Fathers for Lies: selective quotation and distortion of Catharine MacKinnon’s position

One of the easiest things to do in this life is to be an anti-feminist blowhard. It’s easy because you don’t have to know anything at all to do it: when it comes time for some dude to spout off about Women’s Lib, he can count on being taken seriously without having spent 5 minutes on even a casual attempt to find out what his target’s views actually are, whether he has represented them rightly or wrongly, whether he is saying something true or false, or whether he is musing about something that has already been mooted and already answered definitively many, many times before. You don’t have to know anything about the history or theory of the feminist movement (a lot of which is, mind you, less than 40 years old and widely in print); you don’t need to know anything about what particular feminists did or didn’t say; you don’t even have to know anything in particular about current affairs. As long as you are spouting off about feminism or some particular feminist, no-one in the mainstream media or culture is likely to bother checking up on a damn thing you say.

Given the complete lack of any kind of intellectual accountability, or felt need to stop for a moment and read up on what you’re talking about, that big-mouthed men have enjoyed when it comes to feminism, it shouldn’t be surprising that a broad spectrum of ill-informed lectures, factless tirades, half-truths, distortions, and outright lies spring up and spread from year to year. At the furthest, most degenerate end of the spectrum, you can find a particularly loathsome specimen: the anti-feminist horror file quote list that are circulated among Fathers’ Rights bully-boys and anti-abortion websites. As a case in point, I offer Fathers for Life’s compilation of quotes, apparently collected by Bill Wood (with interspersed commentary by an unnamed author) claiming to show that feminism has roots in communism.

Now, as far as the conclusion goes, it seems to me that this is a bit like marshalling all your forces–complete with cavalry, banners, and a booming great military band–into a massive charge to take a cowpatch that was never contested. Anyone who has spent five minutes reading a survey history of second-wave feminism–like Feminist Revolution or In Our Time–or some of the actual works, such as The Dialectic of Sex or Toward a Feminist Theory of the Statealready knows that many of the pioneering second-wave feminists came out of the radical wing of the New Left, and many of them were socialists, Marxists, or anarchists of various stripes. They are not particularly coy about the fact, and so what, anyway? Anyone who has taken the time to look up these basic facts before spouting off also knows that a lot of the New Left responded with hostility and contempt towards the emerging Women’s Liberation movement; they know that it eventually led to an acrimonious split and the abandonment or qualification of many classical Marxist doctrines as women came to shape an analysis grounded in their own experience of oppression and liberation. If you think that this is going to come as some kind of shock to people, then you are presuming a great deal of willing ignorance on the part of your audience about feminism. Depending on the audience, that may be a pretty safe assumption, but where it is, it’s pretty clear that the fault lies with the audience, not with the feminists.

No, the issue here is not that the conclusion of the horror file compilation is false (it may be false, if they mean to portray feminists as classical Marxists; it is true if they only make the more limited claim that feminist theory is deeply influenced by Marxism). It’s that the reasons given for this conclusion are deceptive. Nestled in between lengthy quotations from several anti-feminist polemics (among others, Slouching Towards Gomorrah and Professing Feminism), there are citations from a number of feminist authors and activists purporting to demonstrate connections between Marxism and feminism. The problem is that, even though the conclusion is true, the quotations used to bolster it are being used deceptively. They do not mean what Fathers for Life claims they mean. In some cases, they express a view that is the opposite of the one the author holds. In fact, it includes a quote which may be completely fabricated for all I can tell–more on that below. And these aren’t innocent mistakes, either. Fathers for Life has made it clear that they do not care whether the evidence they’re using to bolster their case is accurate or completely spurious. I know because I wrote them about it:

To: FathersForLife.org website contact form
From: Charles Johnson feedback@radgeek.com
Date: 25 February 2005

I was a bit puzzled to see some of the following quotes at http://www.fathersforlife.org/feminism/quotes1.htm#Femicommies, apparently intended to demonstrate that feminism is derived from Marxism:

Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism — Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges, The unhappy marriage of Marxism and Feminism

Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism…

— Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press. Page 3.

I wonder whether anyone involved with this page has actually read Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, or The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism. In fact, one wonders if you have even read the title of The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism, since that puts it in a nutshell before you have even made it to the essay. I ask these things because the two pieces are extended discussions of the problems inherent in trying to combine feminist and Marxist politics. The first 1/3 of MacKinnon’s book is devoted to a lengthy feminist critique of Marxism and of attempted Marxist-feminist syntheses.

There are plenty of places to find Marxist influences on feminism, or attempts to combine Marxist and feminist politics. But MacKinnon and Hartmann’s essays are not among them. Frankly it’s hard to regard the selective use of these quotations as anything other than (i) incredibly sloppy, or (ii) dishonest.

Here’s the reply that I got:

Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:26:13 -0700 From: Walter Schneider misc@fathersforlife.org Subject: Re: Data posted to form 1 of http://fathersforlife.org/contact.htm
To: feedback@radgeek.com
Organization: Fathers for Life

Thanks for writing.

If you read all of the document, you must have read also who produced it and noticed that it contains many, many more quotes than just the couple that you found to be objectionable.

Your complaint is noted, but two objectionable quotes about the strong ties between communism and radical feminism isn’t all there is at Fathers for Life. I suggest that you make a search for “feminism communism” at fathersforlife.org.

Amongst the more than a hundred pages containing information that relates to the connection between radical feminism and communism, there must surely be a few more that will irk you. I suggest that you narrow your search down by adding the following search term to the string:

Pizzey OR Hubbard

Enjoy,

Walter

Of course, this was not a response to the point and I was not (and am not) particularly interested in changing subjects to a general debate on the validity or invalidity of feminism with someone who can’t even be bothered to care whether or not the claims presented on his advocacy website are true or false. So:

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:42:22 -0500
To: “Walter Schneider” misc@fathersforlife.org
Subject: Re: Data posted to form 1 of http://fathersforlife.org/contact.htm
From: “Rad Geek” feedback@radgeek.com
Organization: Rad Geek People’s Daily

. . .

Mr. Schneider,

I’m not sure that you quite understood my purpose in writing. I don’t dispute that there are real historical and intellectual connections between radical feminism and Marxism. Anyone who has read the history of the feminist movement knows this; radical feminists make no secret of the fact that substantial parts of their thought come from contemporary Marxist movements and that they themselves were often involved in revolutionary socialist movements (they went on to angrily break with most of these movements, but rarely gave up those movements’ fundamental goals–see for example Robin Morgan’s Goodbye to All That).

What I am concerned with is the fact that you cite the following three quotes, among others, as evidence for this fact:

Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism –Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges, The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism (qtd. in MacKinnon 1989)

Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism… –MacKinnon (1989) p. 3

Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism. –MacKinnon (1989) p. 10

Hartmann’s and Bridge’s essay is a criticism of Marxism; the quote is a parody of Blackstone’s famous nutshell summary of the legal status of husband and wife in a marriage. Her argument is that, heretofore, Marxists have claimed to support feminist goals while actually ignoring them or distorting them in order to make them subordinate to the theoretical concerns and personal interests of Marxist men. This is obvious if you’ve read the essay; it should be clear that that’s where it’s going if you’ve so much as read and understood the title.

The use of the quotes from MacKinnon is even worse. Both quotes come from the first several pages of an extended critique of Marxism. The opening statement that sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism is used to set up a series of questions as to whether or not Marxism and feminism are, at the end of the day, compatible. (MacKinnon goes on to argue that they are not, and that feminist method must be, in some important sense, “post-Marxist”.) The second quote is not a statement of MacKinnon’s beliefs at all; it is a statement of a view with which she sharply disagrees; she thinks that the view is part of the anti-feminist strategy that some Marxists have tried to adopt in addressing feminist concerns. Again, these points are quite clear from a single reading of the opening chapter of Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.

Are there historical connections between feminism and Marxism? Of course there are. But the quotes that you intend to introduce as evidence for that conclusion aren’t evidence for it, and they clearly do not mean what you seem to be indicating that they mean by grabbing them out of their context and arranging them as you have. The problem is that the use of all these quotes is selective, and in being selective it is deceptive. I do not know whether the deception is by intent or by ignorance; in either case it is clearly the result of sloppy or nonexistant reading of the text.

Will these quotes be removed from your discussion of Communism and feminism?

Sincerely,
Charles Johnson

Here’s the reply:

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:03:58 -0700
From: Walter Schneider misc@fathersforlife.org
Subject: Re: Bill Wood’s Testimony at the Ways and Means Committee
To: Rad Geek feedback@radgeek.com
Organization: Fathers for Life

Dear Mr. Johnson,

No, not at all, I have a fairly good appreciation of what you are getting at, but let me be more direct about your misperceptions, as there are more than just one.

You picked on three examples of quotes that don’t quite meet your exacting standards, and you picked on the wrong fellow to direct your complaint to.

Obviously, those three examples are only a small fraction of all of the quotes used by Bill Wood, the author of that article containing the evidence he presented to the Ways and Means Committee. Surely you understand that I can’t willy-nilly edit the things that other people stated, just to suit your preferences.

However, just because those three quotes don’t meet your standards, does that prove the basic premise wrong? Of course it doesn’t.
So, what exactly is your beef?

If it is nothing more than a complaint about the academic quality of the article with respect to the standards used for the documenting of sources, then you should address your concerns to Bill Wood.

If you are not happy with the manner in which Bill Wood formated his quotes, so as to make it clear as to who said what and that it would be unmistakable that some of the quoted phrases do not present the opinions of the authors that quoted them, write to Bill Wood.

If you think that I have editorial responsibilities that I did not exercize with due diligence, consider that I merely quoted another source that is clearly identified in the version of the document that concerns you. In that case you should write to the people in charge of that source.

The sole reason why I posted Bill Wood’s testimony is that I installed a hyper-text-linked index to the various entries, so as to make it easier to find them in the rather lengthy document. If it would not have been for that, I would have pointed people directly to the original source at which the testimony had been delivered and published. A link is so much less troublesome than to quote and format a whole large article, right?

This whole debate has taken far more of our time than it deserves. I don’t know whether you can afford to spend that much time on relatively inconsequential and misdirected criticism, but I do know that I can’t.

Sincerely,
Walter Schneider

PS. Did you have a chance to look for the items I pointed you to? –WHS

Incidentally, the link he provides is not the source of the collection of quotes as it is presented on FathersForLife.org. It contains a few of the same deceptively out-of-context quotes that are repeated in the quotes page at FathersForLife.org, but wherever the latter came from, it was not from a copy of an address already given.

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:55:42 -0500
To: “Walter Schneider” misc@fathersforlife.org
Subject: Re: Bill Wood’s Testimony at the Ways and Means Committee From: “Rad Geek” feedback@radgeek.com
Organization: Rad Geek People’s Daily

Mr. Schneider,

In your reply from several days ago, you seemed to be laboring under a couple of misunderstandings.

First, this is not a matter of “exacting standards”, “suiting my preferences”, or “academic quality”. And it’s certainly not an issue of “formatting”. This is a matter of factual accuracy.

The compilation of quotes and commentary on your site at http://www.fathersforlife.org/feminism/quotes1.htm#Femicommies lists three quotes, taken selectively from Catharine MacKinnon’s work, and insinuates that they represent her views (or the views of radical feminists broadly) on Marxism, when in fact they are (1) part of an argument that feminism and Marxism are in fact incompatible or (2) expositions of views that MacKinnon explicitly condemns. By stripping the quotes of their context, it attributes a view to MacKinnon that is the opposite of the one that she holds; that is to say, it presents demonstrable deceptions as fact.

I sent an e-mail through the fathersforlife.org contact page to whoever was responsible for the content on the website; since it was you who received that e-mail, and since you ask the following:

If you think that I have editorial responsibilities that I did not exercize with due diligence,

I gather that you are the person, or at least a person, responsible for deciding what content goes on your site. As such, you have a responsibility not to purvey false information to readers on the Internet in the name of your cause. You’re quite right that Bill Wood is identified as the compiler of the quotes in the article (although I might add it’s not at all clear from either the article or your remarks whether you have drawn these quotes from sources presented by Bill Wood, or whether he himself assembled the page as it currently appears on your site; nor is it clear whose commentary is represented by unquoted remarks such as Catherine A. MacKinnon is a University of Michigan FEMINIST LAW PROFESSOR!! Do you think her lawyers are learning Republican government OR are they learning Communism?)

You wonder why I did not contact Bill Wood about this. Well, I’d be glad to contact him in order to inform him of his (frankly either sloppy or dishonest) mistakes in describing MacKinnon’s views, but (1) I don’t have his contact information, and (2) you have responsibilities as an editor in this matter whatever Bill Wood has or hasn’t done. Given that whether or not the conclusion that this compilation puts forward is true, the grounds given for it are demonstrably false (by a simple reading of the plain text), your responsibility, as an editor, is to do one of the following, depending on the nature of the piece and the author’s wishes:

  1. Remove the offending quotes (with an editor’s note or ellipsis if necessary)
  2. Issue a correction
  3. Remove the piece from your site.

All three of these things are things that responsible editors sometimes do when authors make mistakes of fact. Simply leaving a piece with known factual errors online, as-is, for public consumption, while making no attempt whatsoever to avoid deceiving your readers, is not.

Second, this is not a “debate”. There is nothing to argue about. Your page, as it currently stands, is deceptive. That may be the result of negligence–in which case it is a sloppy error–or it may be the result of intent–in which case it is spreading lies. Which conclusion an observer should draw depends, in part, on how you deal with the matter now that it has been brought to your attention.

Sincerely,
Charles Johnson

And here’s Walter Schneider’s final word on the matter, for the time being:

Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 05:35:55 -0700
From: Walter Schneider misc@fathersforlife.org
Subject: Re: Bill Wood’s Testimony at the Ways and Means Committee
To: Rad Geek feedback@radgeek.com
Organization: Fathers for Life

Mr. Johnson,

Rad Geek wrote:

….You wonder why I did not contact Bill Wood about this.

I didn’t at all wonder, I suggested that you do.

Well, I’d be glad to contact him in order to inform him of his (frankly either sloppy or dishonest) mistakes in describing MacKinnon’s views, but (1) I don’t have his contact information, and

I can help you out with that. Try http://waysandmeans.house.gov/contact.asp, the first organization that published the quotes that you perceive to be misleading. They may be able to provide you with contact details for Bill Wood, which shouldn’t be that hard for them. Unfortunately, on account of two recent PC crashes I no longer have Bill Wood’s e-mail address. This clue may help you in contacting him: Representative Bill Wood, Charlotte, North Carolina.

(2) you have responsibilities as an editor in this matter whatever Bill Wood has or hasn’t done. Given that whether or not the conclusion that this compilation puts forward is true, the
grounds given for it are demonstrably false (by a simple reading of the plain text), your responsibility, as an editor, is to do one of the following, depending on the nature of the piece and the author’s wishes:

My responsibility as an editor is not to alter text taken from a document authored and published by other people. If you misconstrue such quotes and become offended on account of your misperception, that is your problem, not mine.

The best of luck,

Walter Schneider

Of course, Schneider does not anywhere make clear where the document in its current form was published or why he, as an editor, cannot indicate through the use of elipsis or editor’s notes that parts of the text are incorrect. Responsible editors of advocacy sites either remove pages that contain false information, or issue corrections on false information where people reading the misleading page can see them. Schneider, for his part, seems uninterested in any of this; at least, as of press time, FathersForLife.org continues to print the same quotes from MacKinnon without redaction, correction, or apology.

For myself, I do have a bit of a correction to make: since I wrote the first couple notes while on vacation, and didn’t have my copy of Toward A Feminist Theory of the State with me, I assumed that this quote, attributed to page 10 of MacKinnon’s book, was an explanation of one of the anti-feminist Marxist approaches to the woman question that she was criticizing:

Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism. –MacKinnon (1989) p. 10

I was wrong about that. The sentences I was remembering were similar sentences from Chapters I, II, and IV of the book in which she does set out and then demolish views that come out roughly to that (e.g.: the view that women’s subordination to men, when acknowledged, is seen as caused by class dominance, its cure as the overthrow of class relations [p. 62]). If MacKinnon did say what she is quoted as saying, then it was surely in the context of elaborating an opposing view in order to criticize it, and the quote is deceptively taken out of its context and passed off as a statement of belief in propia voce. But after going through the opening chapters of Toward a Feminist Theory of the State several times, I cannot for the life of me find where she did say Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism in the first place. It is not on page 10 of Toward A Feminist Theory of the State. Nor is it on page 9 or 11. Nor is it anywhere to be found anywhere in Chapters I or II. Nor is it on page x in the Introduction, nor on likely candidates for a typographical error–you won’t find it on page 19, or on page 20, or anywhere in pages 100-110. A Google search returns only anti-feminist websites with the same quote and the same claim that it appears on page 10. All three quotes are gravely misunderstood if they are accurate quotations, but this one may very well be a complete fabrication. (If you have a bibliographic reference to where the quote actually occurs, drop me a line–I’d appreciate being able to print the quote in its actual context!)

Fathers for Life is spreading deceptive information on their website in an attempt to further their cause. This may have originally been the result of carelessness and sloppiness. That’s bad enough in itself–there is far too much misleading through carelessness or sloppiness in public debates today. But whatever the original cause, they continue to spread deceptions knowingly, without correction.

That’s lying.

Advertisement

Help me get rid of these Google ads with a gift of $10.00 towards this month’s operating expenses for radgeek.com. See Donate for details.

15 replies to Fathers for Lies: selective quotation and distortion of Catharine MacKinnon’s position Use a feed to Follow replies to this article · TrackBack URI

  1. Amanda

    This reminds me of that essay “On Bullshit” that’s going around–they aren’t “lying”, but they are full of shit.

  2. Rad Geek

    Amanda,

    That’s a good point. As we’ve discussed before, it seems to be a pretty common theme in anti-feminist polemics: the authors don’t take 5 minutes out to find out whether what they’re saying is true or false, because they’re not interested in the truth; they’re interested in discrediting feminists by any means necessary–and the more lazy insinuation and less serious fact-checking the discrediting takes, the better. It does seem to have a lot to do with bullshit in Frankfurt’s sense–the problem is an effective disregard for truth in the first place.

    On the other hand, I think passing off manifest bullshit as serious political analysis in order to further your cause is itself a form of lying–even if the cognitive style behind assembling the horror file is more like bullshitting than it is like lying. I guess there’s a whole tangled nest of dishonesty involved when it comes to professional antifeminists. Sorting it all out could be a rich, if depressing, field for further research.

  3. DonBoy

    I’m not surprised that MacKinnon never wrote a sentence containing the expression “one in the same”, since the correct expression is “one and the same”. (Correcting that in the full quote, and re-Googling, gives 0 results.)

    And … is this guy claiming that the quote list was first published by The Ways and Means Committee of the US House of Represenatives? Huh?

  4. DonBoy

    Ahem…upon rereading, the answer to my previous question is “yes”. What that committee is doing calling for tracts like this as testimony like this is beyond me.

  5. Trish Wilson

    Oh, boy, Walt Scheider. I remember him from my Usenet days nearly a decade ago. He misrepresents all sorts of feminist topics. He promoted that myth that men and women are equally abusive, for one thing. Go to Google Usenet and type in “Walter Schneider” and Sheep. Sheep was his old e-mail moniker. Read the drivel and have a good laugh.

  6. Pseudo-Adrienne

    Doesn’t all of this anti-feminist rhetoric stem from the underlying sense that these particular men don’t like the idea of women being independent of men, entering male dominated fields and positions of government, the father no longer being head of the household, men having to share power, the questioning and reconstructing of traditional/patriachal masculinity, women having control over our reproductive systems, and women being treated as men’s equals under the law? Really, isn’t that what it’s about in a nutshell? A phobia of women not being subordinate to men and conservative/traditionalist social constructs made especially for women. And it easy to be anti-feminist and even be supported for doing so. If shit goes wrong in society–blame the women who refuse to conform.

  7. Cleis

    What Don Boy said.

    Also, while my memory isn’t infallible, I studied MacKinnon extensively a number of years back, and surely I would remember if she said that the goal of feminism is socialist government. That “quotation” sounds bogus to me.

    Keep fighting the good fight, Geek.

  8. Discussed at www.sapphosbreathing.com

    Sappho's Breathing:

    Male allies

    It’s so refreshing when male allies fight the good fight. Rad Geek needn’t prove his feminist bona fides to anyone, but it still warms my heart to read his defense of Catharine MacKinnon’s work. MacKinnon is an important, dare I…

  9. Rad Geek

    Cleis:

    I studied MacKinnon extensively a number of years back, and surely I would remember if she said that the goal of feminism is socialist government. That quotation sounds bogus to me.

    Oh, I know for a fact that the quote doesn’t represent her views in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, since, among other things, it’s in direct contradiction to the argument of the first four chapters of the book. The reason I originally took it to be non-bogus, when I didn’t have the book with me to read over page 10, is that it does sound to me a lot like MacKinnon’s prose style in the passages where she is explicating the Marxist-“feminist” views that she’s about to tear apart. E.G.:

    Socialism correctly understood includes anything that feminism offers women, and, as a practical matter, socialists should not confine themselves to organizing over half the working class; feminists cannot afford to ignore class issues and, as a practical matter, need socialist support. (p. 62)

    Or:

    The value of feminism is that it helps mobilize and unify the working class. Thus Nancy Hartsock: “I want to suggest that the women’s movement can provide the basis for building a new and authentic American socialism” (p. 63)

    So I think it would be natural for her to have written the sentence she is alleged to; it’s just that quoting it as a statement of her own views about Marxism and feminism would be as deceptive as quoting Thrasymachus in order to “prove” that Plato thinks that justice is the interest of the stronger.

    Of course, that’s supposing that it’s actually in the text at all–except that I’m having trouble finding any evidence of that. We’ll see what happens when I write Bill Wood for the source.

· May 2005 ·

  1. 1chapelcredit

    Hi! I was pleased to stumble on this site! This is the very first page I have viewed of it, and I fully intend to read many more, so if this question proves to stem from a lack of previous study, I will quickly recant it.

    The question is this; If, as you say, “a broad spectrum of ill-informed lectures, factless tirades, half-truths, distortions, and outright lies spring up and spread from year to year” due to the lack of academic scrutiny that anti-feminists are subjected to, then why are three quotations from an article reprinted on an advocacy page such a huge arguing point? Do the writings of Catharine Mackinnon mean such a great deal to you on a personal level, or to the cause on a practical level, that a poor interpretation of her work could have tragic consequences?

    As I said already, I have not read on, and, for all I know, this site could be full of articles of this length, showing the same diligence of investigation and confrontation of sources, about similiar incidents of misquotations of various authors. If this turns out to be the case, I will come back here and recant- if it does not, however, or if you fully know that it will not, prove accurate, please tell me why this is such ‘a beef’, as the above antagonist said.

    -TJ Webb

— 2007 —

  1. arby

    I support the statement that these quotes are taken out of context and presented in a misleading manner, assuming the article author has correctly represented the intent of the original materials. I haven’t read the texts quoted. I am simply going on the straight forward presentation of the article above.

    However, one of the comments caught my attention:

    Trish Wilson said: “He promoted that myth that men and women are equally abusive, for one thing.”

    Umm, since we are on the topic of not needing to have any evidence to back up claims, I present this statement from the Child Maltreatment available at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/summary.htm (That is the US Dept. of Health and Human Services website). The study is the Child Maltreatment Summary for 2004. (presented 2006)

    That study contained the following statement:

    What were the characteristics of perpetrators?

    Female perpetrators, mostly mothers, were typically younger than male perpetrators, mostly fathers. Women also comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men, 58 percent compared to 42 percent(figure S-7).

    Of the parents who maltreated children, less than 3 percent committed sexual abuse, while 63 percent committed neglect. Of the perpetrators who were friends or neighbors, nearly three-quarters committed sexual abuse, while 10 percent committed neglect.

    The 2005 data was similar http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/table5_1.htm

    So, in regards to child abuse – women are not merely equally abusive, they are more abusive.

    So I present the question to Trish Wilson, why do you refer to this as “myth”? It appears to be statistical fact.

  2. arby

    ack. Apparently one should read the year of a blog entry, not just the month and day.

    lol. Oh well, I was always late for the parties.

— 2010 —

  1. Surfer

    Equality is either a God-given right or it’s not….If it is, that settles the issue or should. If it’s not a God-given right, then what is left but to make the claim with just laws and social aspect….

    Jesus and Paul taught the equal rights of all…. Jesus did not establish an authoritarian “authority” over others. He taught one great moral. That moral authority is the only legitimate authority in any person’s life.

    http://christian-newcovenant.angelcities.com/index.html

    There is no male and no female under the New Covenant….it’s unfortunate that we have to climb over this lost and falsified truth each century.

— 2011 —

  1. Andrew

    Again the hate group masquerading as interest group. Take a look at Leo Campione to see where feminism has gotten this country. It has put children at danger by giving crazy mothers who have been institutionalized for mental problems custody of their children only for them to be killed. It is the fem movement that did it. Children’s Aid Society, controlled by feminists let a documented crazed mother have the children over the father only for the mother to drown them. Most of the remarks I see on this site come from women who hate men, but surprisingly are being supported by men financially, because really, feminists don’t actually make money, they just burn through it. That is why many people get a real education with a skill while feminists take bird courses at universities in the Humanities because actual problem solving can’t be done by feminists. Only women who think clearly can attain a actual skill. Here is a phenomenon, a feminist who has a skill in life, besides speaking English. Learn some technical skills in life to supplant your narrow sophomore stutter. Then maybe your eyes will open up to the fact that everyone has to work and contribute to society, not just men. Its not bad going to work everyday you’ll get used to it. Just using your feminist views and a narrow knowledge of HTML is not going to get you anywhere. Your one of those people that complain about their not being enough female politicians, but won’t involve yourself because you actually can’t connect with people.

Post a reply

By:
Your e-mail address will not be published.
You can register for an account and sign in to verify your identity and avoid spam traps.
Reply

Use Markdown syntax for formatting. *emphasis* = emphasis, **strong** = strong, [link](http://xyz.com) = link,
> block quote to quote blocks of text.

This form is for public comments. Consult About: Comments for policies and copyright details.