Rebutting the Straw Men/Owning up when "it's a fair cop, guv.

callin thank you for explaining the patriarchy is not a person, although I am well aware it is a construct. Given however the oppression of the patriarchy gets a starring role on here it might as well be a scary ogre- hence my phrasing.

I don't call myself a feminist, never have.

I have never said I am not in favour of equal rights;I have been clear I think the porn and sex industry are damaging and have been clear I am pro-choice.

Where I differ is I do not agree when I see the sort of sweeping generalisations I have referred to. I'm a bit surprised you say these don't happen on here.

Reading them makes me think if I were 15 rather than 55 what would I make of this?

All these grown up women telling me for example that to succeed in a career I don't have to be good at it but I must be better than my male contemporaries. Society thinks I only have value if I'm pretty. And on and on. I don't agree with setting up such negative expectations and I also don't agree they are true.

There are issues which affect women. I have commented on. Whether my views make me a "feminist" or not, I don't particularly care. Polly Vernon and Louise Mensch call themselves feminists. I suspect you don't think they are.

I take back saying really want, that's the wrong phrase to use scallops.

I strongly disagree with the language used by the teacher but it's a contridictary message to teacher kids that violence is never the situation. If your constantly telling little Tommy that violence is wrong, he should never resort to using it. Oh but actually Tommy if your morally correct then feel free.

Yes there are countless examples through history innocent but that doesn't make it ok. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

The suffragettes were primarily violent to themselves - hunger strikes - and the state was violent to them - force feeding via tube, police batons etc.

I don't think the suffragettes killed a single person on the other side, and I'm not even sure they hospitalised anyone in the other side.

How is that similar to Islamic state, please?

Just for info. Nobody believed sad am had WMDs. Well nobody with even half a brain anyway.

I think you are misunderstanding me Mide7. I don't think any violence is OK and I think that should be taught from birth. But it isn't. And to say a group has failed because of some, relatively speaking, extremely mild violence smacks of hypocrisy and misogyny when compared to the millions and millions of people killed in the wars that men feel obliged to start/join.

The hypocrisy of how violence is depicted depends on which side of the fence you are sitting. And that teacher showed firmly which side of the fence they are sitting.

And you know wanting equal rights and freedom from oppression is not something we 'really want'. It is something we are entitled to.

Yes your right innocent but who decides when violence is ok if your morally right? Going back to Islamic state, they believe they are morally right

the teacher shouldn't have used the word failed but I wouldn't want my child being taught that violence is ok as long as you really want something. Islamic state really want in what they believe is that ok? People really believed sadam had big bad weapons, was that war ok?

So should we teach children violence is not acceptable in all circumstances? Or just those fights that the teacher may not agree with? e.g. terrorism is always looked at terribly unfavourably but retaliation against terrorism (again by countries allied with us) not so much.

Maybe we should teach children that actually men were/are terrorising women and in that context retaliation by women is perfectly understandable and acceptable?

Yes and I was saying in the context of children too. Children are already taught that violence is acceptable.

I did say in the context of kids scallops.

Hah! another x-post!

Or that we shouldn't teach children about various wars because it teaches them violence is acceptable?

It's double standards isn't it?

But violence in certain circumstances is already OK Mide7. Or are you saying the Allied Forces weren't successful because they used violence?

That's not great Rufus but in the context of kids, do teachers want to teach them that violence in certain circumstances is ok?

Ds1 has been learning about suffragists and suffragettes

Apparently neither group was successful and the suffragettes failed because they used violent protest

Patriarchy doesn't have an attitude, given that it's not a person. It's a system, created from the fact that for practically the entirety of history men were the only people who had the power to influence society (given that women couldn't vote, hold public office, be a lawyer/judge etc). Hence it is a system built by men for men. It'd not out to get women, but it is structured in a way that disadvantages women. Since women have been allowed to have a say (the last 100 years or so) things have changed hugely, but there is still work to be done.

Similarly, Yops, the class system isn't "out to get" anyone. It's a social hierarchy not a conscious being.

Feminists don't believe the patriarchy is out to get you.

That's an interesting phrase. What would be a more accurate description of Patriarchy's attitude towards women, if we assume it to be untrue?