making totalizing claims in defense of feminism.

Then why are you doing so?

There are a group of quotations at play in my conversation with Vort which I think were taken out of context because they were written by people that simply don't believe that all men are rapists.

This is untrue. I said that it is a tenet of feminist theology. I never claimed they believed it -- though I am sure some do. I do not find truthfulness to be a distinguishing quality of feminism.

I strongly disagree with the claim that feminism is evil.

Not sure I understand. So you disagree with me. Therefore...?

You demanded of me that I state which feminist authors made such claims. I did so. Your attempt to rationalize away the clear meaning of their words notwithstanding, I gave you quotations to substantiate my claim, even the original wording: "All men are rapists." Rather than acknowledging such disgusting claims from within your own discipline and then arguing that they are somehow not representative of the whole, you have chosen to dispute my quotations and claim they don't say what they very clearly do say.

For example, there are many times in your response when you say my "absolute refusal" to accept the father's victimhood or the injustice of this case is terrible/bad/disgusting/etc. but I never said he should be in jail for a crime he didn't commit, or that he should be punished in any way if he was innocent.

No. Rather, you have utterly refused to acknowledge his innocence. In fact, you have utterly refused even to acknowledge his probable innocence, instead falling back on the ridiculous claim that you "have no idea what happened".

Well, of course you do. You have the word of the adult woman saying that she lied when she was eleven. You have the word of the wrongfully convicted adult man steadfastly maintaining through the years that he never committed the rape. Yet based on the recanted testimony of a child -- with no direct corroborating evidence -- you continue to insist that you have "no idea what happened".

I've intentionally tried to stay away from talking about the facts of this case precisely because I don't know what happened.

Of course not. You only have the testimony of the now-adult woman claiming that she did something horrible and wants to make it better. How can anyone really know?

However, I do have a hard time believing than an 11 year old concocted a sophisticated psychological plan and story to frame her father.

It's hard for you to believe that a sexually active girl could possibly invent a sexual story. But you have no problem believing that her father, with no previous indication of sexual deviancy, could have raped his own daughter on multiple occasions.

What is wrong with this picture?

Other than that, I have no idea what happened.

No, of course not.

Just remember our original positions please. You said feminism was "vomitous" and a main source of all of the evil in the world. It was a totalizing claim about an entire discipline of thought which generally advocates equality.

And you responded with your own "totalizing" claim: "Third wave feminists don't believe in "human nature", or even that their movement has a specific 'nature'." So how many self-identifying "third-wave feminists" do I have to find that do believe in human nature before you admit that fallacy of your own "totalization"? Or do you maintain that you alone have the power to define what constitutes "thir wave feminists"?

I disagreed with your characterization that feminists believe "all men are rapists."

Are you claiming that there are no feminists that so believe?

However, you keep trying to stick me to these quotations as if they are a core tenet of my beliefs within the feminist movement

I care not at all what the core tenets of your beliefs are, and to my knowledge have written nothing about the subject.

I guess you are right. I haven't read The Women's Room by Marilyn French, therefore I have important deficiencies in my knowledge of feminism and cannot speak on behalf of the movement. That is silly.

Really?

Seeing as how the quote you object to came from that book, and seeing as how that book is an influential work in late-20th-century feminism, I don't think it's silly at all.

If you claim the quotation has no merit and does not at all reflect feminist attitudes, how is it that you didn't even know the quote came from an important and influential work of relatively recent feminist literature?

It is your claim to expertise amid your own ignorance of feminist thought and teachings that is silly.

My interpretation of that sentence is that rape occurs when there is no consent for sexual intercourse.

"Well, your Honor, you see, the legislature may have written A, B, and C, but they clearly didn't really mean C, and they only meant A and B together on alternate Thursdays. So therefore, this law actually means D, E, and F. I realize that F is actually the opposite of C, but surely you can see this is what it really means."

Please. If you interpreted law like that, the judge would laugh you out of the courtroom.

The woman said as plain as day that the woman must initiate or it is rape. Do you deny this?

Now, you'll say: "but what about the word 'initiated' and I will say, "the word initiated is used here because Morgan is making the argument that rape can occur even if the woman initiates the sexual encounter because that initiation was conducted out of fear rather than affection. The idea that no man may initiate consensual sexual contact without committing rape is the converse of the intended meaning of this quote, it is not her argument."

Exactly. "She doesn't mean what she wrote, she means what I'm telling you she means."

You may believe Morgan was too stupid to write what she meant, but I certainly am not stupid enough to believe that argument.

I do not believe that Morgan was too stupid to write her ideas clearly, nor do I believe she blundered into her argument.

Yet you think she wrote that a woman must initiate sex or it is rape, but does not actually believe that a woman must initiate sex or it is rape.

This is more of a second-wave phenomenon but it involves the use of gender categories. She is using "all men" and "all women" to get you to think about gender categories, which is a social (group) manifestation of gender.

More equivocation on your part. "She says 'all men' and 'all women', but she doesn't really mean it. She means something else. But it's not that she was too stupid to use other words. You just need me here to help you interpret what she wrote."

Uh huh.

Well, I don't think it qualifies as a totalizing claim to say that third wave feminists would be skeptical of the use of gender stereotypes, which is where this accusation of yours came from.

Of course not. After all, you can read a feminist claim that it's rape if the woman does not initiate sex, and yet explain that she didn't actually mean that it's rape if the woman does not initiate sex.

See above. I never said I didn't have respect or care for that man. I never said he should spend time in jail for a crime he didn't commit.

Then where is your outrage at an innocent man spending NINE YEARS IN PRISON for a rape that HE DID NOT COMMIT?

Or are you going to continue the ridiculous fiction that you have "absolutely no freaking clue what happened"?

I have no idea what happened in that case, and I won't presume to know what happened.

Ah. Question answered.

As a general rule, when it comes to my opinion and belief about an occurrence, I tend to side with the victim. Maybe its feminist weakness, maybe it was being made fun of as a child, but I would prefer to stand with the victim when provided with 2 different stories about something that caused pain to someone.

Okay. In this case, the man is the victim. So why are you not standing with him?

It's just my default position, and I'm ok with that.

Well, duh. Obviously you're okay with what you believe. If you weren't okay with it, you wouldn't believe it.

But your being okay with your beliefs does not make them any less repulsive.

This is just silly. I challenge you to find any place in my posts where I was "unbelievably callous" toward the father.

You did not take up for him and come to his defense the way you would have done for any woman who claimed to have been raped.

Please do, I am intrigued to hear your intellectual analysis of her arguments about penetration.

I care nothing for her "intellectual arguments", which are void. I care what she wrote:

"Intercourse...has, in it, as part of it, violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of privacy...The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people--physically occupied inside, internally invaded--be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?"

The obvious answer to which is "no", by her arguments. That is, male-female sexual intercourse itself -- that is, coitus -- is a violation of the integrity of the female body. In other words, rape.

That she later claimed she didn't actually mean that is irrelevant given the clear meaning, in context, of her writing. She wanted to back off what she said when others stated it bluntly, because that was an argument to be made for her feminist friends, not out in the open where others might hear.

I try to approach almost all ideas with humility and an open mind.

Really?

Have you approached my ideas "with humility and an open mind"? Have you given actual consideration to the possibility that I'm right?

I didn't think so.

I never said they did. My claim about equality and happiness was about the feminist movement, not your 4 quotations.

Let's examine the truthfulness of your claim. You wrote, speaking about the quotations I provided:

It doesn't seem to me that you are approaching any of these texts with humility or an open heart. Indeed, you view them as a source of evil when they have actually been a vehicle for equality and happiness for millions of people.

What is the antecedent to "them" in the phrase "you view them"? That would be "these texts". Which texts? Obviously, the ones I referenced.

Your claim is not truthful. You were specifically referencing the texts I cited, and not the larger "feminist movement", as you now claim.

I have no idea if she lied about being raped. I have no idea if she lied then or if she is lying now.

There you go. And this is the crux of your argument: You, an adult, cannot possibly decide whether an eleven-year-old girl lied to get her father in trouble, not foreseeing the horrific consequences, or if a 23-year-old woman haunted for half her life by a childhood lie is lying now to try to get her rapist father off the hook.

You have no possible way of distinguishing between the two possibilities. You have NO FREAKING IDEA. They are equally possible for you.

Ergo: Your judgment cannot be trusted.

But it is silly to say any reasonable and unbiased person could see the facts, because we weren't there and we don't have them.

No, any reasonable and unbiased person cannot see the facts. Any reasonable and unbiased person can make the obvious probable judgment call.

I am not refusing because of the principles of feminism, I'm refusing because I wasn't there and I don't have any evidence at all to make a judgment call.

I am stunned that you would so boldly proclaim your own utter lack of ability to make an obvious adult judgment just to stay true to feminist theology. In this, I doubt anyone on this board would agree with you, except of course MarginOfError.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Vort

[PeterVenkman]

@JudoMinja - I understand your perspective, even though I don't believe most feminists are seeking to create a matriarchy. Please understand that the definition of rape you responded to is not the definition I subscribe to, but the definition as interpreted in the quote provided by Vort. I'm truly sorry if you felt pressured or intimidated in your previous relationship. Rape or not, I understand that such a situation is not enjoyable.

Rather than acknowledging such disgusting claims from within your own discipline... ridiculous claim...What is wrong with this picture?... Or do you maintain that you alone have the power to define what constitutes "thir wave feminists"?...I care not at all what the core tenets of your beliefs are, and to my knowledge have written nothing about the subject...It is your claim to expertise amid your own ignorance of feminist thought and teachings that is silly...Please. If you interpreted law like that, the judge would laugh you out of the courtroom... You just need me here to help you interpret what she wrote."..Uh huh...Or are you going to continue the ridiculous fiction ...But your being okay with your beliefs does not make them any less repulsive...I care nothing for her "intellectual arguments", which are void...Ergo: Your judgment cannot be trusted... In this, I doubt anyone on this board would agree with you, except of course MarginOfError.

Congratulations Vort, you have written the most snarky dismissive post I have ever seen on the internet. I'm done doing the line by line with you as you have made it abundantly clear that you have no interest in having an actual conversation about ideas. Your facetious and insulting one-liner responses may be humorous/entertaining to you, but they show me that you are either unwilling or incapable of processing ideas that you have not already convinced yourself are true.

You ask questions, and then dismiss my honest responses. You demand a textual analysis and then call my interpretation "equivocation". I say you are putting words in my mouth, and you respond by shoving them deeper. I answer your arguments, but then you conveniently leave out my responses in your line by line so that you can repeat the same ludicrous accusations ad infinitum.

I've made my case for feminism and you've made it clear that my opinion is disgusting and repulsive and fiction and laughable and void and that you do not care what I believe. Your generalizations about feminism and subsequent treatment of me in this little back and forth do not exactly provide a good example of LDS humility or acceptance of difference. You may be right that no one on this board (besides MoE) agrees with me (although I don't believe that's true), but our evil feminist ways of the world are getting stronger and having more influence every single day. Social roles are changing, and people are becoming more aware of gender dynamics. The feminist movement is going to continue creating change, whether you like it or not.

Have you given actual consideration to the possibility that I'm right?

I didn't think so.

Not with that attitude.

[Suzie]

Robin Morgan was sharing her personal opinion on what constitutes rape so? Since when the opinion of some feminists reflects the opinion of the rest? Making an stereotyped and generalized statement such as "feminists believe all men are rapists" is irresponsible, untrue and stupid.

Now about the thread, it seems like this girl (now woman) had a lot of problems growing up, drinking and threatening to shoot everyone at school, etc. Who knows if she was in the right mindset when she made the allegations. I don't know and I am not going to judge her. Having said that, I really feel sorry for the father. How sad.

[Vort]

Congratulations Vort, you have written the most snarky dismissive post I have ever seen on the internet.

Then you have not seen many posts. My snarkometer was set to low, and how could I be "dismissive" if I responded to each of your points? I disagree with you, which you take as dismissiveness. Whatever. The fact is that, like most feminists, you will quickly side with any woman who claims (note: claims, not proves) abuse, but are unwilling EVEN TO ACKNOWLEDGE when a woman vilely and evilly wrongs a man.

That much said -- and that much is true -- you are largely right about my personal behavior. I got far too carried away in this conversation and showed embarrassingly poor judgment in both the tone and the content of my responses. My initial response to you was especially over the top and set the tone for the conversation that followed. How shameful for me. For the second time in less than a week, I must apologize for my behavior and interpretations. Maybe I should take a break from this forum before I further embarrass myself.

I answer your arguments, but then you conveniently leave out my responses in your line by line so that you can repeat the same ludicrous accusations ad infinitum.

This part, at least, is false. It is not I that has ignored arguments made and refused to respond to questions and points.

I've made my case for feminism and you've made it clear that my opinion is disgusting and repulsive and fiction and laughable and void and that you do not care what I believe.

This also is false. Accepting responsibility for my own suboptimal behavior does not mean I accept wrongful accusations.

It is not your opinion that is void, but the hateful Andrea Dworkin's supposed "intellectual arguments". It is not your opinion about feminism per se that is disgusting and repulsive, but your utter lack of willingness to accept and name for what it is the wrongful accusation and punishment of a man FOR A RAPE HE DID NOT COMMIT, and for which he was WRONGFULLY AND FALSELY IMPRISONED FOR ALMOST A DECADE. Yes, I find this disgusting almost beyond expression. If that is what you call your "opinion", then in that thing, yes, I find your opinion absolutely disgusting. But your characterization of my words is false.

Your generalizations about feminism and subsequent treatment of me in this little back and forth do not exactly provide a good example of LDS humility or acceptance of difference.

True enough.

You may be right that no one on this board (besides MoE) agrees with me (although I don't believe that's true)

It's also not what I wrote. You appear not to be a careful reader, either of my words or of the feminist authors I have quoted. I suspect this accounts for a large part of our disagreement.

Rather, I wrote that no one on the board (except probably MoE) agrees with you in that specific thing -- namely, that there is "insufficient evidence" to decide whether the father recently freed from a decade's imprisonment was wrongly confined on a false charge of rape leveled by his eleven-year-old daughter.

but our evil feminist ways of the world are getting stronger and having more influence every single day.

Sadly, I must agree with this statement.

The feminist movement is going to continue creating change, whether you like it or not.

I am fully aware of this. Satan may be unspeakably evil, but he certainly works tirelessly to accomplish his ends. I can't fault him there.

Not with that attitude.

Don't you find it curious that you refuse even to consider what I say based on my "attitude", yet you consider and even embrace feminists who display far more hatred and intolerance for the opinions they revile? Kind of one-sided, don't you think? If, as you claim, feminism has taught you to "respect other people and care for others", I am surprised you cannot see this discrepancy.

PS LM, I readily admit that there are individuals who self-identify as "feminist" who do not hold to the idea that all sex is rape. In fact, as PeterVenkman's observation of the insidious spreading of feminism continues to come true, I expect to see such "moderation" of certain extreme elements also continue. Unfortunately, the rotten core of feminism remains; observe how even the word "patriarchy" is used -- always -- as a pejorative. I doubt even PeterVenkman would dispute that observation. (Well, okay, I don't really doubt it. PeterVenkman disputes an awful lot of what I say, even things that seem to me undeniably clear-cut.)

[JudoMinja]

Now about the thread, it seems like this girl (now woman) had a lot of problems growing up, drinking and threatening to shoot everyone at school, etc. Who knows if she was in the right mindset when she made the allegations. I don't know and I am not going to judge her. Having said that, I really feel sorry for the father. How sad.

I am certain she was not in the right mindset. Sexually active in second grade, depressed and on the verge of threatening a school shooting, drinking, drugs... Really makes me wonder about the conditions she was being raised in. Even so, that doesn't excuse what she did to her father. I don't think she understood how much suffering her lies would cause her father. From what she said, she just wanted him to "go away" because she was upset about her parents getting divorced. She had no idea what prison life would be like or what it would be like to hold the stigma of being considered a rapist and child-molestor over one's head. I think the fact that she eventually ended up spending time in a prison herself probably helped fuel the guilt that she'd put her father in there on false allegations, encouraging her to come forward with the truth.

I have a lot of admiration for the father- sticking so strongly to the assertions of his innocense when I am certain he must have been dealing with a lot of hateful scorn and coersion to get him to lie just so they could have a confession to have a more solid case. And then now, as the charges are finally being dropped after nine years, he isn't seeking any sort of restitution. He said he just wants to get on with his life. That is one of the most wonderful examples of forgiveness I've seen. He lost nine years of his life and his reputation, and he's willing to let it all go just so he can move on. Amazing.

[applepansy]

First off, I want to say that I have really enjoyed reading over this conversation. It has provided a rather enlightening view of many details about feminism which I've never personally studied. I can frankly understand both views, because my feelings about the feminist movement lie somewhere in the middle here. There are some areas where I'm agreeing with Vort and some where I'm agreeing with Pete.

I personally feel that the feminist movement started as a good thing. I believe that there was some very serious inequality and that advocating for lawful support to remove this inequality was a good idea. Because of the feminist movement, I can vote, I can enter the work force, I can get an education, I can get more support should I find myself in an oppressive situation, and it is far easier for me to have an "equal voice" among peers.

However, I also feel that with time this movement has become warped. After pushing for and receiving such necessary measures to ensure woman's equal standing with man, feminists continued to push for more and more that was completely unnecessary- some of them very hatefully. Instead of a society where men and women can stand as equals, it seems to me that feminists in general and as a group are pushing for a matriarchal society. Angry and bitter towards men for the oppressions of history, women are pushing to get back at them and put them under the very same oppression.

While much of what has come from the feminist movement has been good, there has also been much bad. Like, for example, the growth of alternative lifestyles. Certainly we need to be compassionate and understanding of those who live alternate lifestyles through necessity and make sure they have the equal opportunities to provide for their families, but when these lifestyles are sought out simply because women do not feel they are getting their chance to "live" or be "fulfilled" because they are stuck at home while their husband works... then they have a very warped understanding of what it means to live. Families are falling apart and the feminist movement is at least partially responsible.

In general, I've found that those who label themselves "feminist" in todays world are those who take extreme views and think that anyone who advocates for traditional roles is either striving to be oppressive (if male) or too oppressed to understand her "rights" (if female). Perhaps this is because most of the feminists I've talked to are those who wish to voice complaints about the Priesthood not being given to women... but I can understand why the word feminism carries such an "evil" taint when looking at it in the context of current usage as opposed to historical.

I believe in equality and womens rights.... as well as rights for men, children, blacks, whites, Jews, Muslims, etc, etc. Unfortunately, I think that groups that focus on the rights of only one of these fail in their efforts to continue seeking "equality" because they are putting those rights for which they are advocating over the rights of anyone else.

Now, I want to take a moment to respond to one specific thing from the Pete/Vort conversation that caught my attention:

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. If I applied this definition of rape to my past situation with my ex, then just about every time I had intercourse with him I was raped. If I applied this definition of rape to my parents relationship, then just about every time they've had intercourse my mother was raped. This is far too loose a definition.

While coersion is most certainly wrong, while I consider it very wrong to use tactics like intimidation to obtain ones desired goals, I don't think that consenting to sex when you are pressured into it constitutes rape. Sure there are some cases where this holds true- where the "pressure" was extreme enough that the individual felt they really had no choice but to go through with it. But something as simple as consenting out of guilt? Come on.

This is one of the points where I begin seeing a problem with the current feminist views. I think it would be almost impossible to find a man who, under this definition, was not guilty of rape on at least one occassion. And he wouldn't even know he was guilty if the woman never said anything to stop him. That is just absolutely and profoundly rediculous.

I believe that once a person consents they've lost the priviledge of being able to cry rape.

Thank you for saying so well what I was thinking as I read through this discussion. It has been informative.

Personally I feel feminism has made women feel "less than" for choosing to put family first by staying at home to raise their children. Today extreme pressure is put on young professional women who decide its more important to raise their child than to continue working. Just a few weeks ago my neighbor told me about the pressure her daughter received at work from LDS women. They all told her to get a babysitter and continue her career after her baby is born. Even though she has stated repeatedly her desire to raise her baby, they continue to pressure her. This "advice" was in direct conflict with counsel we've received from GAs.

Peter, I agree completely with JudoMinja about the definition of rape. I've been married for 35 years. I've NEVER felt pressured to have sex. There were times when a negative reaction or consequences (feelings or rejection, withholding love) would have been the result of refusing sex. Just because I chose to have sex when there obviously might be negative consequences for saying no doesn't mean it was rape. I strongly feel just the opposite was true. A loving response was needed at those times and sex was part of that loving response.

I've felt at times that sex was more important to my husband than it was to me. An important aspect of a successful marriage is LOVE. Love demands that we - Women AND Men - put our selfish desires aside and show our spouse that we recognize their needs. This means that if we, as women, sometimes have sex with our husbands when we don't really want to IT IS NOT RAPE! Its LOVE!

I've learned over 35 years of marriage that if I show love (not just sex) to my husband he shows love back. My husband has learned the same. This is the part feminism has missed in their quest for equality.

I appreciate the 19th Century Feminist. They fought for rights women should have never been denied. I do not appreciate current day Feminists. They are undermining women and the nuclear family, which in turn is destroying our culture and is in direct conflict with Heavenly Father's plan.

[applepansy]

I am certain she was not in the right mindset. Sexually active in second grade, depressed and on the verge of threatening a school shooting, drinking, drugs... Really makes me wonder about the conditions she was being raised in. Even so, that doesn't excuse what she did to her father. I don't think she understood how much suffering her lies would cause her father. From what she said, she just wanted him to "go away" because she was upset about her parents getting divorced. She had no idea what prison life would be like or what it would be like to hold the stigma of being considered a rapist and child-molestor over one's head. I think the fact that she eventually ended up spending time in a prison herself probably helped fuel the guilt that she'd put her father in there on false allegations, encouraging her to come forward with the truth.

I have a lot of admiration for the father- sticking so strongly to the assertions of his innocense when I am certain he must have been dealing with a lot of hateful scorn and coersion to get him to lie just so they could have a confession to have a more solid case. And then now, as the charges are finally being dropped after nine years, he isn't seeking any sort of restitution. He said he just wants to get on with his life. That is one of the most wonderful examples of forgiveness I've seen. He lost nine years of his life and his reputation, and he's willing to let it all go just so he can move on. Amazing.

To me this behavior on the father's part shows he loves his daughter and probably understands some of what she's been through in her life. Parents who love their children don't seek to make the consequences for mistakes worse.

I feel a lot of compassion for both of them.