Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    Women do get angry, but that's not the point, the point is, this wasn't written by one. And by "male writing style" I mean "a writing style that is obviously male" - there are subtle differences in phrasing, pace, word choice, emphasis... if you want a better explanation, you're going to have to embark upon a critical reading course I'm afraid.
    This paragraph is the least well formed argument I have ever seen. Including the letter in the OP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My thoughts?

    Out with feminism.

    In with masculism.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    So many people actually believing the OPs mother wrote that, when it so obviously was him wanting to get away with idiocy and chauvinism behind a shield :lol:
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Bobifier)
    This paragraph is the least well formed argument I have ever seen. Including the letter in the OP.
    I wasn't really trying to form an argument... I just thought it would be a bit rude to come out and say; "You'd have to be an actual idiot to believe that this was written by a woman".
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bottled)
    Its arguable that the patriarchy didn't give a rats ass about men. Theory only cared about other rich people and how to make more money from people.

    That aside, women weren't forced into dangerous labour, to pay taxes, they weren't shamed if they were found to be abused by their husbands, they weren't conscripted, and they were seen as the purer of the two sexes and thus tended to be given the benefit of the doubt.

    Although that's not to say that it was totally beneficial towards women as seen by various laws.

    Back on topic. All of her points were pretty terrible, due to her generalisations.
    They weren't forced into dangerous labour because they were seen as too weak and feeble to work.

    They didn't pay taxes because they didn't earn money.

    Their husbands were legally permitted to physically abuse them if they were disobedient, and rape them if they didn't consent to sex.

    They weren't conscripted for the same reasons in point #1 but they were routinely raped and slaughtered by invading and defending armies alike.

    'Purer sex'? Hell no. This is an extremely romanticised view of the past. For a long, long time women were seen as wicked, devious and corruptible. Why do you think they were by far the main victims of the witch hunts?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    You haven't given any sources, just your assurances that such laws existed.

    I want actual evidence if I'm going to concede the point.

    A reminder: your assurances =/= actual evidence.
    Laws that prevented women from voting? Laws that allowed men to beat and rape their wives? Laws that allowed women to be tried, tortured and executed as witches? Anti-abortion laws? Laws that prevented married women from owning property of any kind? Stop being so bloody obtuse.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Laws that prevented women from voting? Laws that allowed men to beat and rape their wives? Laws that allowed women to be tried, tortured and executed as witches? Anti-abortion laws? Laws that prevented married women from owning property of any kind? Stop being so bloody obtuse.
    Uh huh. I want to see the actual law as it was written. Lest any spins being put onto them.

    Although it's worth saying that with the abolishing of such laws, along with the Divorce Reform Act, the patriarchy has done alot more for women in the last 60 years than men.

    Also, the article did allude to a time-frame of 60 years ago.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    So many people actually believing the OPs mother wrote that, when it so obviously was him wanting to get away with idiocy and chauvinism behind a shield :lol:

    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    I wasn't really trying to form an argument... I just thought it would be a bit rude to come out and say; "You'd have to be an actual idiot to believe that this was written by a woman".
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    Women do get angry, but that's not the point, the point is, this wasn't written by one. And by "male writing style" I mean "a writing style that is obviously male" - there are subtle differences in phrasing, pace, word choice, emphasis... if you want a better explanation, you're going to have to embark upon a critical reading course I'm afraid.

    To anyone who "knows writing" this is obviously written by a male, there's no particular way to explain why it's obvious. You can just "tell".

    Anyway... I specifically said that there are valid points about some women - however - it is implied fairly strongly that the writer is directing this at "all women". If not, the premise - that the son will never marry - doesn't particularly make sense. It would only be true if he happened to have a bad early experience with one of these women. As I suspect the real writer has.
    I believe these are the most determined efforts to resort to ad hominem I have ever seen, lmao. :lol:
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    I believe these are the most determined efforts to resort to ad hominem I have ever seen, lmao. :lol:

    Well I decided not to bother with your 'last guys finish last' 'I wish I was a dominant man and could just buy a wife' rant. You'd really like the poetry of T.S. Eliot :yep:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    Well I decided not to bother with your 'last guys finish last' 'I wish I was a dominant man and could just buy a wife' rant. You'd really like the poetry of T.S. Eliot :yep:
    "Last guys finish last"? Lmao. :lol:
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    "Last guys finish last"? Lmao. :lol:

    Im glad you liked it, I thought it describes you best because you're not very nice :nope:

    The entire letter reveals a serious complex, if you had posted it legitimately as your own views without this cloak I might have engaged with your views, because Im always open minded. The fact that you felt the need to hide however tells me you're not confident in your own views, and would not be willing to discuss them (because that would require dropping the letter). You chose to post this letter so that people wouldn't attack your stand, but someone else's.

    If you post a new thread asking if women might be happier at home, second class to guys like you, and questioning why they should have a right to reject you, I might reply again and discuss your points. But I'm done for now, this thread is pointless and embarrassing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    Maybe they're happy staying at home and raising a family? No need to disrespect people just because they don't have the same desires and beliefs as you.
    That's not what I'm saying. There's nothing wrong with being a housewife, I'd definitely consider it depending on circumstances, but I don't believe in the philosophy that that's all I'm good for simply because I was born with a vagina
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evangelica)
    That's not what I'm saying. There's nothing wrong with being a housewife, I'd definitely consider it depending on circumstances, but I don't believe in the philosophy that that's all I'm good for simply because I was born with a vagina
    Erm, it's been 60 years since that was considered the norm. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    I wasn't really trying to form an argument... I just thought it would be a bit rude to come out and say; "You'd have to be an actual idiot to believe that this was written by a woman".
    Ironically, you actually would have to be a bit of an idiot to believe either that you are capable of making the distinction, or that it is possible to become qualified to make the distinction. As your earlier posts demonstrated, you have no reason to justify being able to say this other than "I and some others kind of feel like it was probably a man really".
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobifier)
    Ironically, you actually would have to be a bit of an idiot to believe either that you are capable of making the distinction, or that it is possible to become qualified to make the distinction. As your earlier posts demonstrated, you have no reason to justify being able to say this other than "I and some others kind of feel like it was probably a man really".
    I think it's pretty obvious. It reads just like every other bitter 'nice guy' rant. There's zero reason to believe this was actually written by a mother so instead I go by experience and ask myself, 'what kind of person is most likely to write a piece like this? Who would stand to benefit?'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    I think it's pretty obvious. It reads just like every other bitter 'nice guy' rant. There's zero reason to believe this was actually written by a mother so instead I go by experience and ask myself, 'what kind of person is most likely to write a piece like this? Who would stand to benefit?'
    I get you. But it's still ad hominem.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    They weren't forced into dangerous labour because they were seen as too weak and feeble to work.

    They didn't pay taxes because they didn't earn money.

    Their husbands were legally permitted to physically abuse them if they were disobedient, and rape them if they didn't consent to sex.

    They weren't conscripted for the same reasons in point #1 but they were routinely raped and slaughtered by invading and defending armies alike.

    'Purer sex'? Hell no. This is an extremely romanticised view of the past. For a long, long time women were seen as wicked, devious and corruptible. Why do you think they were by far the main victims of the witch hunts?
    firstly with your first and fourth point, let's not Reframe the issue we all know at the end of the day that men come out worse at this one it doesn't, unless you consider being forced to fight in wars or dangerous labour (like the great china wall) a privilege denied from women by men. Men being disposable comes from nothing more than the gender role of a man being expected to protect others and lay their lives on the line. as seen by the treatment of men who didn't fight in WWII or WWI (they were given white feathers to depict cowardice or were attacked at times).

    And the witch-hunts weren't a result of gendered violence. men could be tried as witches, and the majority of the targets were mostly old people. old women who before the witchhunts were respected. As they lived alone they were targetted more as they were seen as more suspicious and didn't conform to societal norms due to being brought up in different times. And i was mostly talking of the victorian era when i said purer sex but whatever, i wasn't clear enough

    And furthermore, POW's tended to be raped over and over so as to break them over, and obviously as a result of being in the front line, i'd say they were again, more disadvantaged and more likely to be slaughtered than women, who could very well be safe.

    Moreover women DID work. as the thing about fending off starvation is that it actually broke down gender roles. so when it came to household chores men and women were equals. and even ran the beer industry at one point.

    in the victorian era, women could be maids, governesses, farmers, teachers, nannies whatever. or could very well just inherit the money.

    you are right with your second point tho
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bottled)
    firstly with your first and fourth point, let's not Reframe the issue
    Good point and interesting article/blog post.

    Exposing such verbal sleights-of-hand is essential to having a real debate.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bottled)
    firstly with your first and fourth point, let's not Reframe the issue we all know at the end of the day that men come out worse at this one it doesn't, unless you consider being forced to fight in wars or dangerous labour (like the great china wall) a privilege denied from women by men. Men being disposable comes from nothing more than the gender role of a man being expected to protect others and lay their lives on the line. as seen by the treatment of men who didn't fight in WWII or WWI (they were given white feathers to depict cowardice or were attacked at times).
    Right, just being clear that it's not like everything was fine and dandy for women in wartime and they were delicate flowers who stayed at home safe and sound while brave men protected them.

    The way I see it, women were excluded from all matters of war. War was completely internalised within the male gender and therefore I don't interpret it as a gender issue but as a class issue. It is a case of the rich and powerful exploiting the poor and vulnerable. These men were seen as disposable because they were poor, not because they were men.

    I think it's worth mentioning that the recent decision by the US to allow women to serve on the frontlines and be eligible for the draft has been widely supported by feminists but, from what I can tell, largely opposed by the same MRAs who like to use the 'but men have to die in wars!' line as one of their main talking points.


    And the witch-hunts weren't a result of gendered violence. men could be tried as witches, and the majority of the targets were mostly old people. old women who before the witchhunts were respected. As they lived alone they were targetted more as they were seen as more suspicious and didn't conform to societal norms due to being brought up in different times. And i was mostly talking of the victorian era when i said purer sex but whatever, i wasn't clear enough
    Unless you were from Iceland you were extremely unlikely to be prosecuted as a witch if you were a man. There were a lot of factors that contributed to this but the rampant misogyny of the time and the demonisation of the female sex is up there. The Malleus Maleficarum devotes entire chapters to explaining why women exclusively are liable to be witches and is basically the single most sexist thing you will ever read.

    Moreover women DID work. as the thing about fending off starvation is that it actually broke down gender roles. so when it came to household chores men and women were equals. and even ran the beer industry at one point.

    in the victorian era, women could be maids, governesses, farmers, teachers, nannies whatever. or could very well just inherit the money.
    In which case, they were taxed...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    snip xx
    all right i agree with you there. and for the record i am not an MRA.



    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    In which case, they were taxed...
    I thought you were saying women DIDN'T earn money. Whatever tho and i haven't done witchcraft research in ages so i guess i'll re-research once again.
    But whatever i think my point must have been misconstrued. at some point. I'm just trying to say that men and women both benefited and were disadvantaged by gender roles enforced by the 'patriarchy' and to say that one gender had it better than the other is not very helpful
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    Good point and interesting article/blog post.

    Exposing such verbal sleights-of-hand is essential to having a real debate.
    If you're real interested then i suggest you look at this page which describes plenty of fallacies which are commonly used
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.