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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flying plum)
    I don't see how that's from a different perspective. That letter, and the rest of her blog, sound like all the other 'feminism=misandry' blogs and posts I've seen recently.
    It shows up on numerous far-Right and Christian Right websites in the States - probably a fake, written by some bloke in an extremist US Church sect or some such.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dartanoir)
    Did you seriously ask that question? By definition a patriarchal society is a system in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. An obvious example is when women were unable to achieve financial independence by being unable to work thus having to rely on their partners. And what about the stigmatisation of female sexuality in a way that is oppressive? Oh god I could keep going on and on.
    Also the mother wrote that her son will be spending years meeting and sleeping with women, but then calls the WOMEN loose but not her son? Surely he is just as easy?
    This whole thing is ridiculous and holds so many double standards I don't even know where to start. As a woman I owe so so much to feminism.
    The vast majority of men did not benefit from the so-called "patriarchy". I'm glad you raised this point, as I would dispute their choice of word and phrasing in this instance.

    To say all men benefited would be misleading.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It shows up on numerous far-Right and Christian Right websites in the States - probably a fake, written by some bloke in an extremist US Church sect or some such.
    The phrase 'pump and dump' used in the letter suggested to me it was probably written by a 20-30 something young man. It didn't strike me as a phrase used by a mother. But maybe I'm stereotyping.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    The vast majority of men did not benefit from the so-called "patriarchy". I'm glad you raised this point, as I would dispute their choice of word and phrasing in this instance.

    To say all men benefited would be misleading.
    I think this comment exemplified the problem with discussing feminism. Men take it personally. They seem to think that feminism is an attack on them, personally, as a man. It is not. It is an attack on a system, from which many men benefitted, and which women were disadvantaged. Which put men and women into roles dictated by their sex, and were just as difficult for men as women in many instances.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It shows up on numerous far-Right and Christian Right websites in the States - probably a fake, written by some bloke in an extremist US Church sect or some such.
    Yes, I am not surprised the article is gathering popularity, tbh. Although, that's not to say I would ally myself with such extremists.

    And I'm sure the feminists would equally distance themselves from the so-called extremist "Feminazis". :lol:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flying plum)
    The phrase 'pump and dump' used in the letter suggested to me it was probably written by a 20-30 something young man. It didn't strike me as a phrase used by a mother. But maybe I'm stereotyping.
    No, you're not and I agree - it screams fake. Generally with this type of 'circular' internet meme, there is discussion about the originator, but I couldn't easily locate that from general googling, which also suggests it hasn't spread that widely as yet. It contains a number of phrases that don't sound authentic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flying plum)
    I think this comment exemplified the problem with discussing feminism. Men take it personally. They seem to think that feminism is an attack on them, personally, as a man. It is not. It is an attack on a system, from which many men benefitted, and which women were disadvantaged. Which put men and women into roles dictated by their sex, and were just as difficult for men as women in many instances.
    Yes, and I'm guessing that's why the feminists revolt the oppressed men you speak of so much. Men were oppressed but the feminists tend to focus on female oppression only. Even the definition carries a bias towards women.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    No, you're not and I agree - it screams fake. Generally with this type of 'circular' internet meme, there is discussion about the originator, but I couldn't easily locate that from general googling, which also suggests it hasn't spread that widely as yet. It contains a number of phrases that don't sound authentic.
    Exceptionally weak grounds for establishing an identity.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    Exceptionally weak grounds for establishing an identity.
    It's choc full of standard phrases from the anti-feminist movement, so I'm highly doubtful that it's just some sudden writing from the heart by Everymother. It's a piece of carefully written political theatre.

    I believe there are semantic analysers that can tell on the balance of probabilities what the gender, nationality and educational level of writers are on a large enough piece of text? It would be interesting to run this through one. My guess is Male, age 20-40, location Midwest US, educational level - lesser college.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    Yes, and I'm guessing that's why the feminists revolt the oppressed men you speak of so much. Men were oppressed but the feminists tend to focus on female oppression only. Even the definition carries a bias towards women.
    Effectively, men are always one step ahead of women in terms of equality. The right to vote originally was extended only to men with property. It was extended to all men before women. Then, the barriers against men were generally societal, rather than formal; class restrictions, or inequalities in education prevented men from gaining equality with other men. In contrast, the inequalities against women were more systemic, requiring legislation in terms of equal pay and so on. The fight for men's equality was part of a more general class struggle - feminism, in terms of women's rights, had a place, because women were not treated on a equal footing.

    The position we are in now is more complex. Formally, women are equal to men. Socially, gender equality is more nuanced. There are difficulties on both sides of the gender gap with regards to social roles which are expected of each (for example, men who chose to remain at home as child carers are seen a 'strange' or 'emasculated' by both women and men). The point of feminism was always against gender roles and stereotypes, the idea that women 'should' do one thing, while 'men' should do another. In fighting for women's right to choose how to live their lives, this requires fundamental re-organisation of society, and that includes redefining what men 'should' do and be. True equality will never be achieved while, for example, we have 'maternity' leave rather than 'parental' leave, to be divided amongst the parents as they choose.

    However, I do think that feminism, in terms of women's rights solely, still has a place. If you look at the reactions to the Steubenville Rape Trial, there is still a need for women's rights and feminism when it comes to sexual violence and society's response to it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's choc full of standard phrases from the anti-feminist movement, so I'm highly doubtful that it's just some sudden writing from the heart by Everymother. It's a piece of carefully written political theatre.

    I believe there are semantic analysers that can tell on the balance of probabilities what the gender, nationality and educational level of writers are on a large enough piece of text? It would be interesting to run this through one. My guess is Male, age 20-40, location Midwest US, educational level - lesser college.
    But unless you do, you have the basis of assumption only.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    It actually said the patriarchy always gave more to women than men.

    I believe the girl I was debating this with has already e-mailed the author to get them to elaborate on that point. She also claimed she would disprove the claim herself, reversing the burden of proof protocol, but has failed to do so.
    They were discussing the victorian age, not today and intentionally doing so.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    But unless you do, you have the basis of assumption only.
    A sensible default position when dealing with highly political internet meme texts like this one is to assume that it is false; in most cases, they contain elements of falsehood or are not what they purport to be. Therefore the onus is on you as the OP to prove its origins are genuine, since nearly all such offerings turn out to be false.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flying plum)
    I think this comment exemplified the problem with discussing feminism. Men take it personally. They seem to think that feminism is an attack on them, personally, as a man. It is not. It is an attack on a system, from which many men benefitted, and which women were disadvantaged. Which put men and women into roles dictated by their sex, and were just as difficult for men as women in many instances.
    omg someone who actually gets it :banana:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    A sensible default position when dealing with highly political internet meme texts like this one is to assume that it is false; in most cases, they contain elements of falsehood or are not what they purport to be. Therefore the onus is on you as the OP to prove its origins are genuine, since nearly all such offerings turn out to be false.
    Actually, I believe the burden of proof is on you, as you made the claim.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kunoichi)
    omg someone who actually gets it :banana:
    To their credit, a lot of people get it. They're just outnumbered by the anti-feminists when it comes to TSR, sadly...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flying plum)
    Effectively, men are always one step ahead of women in terms of equality. The right to vote originally was extended only to men with property. It was extended to all men before women. Then, the barriers against men were generally societal, rather than formal; class restrictions, or inequalities in education prevented men from gaining equality with other men. In contrast, the inequalities against women were more systemic, requiring legislation in terms of equal pay and so on. The fight for men's equality was part of a more general class struggle - feminism, in terms of women's rights, had a place, because women were not treated on a equal footing.
    Equal pay only accounts for employment positions. Was there any such legislature that prevented women from starting businesses? (Not rhetorical. A genuine question.)

    (Original post by flying plum)
    The position we are in now is more complex. Formally, women are equal to men. Socially, gender equality is more nuanced. There are difficulties on both sides of the gender gap with regards to social roles which are expected of each (for example, men who chose to remain at home as child carers are seen a 'strange' or 'emasculated' by both women and men). The point of feminism was always against gender roles and stereotypes, the idea that women 'should' do one thing, while 'men' should do another. In fighting for women's right to choose how to live their lives, this requires fundamental re-organisation of society, and that includes redefining what men 'should' do and be. True equality will never be achieved while, for example, we have 'maternity' leave rather than 'parental' leave, to be divided amongst the parents as they choose.
    The maternity leave situation is already in the works. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19925686

    And I always assumed the basis for women having more time off was more medical than societal. However, I couldn't say for sure.

    (Original post by flying plum)
    However, I do think that feminism, in terms of women's rights solely, still has a place. If you look at the reactions to the Steubenville Rape Trial, there is still a need for women's rights and feminism when it comes to sexual violence and society's response to it.
    Tbh I give alot of high profile news stories a wide berth. They attract something from all parts of the spectrum.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    To their credit, a lot of people get it. They're just outnumbered by the anti-feminists when it comes to TSR, sadly...
    I've told a number of TSR feminists that they need to convince neutrals a little better. That there is a high number of anti-feminists on TSR could be an effect of how poorly some of you articulate your stance.

    Any small amount of resistance, or differences on interpretation are usually met with childish retorts of "misogynist". Such behaviour is, in fact, a detriment to your whole movement.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kunoichi)
    They were discussing the victorian age, not today and intentionally doing so.
    The time-frame issues make the debate more complex. This is why I demanded more comprehensiveness from the people making claims or trying to refute opposing claims.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    Yes and that's why women have probably gained more from divorce settlements than men. It's a little like being punished for doing well.
    That's what my original post was about. It's nothing about punishing men - it's about ensuring that a fair deal is found after a divorce. When you agree to marry someone, you agree to stay with each other for the rest of your lives so your lifestyle adjusts accordingly. If your partner earns a lot of money, you might work less because you don't need to work anymore. When the marriage ends, your loss of earnings has to be taken into account which is often why women end up with more.

    Has no relevance to the divorce settlements issue.
    Yes it does. Positions of power are usually highly paid, so it's just another reason why it seems to be women who get more out of divorce.

    I'm afraid you can't speak for "many men" and say they wouldn't find powerful women attractive.

    And that women are attracted to powerful men is not justification to them walking away with half/alot of his wealth.
    You are SO difficult to debate with. I feel like I have to explain everything to you twice, and from the looks of it, I'm not the only one who feels this way. I didn't say that women being attracted to powerful men was justification for 'walking away with his wealth'. It was an explanation of why it tends to be women who seem to gain from divorce settlements. Btw my mum who is a matrimonial lawyer just told me that it is extremely rare that either partner is given 50% of the wealth unless they have been married a very long time.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.