Ok I admit it; I AM angry with men.

So is it kind of a semantic thing then? So 'Men as a group' really means 'The majority of men, exceptions recognised.'

FlamingoBingo I hope you won't take this the wrong way - I really don't mean it unkindly.

My first reaction to your posts was that, ironically, you are doing some 'patriarchy propping' yourself.

See how easy it is to fall into the trap? As dittany says - we are trained to do so.

Of course there are good men out there - my dad is one of them too. That doesn't stop he and I having discussions about male violence/male supremacy/male group behaviour/male oppressive behaviour. My dad knows that he does not act violently towards women himself as an individual - he is however aware that, as a man, he benefits from a system of male violence that is perpetrated by men as a group over women as a group.

The fact that there are some good 'uns in the group does not change the wider reality.

Have responded, Dittany.

Your first paragraph of this post has made the most sense to me - thank you.

Dittany - I don't know, is the honest answer! I think I was kind of trying to give the other side of hte coin - in that it's not just men who work against equality and the eradication of violence against women. And I took offense at you saying I was sexist - I think I was trying to clarify why I wasn't sexist.

I feel very defensive of the men in my life who are as angry as I am about these things. Is that such a bad thing? It doesn't stop me being angry at the majority of men since time immemorial - I just don't like to see good men lumped in with everyone else.

And arguing these things out gives feminists a strong grounding in how to explain things to anti-feminists who argue stupid things like 'men get raped too, dont you know' etc.

I don't think "men as a group" needs to mean every man within that group, btw.

"White south africans" meant white south africans as a group - for years, white SA resisted change. That didn't mean every single white south african was resisting change, many honourable exceptions fought alongside other anti-apartheid campaigners; but they wouldn't have whinged about being tarred with the same brush, because they recognised that WSA's as a group were oppressing other SAs, even if they themselves as individuals weren't.

I think people get hung up on the "group" as political description issue.

anyway must go to my book group, back later

And also, my mum was in an abusive relationship with my dad for some years before he left. She stayed with him because she believed in marriage vows and he had wrecked her self-esteem, so obviously, I do not blame women in this situation. But some women who say 'oh, I don't know if we can come over, I'll have to ask DH' are not all doing it because their husbands have made them. I know lots who just automatically assume that the man is the head of the family and is in charge.

Sorry - I have PMd you - I reacted a bit angrily to the 'are you not aware of...' bits you wrote.

I just don't understand why you're sayin g

"Where is your ire for the men who created it and still foist it on to women?"

I am furious with these men. But it is not all men, so how is it ok to blame them all?

BTW I know that it can be extremely frustrating to interact with women like this - I have a friend who has been complaining about her abusive husband for 8 years, but has only just got round to filing for divorce. We've been telling her for years to get out, that he'll never change, that he doesn't love her, that it's damaging her DC's etc., but the rest of society, including her family, tell her that she just has to work harder at her marriage and that he works hard blah di blah. Her unhappiness is normal for her, she doesn't know what it is to be happy because she has never been taught to be. That's really not her fault.

Can you re-read my message, HerB?

"I don't blame them - they're victims of the patriarchy themselves. But their inaction; or active involvement in misogyny; just helps to prop the patriarchy up."

But there are women who knowingly prop the patriarchy up, whatever anyone says. There are women who actively support male supremacy.

"I know women who let their husbands treat them like shit and don't think 'this is not right, I'm not going to allow this' - they think that's their lot in life...to be under the control of a man."

And you are blaming them for that?

I know women like that too, but I don't blame them, i feel sorry for them. They're trapped, they have been conditioned from birth to see themselves as not being important and to expect to be treated like shit. To blame them for the prison that has been erected in their own minds from the day they were born, seems more than a little perverse to me.

I'm not keen to blame women. I'm going to blame anyone in any group who knowingly makes things worse. 'Knowingly' is key for me. Most men and most women don't analyse the system we live under. I don't think we should 'require' it, iykwim, (but we should require a basic regard for others.) In that context the 'men' and 'women' groupings are far to large to have any meaning. For me, anyway.

And, I'm not saying it's not fair on men...I'm saying it's not fair on the men who are not misogynist pricks to lump them all in together.

And I'm not arguing with what your saying. But men like my husband did not create the patriarchy. Men like my husband do not prop it up. Men like my husband challenge casual misogyny when the encounter it. It is not fair to blame men as a group just because the majority of men do contribute to oppression. There are a lot of men who do what they can to combat it.

Blimey! Didn't expect a backlash like that!

I am a feminist. I have a very good idea of all the things you talk about. My mum was an active feminist in the 70s and 80s. I'm not stupid, thank you.

And I agree with you that the vast majority of men prop up the patriarchy. But I know too many women who do their bit to prop it up too and that angers me nearly as much as the men.

My grandma is a case in point - she's a devout Christian and is horrified by women priests, does what her husband tells her (who, luckily for her, is kind, but still sexist). She angers me. I'm angry that she still believes all this 'women are less important than men and must do what they tell them to' crap.

I know women who let their husbands treat them like shit and don't think 'this is not right, I'm not going to allow this' - they think that's their lot in life...to be under the control of a man.

I know women who join in with misogynist banter at, for example, my DH's work.

All women like this are propping up the patriarchy, whether they know it or not.

Women who turn their noses up at people who say they are a feminist.

I don't blame them - they're victims of the patriarchy themselves. But their inaction; or active involvement in misogyny; just helps to prop the patriarchy up.

If you still feel I'm wrong, please could you elaborate further without treating me like a thick idiot?

I agree with flamingobingo on this one.
I think collaborators are just as worthy as ire as the oppressors because the net effect is the same, oppression. In that case the only ones who would escape my anger are active feminists - a very small group.
That to me is not feasible, so in my case I direct my anger to those who actively harm others.

Yes, but it is propped up by an awful lot of women too. And some men are angry with the patriarchy too.

It's not fair to say 'I am angry with the patriarchy therefore I am angry with men as a homongenous mass'.