Man recognising patriarchy on R4 Today!

[AliceHurled]

Was anyone else listening to Thought for the Day today?? John Bell recognises and names patriarchy, talks about male violence and the need to recognise collective responsibility. Didn't see that coming.

[Seabright]

Wow, missed that! I am off to the Listen Again page.

[Sanjeev]

It's the name that confuses/escapes men, not the concept.

[AliceHurled]

It was a real pinch yourself moment seabright!

[Alameda]

it was the bishop of norwich I think, not John Bell

[thechairmanmeow]

it's the collective responsability i have a problem with, if i feel collectivly responsable with peodofiles, nazi gas chamber operatives, testosterone-fulled bankers ect, that indicates that i have some sense of guilt in these areas, which makes me the villan. so naturaly i'm uncomfortable with taking responsability with what other people do just because we happen to have matching genitals.

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

I heard this. Thought for the day usually makes me want to throw things at the radio, I thought this morning's was really good.

here it is for those who missed it.

[AliceHurled]

Yes me too pubes. My mind was half switched off till I started to hear what was actually being said.

[AliceHurled]

Sorry can I call you pubes that was what stuck in my head but a rather presumptuous abbreviation

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

pubes is fine!

[Mathsquerading]

But it wasn't just men who herded people into gas chambers?!?

Sorry but twisting the facts doesn't help anybody. I also believe that many of the things he has mentioned (wars, wage slaves etc) would not have been possible without some sort of female collusion. We women are not perfect and nor are we completely impotent in influencing those around us.

I do agree with the fact that boys seem to be "programmed" to idolise older males but surely this just means we (and they) need decent male role models?

I think he underestimates the influence of women throughout history. We may not have top-billing for atrocities throughout time but you only have to look at "Bloody" Mary and Elizabeth I to see that we are not "the Virgin Mary". Power corrupts but not so many women have been in the position to show that they can be just as corrupt and just as ruthless as men.

There are plenty of powerful women involved in the rag trade and beauty industry who do nothing about child labour in the third/second world, overly-skinny models, animal testing, sexualisation of children, etc etc

I was actually shocked by the "gang rape in not so many images" D&G advert (I saw on here). Sorry but that was a lass modelling and I'm pretty sure she's not struggling to pay her rent to have to do that.

[AliceHurled]

Found a transcript

"Why can?t a woman be more like a man?? .. is a song from a previous era, but a sentiment which does not go away.

However the notion that men are inherently superior doesn?t stand up to empirical proof. While in physical strength they might usually have the advantage, in terms of moral fibre and human decency men don?t always come out on top

Because we live in a broadly patriarchal society, we should not be surprised that the culture which brought about the worldwide financial meltdown was overwhelmingly masculine. But consider also that the people who are most vocal in denying human responsibility for the disastrous effects of climate change are mostly male.

The people who control factories of wage slaves in the developing world are almost exclusively men, as are the commanders of terrorist regimes. Leaders who threaten or declare war are mostly men as are those involved in paedophile gangs.

While there are women who have been found guilty of this activity, to the best of my knowledge there have been no prosecutions of gangs of women. But there are untold networks of men who organise systematically the abuse of children.

It was an American 20th century theologian Rheinhold Niebuhr who moved sin from the personal into the corporate world. He suggested that there is within any interlinked group of people a propensity for evil which is greater than the sum of the malign potentials in each.

If you?ve ever run a youth club - as I used to - you?ll have seen this.

On the dance floor, a local boy and a newcomer square up to each other. As soon as the first punch is aimed the friends of the local boy join the fray and as you go in to break up the fight, you notice that some of those who are putting the boot in are boys who, on their own, wouldn?t say boo to a goose.

I have no doubt that of the nine men sent to prison for vile offences against children in Rochdale, the seven who were fathers would never want their daughters to be raped by men up to four times their age, yet in association with each other they conspired to do that very thing to girls from other people?s families.

The mystery of the evil that men can do collectively peppers sacred history. The Old Testament Israelites and the Christian crusaders mercilessly slaughtered innocent people in the name of God. It was a cabal of men who engineered the crucifixion.

It was men - who hugged their wives and kissed their children - who herded human beings into Nazi gas chambers.

In the face of this evidence, to regard sin as a purely personal thing is bad psychology as well as bad theology. Private sin is not the only sort. It is from the evil which we can do together that we need deliverance."

[edam]

Best thought for the day I've ever heard.