Imogen wrote:and vorpal, have you met men who think women are sub-human? or their victims? because i have, and every time i see a woman who was abused by a man because he didn't respect her person-hood, it makes me MORE feminist. or when a student refuses to respect me because he is taught at home that women don't need to be respected.
No, not really. I know women have been abused by men, and I have known men who have little respect for women. It had nothing to do with considering a woman sub-human or not respecting her person-hood. I have known men who have been abused by women, and men who weren't respected by women. Should this make men more male chauvinistic?
I don't doubt you when you say that some students show no respect to you because they have been taught at home to have little respect for women. And I sympathize with the difficulties you face. I have also known children who were taught at home to have no respect for men. Or any respect for people of a different color (white or black). Or any respect for authority figures. That also makes teaching difficult if you are on the opposite side.
I see a problem when rhetoric reaches a point when we categorize our perceived enemies as being sub-human. Calling police officers "pigs" is a form of characterization that this class of being is sub-human, a kind of animal. Referring to men as eating or behaving or living like animals is also to down-grade their status as people. The common phrase "chauvinistic pig" to describe a perceived enemy of feminism is another example.
In time of war it is also common to accuse our enemies as treating our side, or our captured soldiers, as less than people. So, whenever I hear someone say that some group of people treats him or her as though he or she was not a person, then I suspect that that individual has been brainwashed with war propaganda. It also tells me who that individual considers to be his or her enemy.