Keep that feministic crap as far away from me as possible. Don't want it, don't believe it. Won't do it.

I'm old school...a woman's place is at home serving her man.

*don't bother with the flack ladies, I am who I am and not about to change for anyone*

I think it depends on how one defines "feminism".
A true feminist is not a man hating , controlling , bra burning ****!
She is a woman who believes in Equality for all men and women..equal opportunity and equal rights in all aspects of life.

It's truly a shame that so many feel threatened by such a possibility happening in this world.

I think that is extremely common. I agree that we need them, but try as I might, I can't bring myself to trust them.

Oye..

Disagreements, differences of opinion... NOT ABUSE!

If I let these psuedo-feminists take away the word with which I've defined my personal belief system practically since childhood, it won't stop the madness. If we retain it and act and speak and vote to promote TRUE equity - not the entitlement and superiority the betrayers lobby for - I'm convinced it will ultimately benefit all women and men.

Amen!

That sums up my feelings pretty well.

feanor3791, just a few things id like to say to u. One is "Archie, stifle yourself".

The second is, feminists dont have to attribute male behaviour to testosterone fueled, red meat induced rage. Some men do a fine job of presenting themselves as unstable and dangerous all on their own.

Take Bacwardduck for example, He happened to have a different opinion than alot of other men on this thread. What did the other guys do, they berated hin and told him he needs to hand in his testicles, and showered him with all other kinds of abuse. This is typical male behaviour to try and control him. These are some of the issues men need to work on to control male violence. Its not that feminists dont care, but some of these issues need to be resolved by men themselves.

Why do you have such low self esteem?
Besides proving that you’re a bully, what’s your point?
Another bully that thinks degrading people proves his point. I am honoured you feel that way about me!
Such anger, you guys should get some counselling on anger management.

Wow.
Lot of rage in here.

Many of our ancestors, actually most of them, if we go back over 5,000 years, created societies of equality of men and woman.

Isn’t there a saying about small penis size being directly proportional to the need for horsepower?

And how many women have compliment you on this forum or e-mailed you in support of what you say?

Feminism started out as a civil rights movement and has ended up a bowel movement.

feanor:...Yeah right...My logic is "flawed" and my opinions are "wrong"..But the outcome is that single fathers maintain/keep custody of their children due my "flawed" logic and "wrong" opinions...The outcome is their mental health improves and their stress level goes down due to my so called "wrong" position here..My couples counseling helps keep marriages intact but, hey, that doesnt matter to you because my "logic" and opinions are still "flawed".....Those are my professional experiences as a mental health therapist with 20 years experience working with people, but that doesnt matter according to you because my experience somehow doesnt define "reality"....Now you are really talking crazy....Quit while you still have some dignity left

As we see, men that understand feminism make better lovers!

We have learned to listen and to communicate. We are empathetic to others needs. We have turned into our female intuition and have learned its better to nurture than to dominate.

We don’t blame, we take responsibility.

We have realized the way we are going is not working and we are willing to try something else.

That’s why I say; “great sex is saving the world”.

wage love capegardengirl!

I think u should be more ashamedof being a member of the male race. I know i would be.

The best thing for you to do is accept that it benefits her even though you may not understand why...

Personally i move "towards an ecological feminine theology of nature"...

Feminism, the word, has been highjack by the male power elite to take away its power. As we see on this thread many people do not understand to concept of feminism or the fact that we are living in a male dominated reality that has made a toxic environment that is ruining the earth…

I’m attracted to feminist and people with strong beliefs and ideals of equality and nurturing the health and welfare of all the people on the planet!

What you think is kind of irrelavent to me. I know what I believe, what I do about it, how to describe it. You know nothing about me except what I tell you about me, so trying to tell me what you think I am.. seems a little ridiculous.

Besides, I'd really appreciate not being told what I am and what I'm not by total strangers.

If someone wants to re-label me to suit their interpretation of my beliefs and call me something else like humanist due to their issues with the term feminism, I can deal with that..

If I cared over much about being accepted, I wouldn't bother speaking my mind.

Militant garbage is not at the core of feminist beliefs. Much of what feminism was intended as being has been twisted over the years. Just because many get it all wrong and go pretty much irrational with it, doesn't mean the rest of us got it wrong.

No, you haven't. You've posted docs & links exposing bull. Goals of folks that are very far removed from actual feminism, but labelling themselves as such. Big difference.

The current dictionary data (and I posted it myself many many pages back) falls completely in line with my beliefs.

What I am saying is that while examples of what you say feminism is now.. militant, unreasonable and some just downright dumb.. as far as examples posted thus far.. I believe that the garbage being spouted by your examples are NOT feminists.. though that's their claim.

As a college instructor, I can tell you why many young women don't use the label feminist because I have asked them:

1. Negative connotations from the media. They cannot discern the difference betweeen being a **** and fighting/wanting equal rights.

2. Negative connotations from insecure men who can't quite face strong women--and a lot of young men are insecure--and a lot of young women are very concerned about what young men think. In addition, in places such as Missouri and other areas in the Bible Belt, there is still the idea that women are supposed to know their places and defer to men.

3. They are ignorant of history and have no concept that in the past, women went to jail so they can vote and wear pants in public. Many of them have not run into situations that older women encountered. The advances that the feminist movement made in the past are taken for granted by those who take little or no interest in history. If a man can no longer muzzle a woman and lead her around the town square for nagging, why worry about it?

Capegardengirl, you are wasting your valuable breath and time trying to logically convince Scorpio of anything. You can argue with some ignorant people, but not those who choose to wallow in ignorance.

On the other hand, if you look at the world objectively, how can you help being a feminist when

1) Woman are still paid less for doing the same jobs men do;
2) By a very substantial margin, it is women who are physically and emotionally abused in personal relationships;
3) Political and economic power is still predominantly wielded by men and in many or most cases they use this power to keep women for attaining an equal share of it;
4) When a man is referred to as a pr!ck, it is his beaviour that is condemned. When a woman is called a cvnt, it is an expression of contempt for her very essence.

I feel like participating in this thread is a waste of time now. There is little open-minded dialogue happening here, so, what's the point of contributing? I have provided links to statistics gathered by the Canadian Government which indicate that women have not obtained true equality with men on many levels. They were ignored, except for one poster who poo-pooed them without actually addressing what they were suggesting. Those stats are from the federal government, and not biased in the least. Yet, these are ignored while unsubstantiated articles are being touted as the gospel truth. The hostility towards women being shown here is beyond belief. It's sad. Insults and half truths don't win arguments, people.

"Men who embrace traditional family values take full repsonsibility for their children"...Not always...Ive worked with fathers from traditional, fundamentalist churches who insist that the mother do the majority of the childcare while he pitches in as her occasional "helper",..He doesnt initiate the care, and only does so when not tired/or when he feels like it

What you are not understanding is that forced societal or religious submissiveness on the part of women thats neither genuine nor wanted on her part is a major cause of mental illness and depression...Over 90% of the women I see in my therapy practice who do exackly what you want women to be like are on antidepressants and in therapy....How is that beneficial to men?....their children?....They are middle class, educated, have held responsible jobs, ...many with college educations...So its neither "normal", healthy or "natural" for them...So be aware of the consequences of what you desire women to be like...

You may not be prepared for the negative fallout from it...A more recent study of isolated Iranian women found that major depression was detected in over 90% of them because they been been forced out of school, jobs, professions and a life by the Taliban...

I said when women do things CONTRARY to what feels right to them, its a big casual factor in depression...For alot of women, thats being a full time homemaker with no outside interests to balance their life like school, friends, work.

Problems women have in 3rd world countries are feminist issues..They are made so when the rest of the world repeatedly ignores or excuses violence that is particularly targeted against women, such, rape, forced marriage, genital mutiliation and ignoring the removal of the clitoris as "culture"..As long as that occurs and the world ignores that and women have to run for their lives to escape that, feminism will be needed...It is by no means dead...The irony is if you want feminism to be "dead" and not needed, pay attention to the worlds problems when they ARE still human rights issues.....Instead of ignoring or excusing them....What happens is sexism and the double standard kicks in and "but its the culture" or "thats what happens in a war" causes us to turn a blind eye to violence against females....Record numbers of women then escape those countries to avoid the mutiliation, the rape, the forced marriage, help for PTSD when they have been raped during a war ...

The very same thing happened here in the USA when the police, the clergy and even health organizations ignored domestic violence until feminist groups started up grass roots shelters where women could escape batterers, thereby raising public awareness of the problem.....

Instead of blaming feminism, and the scewed court systems, i think men should put the blame squarely where it belongs when women are awarded custody 70% of the time. That is with your brothers in the male race who have proven time and time again. they are not willing or able to take on that responsibility.

One of the posters awhile back blamed feminism for women having to go out in the rat race. I strongly disagree, it was husbands who wanted to control there wives through financial means, who treated them like nothing more than hired help, who basically smothered them with control, who sent women into the workforce. feminism was just a vehicle to empower them.

That's probable. I would suggest that so were the men.

based my comments on what i have heard from working with the elderly.I have heard many times how unhappy many of these women and most of their friends were.They had no choice but to stay. They had nowhere else to go. So i can assure you to these women it was not an illusion it was there everyday reality. I have also heard the comment from them that they were secretly relieved when their husbands died. They were finally free to live their lives as they chose.

Loonytunz, i dont think the witchhunt would be on if u were to stand up for your rights. When the feminist movement started, im sure much of them had the same thoughts. Instead of giving up and caving to the pressure, they stood their ground, and made alot of changes. It can be done. If alot of u feminist disliking men quit blaming feminists for your problems and confronted the real issues u had, u could probably make some good headway. If u really believe what u are saying is true, dont give up.

People will just write them off as mysoginist whiners

well, i havent been on this thread to long, i have already been told i have half a brain, now im told im not rational. Its no wonder we still need feminism. Proof positive of what women have put up with for along time. I guess maybe i should just be glad i havent been called a biatch, isnt that what men usually call a women with the guts to speak her mind.

Those are your words, This feminst has NEVER said that I thought this way about men in ANY of my posts, so it seems that comprehension is lacking. Either that or you like to twist words around.

There are two very seperate "equalities" :

1. Equal opportunity ....men and women are given an equal chance
2. Equal outcome ......men and women are made to achieve equally

No man I have ever dated in my entire dating history ever had issues with the fact that I am a feminist.

They said they liked a spirited woman with intelligence, with fire who spoke up for what she wanted...That it was refreshing....Just like Rhett Butler with Scarlett O' Hara....

It never fails to amaze me, when i hear of men, who insist their wife stay home and raise the children. when this same couple seperate, and the men are ordered to pay spousal support, who is the first one you hear yelling about having to pay?

Women are most often responsible for the care of the children. The only time men want to share in the responsibility is when the couple separates, then they wonder why the courts give custody to the mothers.

I'm not about superiroity and I'm actually getting a tad tired of being told that since I choose to refer to myself as feminist, that I am about superiority. Though your comment likey wasn't directed right AT me, I still feel like I'm getting a concussion... from banging my head against seemingly deaf walls when I hear/read that feminism is (blanketly) about female superiority.

I've stated numerous times what I AM about.

Did you know that all men are actually women first ;) Thats why men have nipples haha... Then somewhere during the development stage they get that chromozone that makes them a man!!! Hehe.

If it were not for the women who decided to take a stand then I would probably still be wearing dresses in -20 weather with a hat and gloves and not allowed to work or vote or make my own decisions.

There are also most probably thousands of assaults on males by females that go unreported, and I am quite certain that a percentage of those men arrested and charged were reacting to an assault by the woman BECAUSE WOMAN ALREADY HAVE EXCEEDED EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW...in my case I had the presence of mind and understanding that if I raised a hand to defend myself that I would be charged with a crime, removed from my home and family, denied free unrestricted and unsupervised access and visitation with my children, and labelled for the rest of my life as an abuser...so rather than retaliate to being punched, kicked, whipped with a skipping rope, choked, bashed with a lamp, and having my few prized possesions within my home smashed to pieces! (etc.)

It has been my experience that terms such as "feminazi" have simply replaced the phrase "uppity wimmen" and seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to marginalize anyone who dares speak out on the subject. Feminists are painted as jack-boot wearing dy-kes so that they be objectified and dismissed.

The question gets bogged down in these inflammatory terms

and examples of how men have suffered at the hands of this social change

but rarely are the facts discussed

This is a strong social signal to woman that, in order to be viewed as pleasing, she will keep her place -- one of submissiveness.

I also note that it is one that is often painful for women, because every one of us has experienced some form of abuse, discrimination or hostility simply because we are women.

The real issue is whether women have equality with men as a gender.

The reason men should become very interested in this topic is because their own rights may be jeopardized in the future. When you protect the rights of another, you are ensuring an environment which will foster and protect your own.

If you do not believe that everyone has the right to receive equal pay for equal work, there may be a day when these males find their own livelihoods threatened. When unwanted sexual advances are permitted in the workplace, they may very well be on the receiving end one day, finding themselves being the recipient of fondling by a person they find utterly repulsive -- and it may not be a woman. They may find that they do not have equal access to justice, health care or a decent home, based on their gender, race or some other factor.

I wonder how they will feel about equal rights then?

...Thats gotta be one of the most ignorant posts here yet....Im a feminist who happens to love all three and have all of them in abundance: sex, a man and a life...Guess I better give up my friends, gardening, hiking, travel, bicycling, cooking, music concerts, etc, because as a feminist, according to you, Im not supposed to have a "life"...Maybe you better tell my sexy man to stop accepting invitations to my house, making out with me on my couch and to keep his hands off me that he cant seem to stop doing, since, according to you, I dont" like him or sex" and I "need" to get a life ...Oh, and remind me too that Im a "humourless zealot" because I cant keep my hands off him!

I suppose that makes us equals in some respect. That's a weird irony.

I don't think I made reference to women as a "class," just as I don't consider African-Americans a class. But the fact that African-Americans aren't a class doesn't mean that when they were being denied the vote and equal educational access they weren't "oppressed," and the same is true of women, unless you want to claim that they DID always have the vote and access to education on the same terms as men of their various "classes" at any given moment in history.

I'm well aware of historiographical debate over whether or not women have historically constituted a "class" to themselves, or a "fourth estate" and I tend to contest that position in my own work.

And of course my summary of some broad historical develoments is a simplified "view", as you put it, of a huge historical topic. I don't actually have either the time or the inclination to write a book on the subject for this forum--I was making an observation about broad trends that do have historical veracity to them.

But then, I am, actually, a historian--are you?

Like Ooli_Oop, I was also pushed towards a career in nursing by highschool counselors and parents...

I was also "groped", but much more intimately, on the job and was told by the attorney for the very famous ivy league medical school where I worked that I had "asked for it" and "had no case" to pursue for sexual molestation. Later, I discovered that the the Administration had covered up four other virtually identical cases.

1.) When I was in public school, I was made to stand up in front of the class because I had a pant suit on and everyone was told, "Nice girls don't dress like this." Then I was sent home to put on a dress because it was gender appropriate. Feminism helped ensure this will not happen to any other little girls in North America and Europe.

2.) It was recommended that I go into nursing or become a secretary, even though I had one of the highest grade averages in my graduating class and an IQ of 150. I was discouraged from being a doctor by school career counselors…and even my parents at the time. Feminism has changed the view that women should limit themselves to “girl careers”.

3.) When I worked as a securities broker for a prestigious Toronto brokerage, my male manager thought it was appropriate to push me up against a wall, stick his tongue down my throat and fondle my breasts. He said it was my “birthday present” from him. Feminism is responsible for creating workplace laws to protect women against male predators like this boss. He was fired, by the way. Without feminism, he wouldn’t have been fired. I would have been forced to either put up with it, or leave.

4.) At a different brokerage house I worked, a man with exactly the same education that I had and less experience, was hired at $9,000 more than I was making for the doing same job. This wasn’t that long ago! Feminism is helping to raise public awareness that this goes on, and has helped created labour laws that are trying to create wage parity. It’s not there yet. Women still make less than men, on average. Further, there has actually been a dip in the rate that women are gaining on men when it comes to wage parity.

Statistics Canada, 2006: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060307/d060307a.htm

5.) I have male friends in senior management positions (i.e. CEO's) who will not hire women of child bearing age for senior positions, or those who have young families. There is a belief that being a mother will compromise a woman's ability to do a good job. They do not assess men in the same way. Feminism has raised awareness about the “glass ceiling”, but change is slow here. Women are more likely to obtain low level management positions, but the vast majority of senior positions are still held by men.

Statistics Canada, 2006: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060307/d060307a.htm

6.) I volunteered at a woman's shelter for a period of time. The night that sticks the most in my mind was when I consoled a woman who had had her ear bit off by a raging boyfriend while her toddler looked on in horror. Another woman with a severely autistic child arrived on the same night, who had been beaten black and blue by her boyfriend. She had a broken nose, a smashed cheekbone and several cracked ribs. Then there was another woman who had been living with her three children in a car after her wealthy husband of 30 years had kicked them out without a penny and moved in his young lover. I could go on and on about what I’ve seen in shelters. The point is that violence against women still does occur, and feminism has helped raise awareness and funds to set up shelters so that women like the ones I mentioned, have a sanctuary to go to.

7.) Genital mutilation (removing clitoris and sewing shut labia) and honour killings and maimings of women and children still occur in Canada and other industrialized nations. Feminism has resulted in laws being passed against these horrendous practices.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cira.htm

8.) Women head up most of the single households and bear the brunt of the costs of raising a family when it comes to time and money, yet job parity does not exist in the workplace.

9.) There are more children living in poverty in households led by women than any other family group. Feminism has resulted in laws being passed to ensure that child support will be paid by non-custodial parents. Yes, the laws were primarily set up to protect women and children, but they apply to male custodial parents, too.

I actually know what a feminist is--or at least what most "feminists" consider feminism to be--and no cut and pasted articles and/or snide comments and/or rantings by people who loathe feminism is going to convince me that I'm wrong about something that is actually about me, my social consciousness, and my view of myself and my role in society.

As more and more people over the last couple of centuries have gained literacy and with that increasing access to the kind of public voice that allows them to attempt to assert their autonomy in the societies in which they live, a struggle to exersize that autonomy by various groups has inevitably ensued. And just as inevitably, some members of those groups losing their monopoloy on power and the exclusive right and access to autonomy have objected to that process, because of course they feel their relative positions shifting. This was the case as royal power across Europe began diminishing during the seventeenth and eighteenth ceturies, as legislative bodies formed and/or began asserting their sovereignty. It was the case as the middle classes began fighting for the vote in the nineteenth century. It was the case as the working classes began fighting for their rights, following the success of the middling groups. It has been the case as members of racial and ethnic minorities in any number of countries have attempted to assert their rights to equal access to things like education and the vote, equality before the law, and entry into the world of well-paid work. And it has been the case when women have done the same.

Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)


* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:







homicide rate
Florida: -36%
United States: -0.4%

firearm homicide rate
Florida: -37%
United States: 15%

handgun homicide rate
Florida: -41%
United States: 24%


(3)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted."

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.
The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

Sorting FBI data by violent crime rate uncovers some interesting results. The seven least violent states are all shall-issue right-to-carry (RTC). Of the seven most violent states, three are non-RTC (includes D.C.) Since about 75% of all states are RTC, 43% of the worst being non-RTC makes these states over-represented at the unpleasant end. The five states with the lowest murder rate are RTC, but two of the five worst are non-RTC. The eleven states with the lowest robbery rate are RTC, but of the eleven worst, 5 are non-RTC. Nine of 10 states with the lowest assault rates are RTC, while 3 of 10 with the highest rates are non-RTC. The only exception is in rates of rape, where three of the 10 lowest are non-RTC, while only one non-RTC state is in the 10 worst.

Overall, non-RTC states average 27.8% higher violent crime rates, most notably 43.8% higher murder and 85% higher robbery rates, than RTC states. (See Table 4) The exception is rape: non-RTC states averaged 21.1% lower rates, reversing a 9-year trend where 10 states with RTC laws enacted during 1995-1996 saw their rates of rape drop faster than non-RTC states.[8]

Table 4 – Violent Crime Rate Averages, 2005[9]

Population Violent Crime Homicide Rape Robbery Assault

RTC 394.4 4.8 35.6 93.6 260.4

Non-RTC 504.0 6.9 28.1 173.2 295.7

Pct Difference 27.8 43.8 (21.1) 85.0 13.6



Between 2004 and 2005, RTC states saw a 1.1% increase in their violent crime rate, compared to non-RTC states’ 2.1% increase. (See Table 5) The main influences in non-RTC states experiencing a greater increase in the violent crime rate is due to the first two categories noted in the CNN article: murder and robbery.



Table 5 – RTC Violent Crime Rate Trend Comparison, 2004-2005[10]
(Negative Percent = Decreasing Rate)

Population Violent Crime Homicide Rape Robbery Assault

RTC 1.1 0.3 (2.0) 1.6 1.4

Non-RTC 2.1 1.9 (4.4) 6.8 0.2



Separating community types by RTC status indicates a moderate benefit imparted by personal self-defense. Of the 15 different categories–five violent crime categories for each of the three community types–RTC states were better in 10 of 15. In all three community types, RTC states bettered the national rate change for overall violent crime, while non-RTC states saw larger increases in MSAs and non-MSA cities. The one exception is in rape, where non-RTC states led in two of three community type comparisons, though some counterbalance occurs because RTC MSAs saw a greater drop than the national one-year rate change and non-MSA cities without RTC saw a 19.2% increase in rape. (See Table 6)

Table 6 – One-Year Violent Crime Trends by Community Type and RTC Status, 2004-2005[11] (Percent Average Rate Change)

Community Violent Crime Homicide Rape Robbery Assault

MSA RTC 0.7 6.5 (2.1) 0.3 1.1

MSA non-RTC 2.8 2.9 (4.8) 7.7 0.7

Non-MSA RTC (2.1) (0.8) 4.7 (1.3) (3.1)

Non-MSA non-RTC 8.1 9.7 19.2 15.1 5.4

Non-Metro RTC 0.9 (6.6) 3.0 4.1 0.7

Non-Metro non-RTC 1.1 15.1 1.2 (10.5) 2.1

U.S. 1.8 1.9 (1.7) 3.8 1.5



It should be noted, however, that RTC communities remain less violent, leading their non-RTC counterparts in eleven of 15 categories, including the overall violent crime rate. (See Table 7)



Table 7 – Average Violent Crime Rates by Community Type and RTC Status, 2005[12]

Community Violent Crime Homicide Rape Robbery Assault

MSA RTC 417.3 5.2 37.0 110.3 264.9

MSA non-RTC 523.8 7.2 27.6 185.5 303.5

Non-MSA RTC 354.0 3.4 35.8 54.1 260.6

Non-MSA non-RTC 438.2 1.9 44.5 67.7 324.1

Non-Metro RTC 194.9 3.1 22.0 13.7 158.5

Non-Metro non-RTC 201.1 2.2 21.4 14.5 163.1

Conclusion
Yes, violent crime rates increased in 2005, especially in the categories of murder and robbery. Most of this increase occurred in large metropolitan areas and in cities not part of a larger metropolitan area that reside in non-RTC states. Right-to-carry communities are generally the safest places to live, and non-metropolitan counties in RTC states are the safest places for women. So the next time a gun controller says we need to ban guns because crime is going up, kindly give them this paper and remind them that they have already contributed enough, thank you very much.

About the Author
Howard Nemerov publishes with ChronWatch, News Busters and other sites, and is a frequent guest on NRA News. He can be reached at HNemerov [at sign] Netvista.net.

Endnotes




[1] Terry Frieden, Violent crime takes first big jump since ’91, CNN, June 12, 2006. http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/12/crime.rate/

[2] Ibid.

[3] Table 1 – Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986-2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl01.xls


[4] Compiled from Table 8 – Offenses Known to Law Enforcement by State by City, 2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl08.xls Email request for spreadsheet.


[5] FBI Crime in the United States, 2004, Appendix III – Uniform Crime Reporting Area Definitions, page 507. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf

[6] Compiled from Table 5 – Crime in the United States by State, 2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl05.xls Email request for spreadsheet.


[7] Ibid.


[8] Rape rate trends compiled from FBI crime data 1995, 1996, 2004, and 2005. Email request for spreadsheet.

[9] Compiled from Table 4 – Crime in the United States by Region, Geographic Division, and State, 2004-2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl04.xls and Table 5 – Crime in the United States by State, 2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl05.xls Email request for spreadsheet.


[10] Compiled from Table 4 – Crime in the United States by Region, Geographic Division, and State, 2004-2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/documents/05tbl04.xls Email request for spreadsheet.


[11] Ibid.


[12] Ibid.

I have been following this thread and must the level of anger towards feminists and feminism as an ideology is very disturbing.

LMAO. You don't know what I believe or what my stance on the subject of feminism is, because Sir, you haven't read enough of the posts in this particular thread to have read that I, personally, don't relate to the movement in the past or the arguments of today's less extremist feministic views. Had you taken time to read the entire thread, you would have seen my views long ago and would not have resorted to such juvenile retorts.

Post at will, it speaks volumes to those single ladies here who may have, under different circumstances, found you remotely likable, maybe even datable. Awww, the glory of forums...true colors fly out of the fingers. Good luck with your search.

Your distorted and politically correct dogma
Republicans who agree with her politically correct dogma

"State your thesis and support it with facts"..The facts are I have worked with domestic violence as a therapist for 20 years, dealing with real people and real events..My experience is that the vast majority of feminists are not those wacked out hate filled extremists you keep posting and insisting are "facts"...Your distorted and politically correct dogma from the likes of extremists no more constitute the "facts" of feminism than your own opinion......Ive studied feminism for 25 years..I dont need to post dogma to illustrate the reality of my life and that of my clients.."you imply that ours is based on some sort of insecurity"...You bet is it!...Having an opinion is one thing...Not listening to whats being said and hanging onto extremst dogma dispite the contrary here because you dont want to be "wrong" about feminists is another...Thats emotional immaturity, and insecurity...Time to grow up.

It is also very disturbing that this is mainly coming from men quoting leaders in the anti-feminist camp (like Paglia or Hoff Sommers).

"A non partisan source?"...And yours are?....Me thinks not....Look in the mirror on that one...Christina Hoff Sommers as well as Camille Paglia are given perks and academic appointments from well know Republicans who agree with her politically correct dogma.....Look at your own sources as well

I hate discussions like this. All this nonsense about feminism being this or not being that. I wonder how many people participating in this thread have actually read any of the works of some of the more important feminists of the past few decades? Probably very, very few if any. Its amazing how everybody feels they are entitled to an opinion, yet at the same time feel no obligation to make sure said opinion is informed. Most of what I have read in this thread is pure BS by people who have absolutely no idea what feminism is.

Most of these posts read like they are simply people repeating the moronic ramblings of the pundits they see on TV or hear on the radio. Not surprising, since his is what usually passes for debate amongst the mentally stunted these days. And yes, if you are reading this and are one of those who hasn't actualy read a feminist but still thinks you know about feminism, then you are indeed mentally stunted.

Many men on this thread have not even listened to what the women are saying here..

But most men here think they know the "reality" of what its like being a woman in this patriarchal system but most really havent a clue and wont get a clue because they wont stop to get off their high horse and listen to whats being said...Womens' reality of what happens needs to be listened to and accepted...Its not YOUR reality , your life so accept it and deal with if you want to have a life with a woman..

Its amazing that my sexy guy Im dating understands that perfectly.... As a feminist, Im no threat to his ego because hes a mature man secure in his masculinity that understands the plight of women and doesnt need to argue, minimize or get defensive.....He doesnt need to "best" women in order to feel like a man..And under no circumstances would he ever defend domestic violence or argue women/the society/the courts are the cause of that.....He takes responsibility for his actions and expects other men to do as well....Several here could learn some lessons from him

^^^^^^^^^^^AUGH ~ talk about off-topic. Spewing such idiocies in a thread about feminism....take it to private email....some of us want to discuss feminism. Not rape, sodomy, domestic violence or the weather. This is nothing more than an example of how NOT to debate a subject!!! (And, at least this topic is reasonably discussable. Versus the usual "who is cheating on who" threads) all the good threads get high-jacked with this bs. PRIVATE EMAIL is where you spew hate folks...

On topic: I just exerted my equal rights to voice my opinion. Like it or don't. Extremists are the real problem, as is evident right here. PFT...all of you need to take a college course or two in Women's Studies. Enlightenment makes for a much better discussion than Wikipedia and outdated website stats which are skewed depending upon which side one is on. Another good discussion turned into a battle of mysogomy and misandry.

"using domestic violence as an "excuse" to destroy the family"...You are way off on that one...

Women are not responsible for the actions of men nor are they required by "religion" to stay with an abuser in order to "keep" the marriage

as well as women remaining a sick doormat by remaining in a violent marriage and exposing her children to the violence isnt "family values" nor is it healthy...Its pathology..Seen that many times as a therapist for 20 years and its no good for anyone...Unless you think 20 years of preventable trauma therapy for the victims is "good"

Get educated

Protecting children agains sex offenders, isn't a result of feminism, it's the right thing to do. Rape/molestation is very serious and those who have been victims carry life long scars.

I just read a couple of Merfs posts.

She is correct in some things.

Brought to you by entities/people CLAIMING to be feminists. I think it should be obvious to just about anyone that women doing spiteful, mean things without any good/logical reasons are merely trying to excuse themselves with a claim of fighting for women's rights.

They aren't feminists, they're cretins.

Except you do attack people personally, and are now a liar on top of everything else. You're so blinded by your neo conservative/racist/sexist views, that anybody who disagrees with you is insufferable rude and arrogant

You see all countries have these "borders" so Canada's southern border is your northern border.

I can't believe I'm explaining this to an adult.

Ever wonder what all those little (per 100,000) things you see when you look at stats pages mean?

Anyway, I'm sick of refuting this inane post fact by fact. I can destroy this with one simple statement.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Just because it came after, doesn't mean a damn thing. Especially because it's so easy to list countries that this DIDN'T happen.

"maby" I do, or maybe I read very quickly, and maybe this is a field in which I studied. But I guess you probably hold my education against me. Your type usually does.

Also don't blame me that some logical fallicies are refered to by their latin names, it's not my fault you suffer from ant-intellectualism, I hardly named the things. You're appeals to emotion and personal attacks don't make your possition any stronger. They just indicate your own inability to deal with statistics.

Yes I remember in nazi germany and cambodia how it started, first they came for the people who defended themselves against home invaders..... PLEASE. Some perspective here.

Plus, I'm not taking it out of context, if I'm making you look like a fool, it has to do with what you're saying, you don't need any help.

As for anti-intellectualism by the way...


Anti-intellectualism describes a sentiment of hostility towards, or mistrust of, intellectuals and intellectual pursuits. This may be expressed in various ways, such as attacks on the merits of science, education, or literature.

It's a well-known phenomenon. Glad I could educate you about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

Fine, you know what? You have nothing to add to the conversation, and frankly its not worth going through your arguments point by point. Instead, I'll just report you for your (see I know which your to use) direct personal attack, and you can deal with any consequences, in the meantime, this snot nosed brat of a loser is doing the mature thing, and ignoring your posts.

everyone here talks about "those extremists" who took feminism in the wrong direction, but no one has named these man hating extremist 'b*tches' -- and why? because they can't. because they don't know what they're talking about. because they don't know who these extremists are. because they do not exist. because these posters listen to rush limbaugh and his 'femi nazi' rhetoric and then THINK they know something about feminism. when what they KNOW is precisely nothing.

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." -- Valerie Solanas

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression." -- Sheila Jeffrys

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon

"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." -- Sharon Stone

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." -- Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French

"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release." -- Germaine Greer

"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to ****/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced." -- Judith Levine

"All men are good for is ****ing, and running over with a truck". Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University. 1995 settlement.

"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do." -- Popular Feminist Graffiti

"I've reached the point where I'm no longer afraid of or irritated with men who are proud of their masculinity." -- Trille Nielsen

“Men are from another planet, sent here by spaceships to copulate with female earthlings and propagate the species—a task for which science has rendered them all but redundant. We need keep only a handful of donors on a sperm farm for that purpose, where they can subsist on pizza and beer” -- Columnist Rosie DiManno

“Only when manhood is dead--and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it” -- Andrea Dworkin

"Perhaps the most compelling question these texts raise and leave unanswered is whether male violence can be eliminated without eliminating men..." -- Susan Stone-Blackburn

“We must startle them (flush them out) again and again and destroy them as a power, until even their last voice falls silent... when we have destroyed the cell of family, the heterosexual norm ... as our contribution to world events (world history)” -- Françoise d'Eaubonne

"I do want to be able to explain to a 9-year-old boy in terms he will understand why I think it's OK for girls to wear shirts that revel in their superiority over boys." -- Treena Shapiro

"In general, I support a girl's right to offend any member of the opposite sex who happens to cross her path. In fact, I'd much rather see a little girl wearing a shirt that mocks boys than one that turns them on." -- Treena Shapiro

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." -- Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual male, it may be mainly a quantitative difference." -- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson "Amazon Odyssey" (p. 86)

people say "feminism is inherently sexist" -- that is perhaps the funniest wrong thing which has been said here, LOL -- yes sure, if you feel that a movement for which the aim is to establish equality between the sexes is SEXIST, uh er ummmm sure..

the misinformation? the obvious biases? the hostility? the shockingly faulty logic? the downright dumb thinking? all these things (and more!) have made it so that this thread gets my vote for the stupidest POF thread in the history of POF discussion forums. i have never read postings on any single thread that have been this stupid, this wrong or this uninformed in combination with being so sure of themselves and so brazenly opinionated.

are you kidding me? you think it is MY job to educate a bunch of people who are hostile to feminism and are ALREADY sure they know what it is? already think it means being a man hating extremist? puhleez!!!!

It is all equally important..Ive agreed with several wrong things about militant man haters with men here but I dont see acknowledgement of that or them coming around to what Ive said...So if anything, Ive accepted THEIR reality but they havent accepted MINE.....Stop being so defensive and LISTEN to whats being said....The difference is my truth as a woman and many women here isnt being heard or listened to by many men here.....THATS the problem...It has nothing to do with whether or not someone agrees with me...It has to do with whether or not they are being heard....So far, few men here understand that..

Everyone wants to feel protected and cared for, thats a given..But I will second that one on the "lead" thing ... For the most part thats a bunch of BS.... Men being dominant is fine and desirable some of time as long as I can be dominant some of the time also....Otherwise its a slippery slope where somehow Im "expected" to be passive when I dont want to be and the man is supposed to be "dominant" when he doesnt want to be.....It should be a give and take... As far as making my own choices and living my own life, I dont want anyone leading me except myself....My man can give me advice and I can CHOOSE to follow it or not...The ultimate decision is mine....Not be bound by some archaic rule that states I have to be passive and listen to him cos hes the man and has to lead over me BS.....If my own father and past work supervisors had trouble "leading" me, what makes you think you are gonna have an easier time?...lol...I ask the men here:..Would you want a woman constantly leading you and telling you what to do??...I thought so.....I think thats called being "henpecked"....Ironically some claim thats what feminism does to them....So why do you expect women to want that?...Im no different from you in that matter and dont like it either....And it has never compromised my femininity.....Surprise!.

feanor I must point out that "liberal" is not an insult it is only an ideology different from your own. Conservative or "neo-con" is actually more of an insult denoting a person that sticks to a flawed thhinking for no better reason than "this is the way it has always been", which would leave you with slaves and women with no vote still.

1. a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

2.a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.

Your points lack
1 facts to back them up

2 even a modicum of a semi-informed view

3 sound reasonning

(which you seem to try to cover up by attacking anyone that opposes your view)

I have never seen a gun or know of anyone that has one. Can you say the same???

Then there are those of us who dare to choose to work to help create a better world. We refuse to resign ourselves to eternal strife and instead choose to believe that all those extra brain cells we cart around just might be able to one day create a society where violence is as socially unacceptable as slavery has become. Personally I see a whole lot more liberty in that world.

Gee, I thought a well regulated malitia meant just that-well regulated.

Yes there was no national guard at the time. Does that make one unconstitutional? Or not the "well regulated militia" governments are wont to support.

and until you stop listening to the silly nonsense about the world wanting to invade you and take all your rights away, therre is no real hope of you ever ending the violence you purpetrate on each other. My reason for having an interest is this madness is creeping across the border and our kids are adopting your stupid ideas.

Yes a very christian attitude you have there.

but hey, if you think that insults from a sexist, overweight, neonazi really hurt my feelings you misunderstand. Anybody who equates tyranny to liberalism (it's root word is liberty) and then states that amnesty international is a liberal organization (and therefore tyrannical) obviously lives in some alternate dimension, we can't communicate because I don't think the words I'm using and you're using mean the same thing.

You have nothing to add to the conversation, and frankly its not worth going through your arguments point by point. Instead, I'll just report you for your (see I know which your to use) direct personal attack, and you can deal with any consequences, in the meantime, this snot nosed brat of a loser is doing the mature thing, and ignoring your posts.

Oh, I see your indulging in the classic I know what you are but what am I defense. Brilliant.

Way to throw the "liberal" term around like it's an insult.

Hmmm maybe this?

You know, where he seems to hold my knowledge of statistics against me? Don't let get in the way of you rant however. Lets continue.

Your constitution came into operation in 1789.

Like white land owning free males? Oops! that was your countries requirement. Both of you massively restricted the franchise. The Greeks had the excuse that they did it thousands of years earlier. Nice try though. (also restricting it to "modern" times doesn't change the fact that you were not the first)

Simple logic doesn't make it true logic, you can't show causation, because as I said many countries have banned firearms (and some for literally decades) without becoming totalitarian. While other rather nasty regimes have a massive gun culture. Iraq, Iran. Afghanistan. For somebody who states logic, you don't seem to understand the post hoc fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

Just because it came before in some cases, doesn't mean it's a step towards it. No more than massively chaotic failed states require a lack of weapons control.

Plus, I'm not taking it out of context, if I'm making you look like a fool, it has to do with what you're saying, you don't need any help.

See above. You don't actually make your argument any stronger by repeating yourself. Gun control no more leads to totalitarianism than lack of fire arm control is a step on the process to the USA becoming a chaotic hell hole such as Sierra Leon in the late 90s, or Afghanistan as it is now. (Read the link to the logic page)

Ok you don't like my posting style, that’s your right, although for somebody who was just ****ing about personal attacks, you sure don't have a problem with throwing them around, but conservatives are all about the hypocrisy these days. I personally appreciate links when somebody makes a claim, or statement. I'm sorry that me showing sources and information on why a person is wrong offends you so much.

Oh I don't claim our history is perfect by any means, although we did end slavery decades before you, (and peacefully, no nasty civil war for us) White women were free not to vote or have any political office. Free blacks were free to be treated horribly and not to vote.

As for natives? Well there is a reason that the native population is a concern in Canada and not in the USA. While we have mistreated them (and it is tragic) we didn't take to exterminating them with quite the gusto your country has. This is a tu quoque logical fallacy by the way. My country could have shot democracy loving, African American Jews in the face and it wouldn't make your history any better than it is, or change the fact that the Greeks beat you to democracy.

Hmmmmm seems to me I responded exactly to what you said. That people being put in prison for using guns to defend their lives and property is the beginning of totalitarianism. Don't blame me if when I reflect that back to you it looks foolish or stupid. *I* was being sarcastic.

that disarming citizens is necessary to make oppression workable, because you can't engage in the kind of mass arrests and murder in the streets that the Nazis and Khmer Rouge did if all of those citizens are armed. Or at least, not so easily.

That people being put in prison for using guns to defend their lives and property is the beginning of totalitarianism.

Supreme court, Majority white male. Every president, White male. Congress and Senate, Majority white male. Wealthiest group in North America? White male.

Feel free to be concerned.

I love how you falsely imply that anybody who doesn't agree with the current administration doesn't love America. Here is a link to the fallacy you're using in this segment by the way, because I know how much you appreciate them.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

I guess the right to due process and facing your accuser and not being held without charge isn't considered a pressing issue for you. Also, lack of due process is what has led to innocent people being mistreated in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

I find it interesting that the same groups that have been doing their best to reduce the excesses of various horrible regimes throughout the world such as Amnesty International and the Red Cross, are now expressing concerns about your own treatment of prisoners. Apparently your love of your country is best expressed through the gradual destruction of your freedoms through the patriot act.

awwww I'm your enemy? Wow you take posts in web forums rather seriously. I find it amusing that you complained about other countries restricting free speech, but now apparently you think we don't have the right to be critical of your country? Sorry, but your on a Canadian owned companies webpage, and the Internet is a great venue for international communication. Maybe you should ask yourself if you love your country so much, why do you think it's so fragile it can't take a little foreign criticism?

Ok so no one outside of Rwanda should worry about the tribal violence, or Somalia (wait you meddled there didn't you), or Vietnam (my bad you meddled in their "internal affairs" aswell), or Iran or Iraq (Oh wait you are still meddling in Iraq and were gearring up for Iran until the bested you in a poker hand with the Brits).

"maby" I do, or maybe I read very quickly, and maybe this is a field in which I studied. But I guess you probably hold my education against me. Your type usually does.

The french beat you by several years. (Despite you calling them liars, oddly enough)

and the greeks beat you by several thousand years.

of course the actual laws don't corespond to the years you're putting forward, they're off by several decades. Many of those restrictions were put on by democratic instutions.

You claim there is a pattern, well I showed you a counter pattern. The simple fact is is that many countries have existed in democracies with firearms restrictions for many decades and none of these countries have suddenly become totalitarian.

Also don't blame me that some logical fallicies are refered to by their latin names, it's not my fault you suffer from ant-intellectualism, I hardly named the things.

You're appeals to emotion and personal attacks don't make your possition any stronger. They just indicate your own inability to deal with statistics.

Well except for the blacks. and women, and well you know....

Yes I remember in nazi germany and cambodia how it started, first they came for the people who defended themselves against home invaders..... PLEASE. Some perspective here.

You know how they started? By appealing to fear, and the hatred of minority groups, and abusing groups they blamed for their problems.

Look at wiretaps and guantanamo bay buddy, your priorities and fears are all mixed up.

I think some do yes. In their silly minds they think they can be the one and only the rest of this virgin's life.... HAHA