Some men cannot cope with feminism's victory

The common consensus appears to be that men continue to subjugate women for their own benefit. Do you believe this, Yops?

I believe that it is a commonly-held view on FwR, and in some other feminist communities. That was my point, rather than I believe it to be true.

Like DenPas, I want a fair and equitable world. But we all know that it's a bit of a pipe dream. In the meantime, i'd like as close to 50-50 representations of men and women in all walks of life. I just sometimes get the impression that people (well, feminists really) believe that this will automatically pan out into some sort of Utopian society, as though women are somehow more inherently fair and just, and lacking in vices. I accept that this is only my interpretation though.

Actually, Yops, in my vision of an ideal world, there would be no hierarchical power structures at all, so there would be no need o split the power 50-50 between men and women.

There would be a community based sharing of responsibilities and duties and decision making, with real education and discussion, so that people understand the consequences and ramifications of their decisions.

But I am realistic enough to understand that my personal dreams are just that. So in the meantime, as a feminist I believe we should work from the bottom up. There are fewer women at the top, and those that are, like the men, are in a position of privilege. Therefore, it is the women at the bottom who most need help and change. Up from the grassroots, and eventually it will get to the people in power.

The common consensus appears to be that men continue to subjugate women for their own benefit. Do you believe this, Yops?

I think the key is that you are looking at it as if we would be under similar conditions to now. With the same discriminations, levels of violence etc. That wouldn't necessarily be the case.

It's all a bit irrelevant though isn't it? Because we don't one sex to rule the world. We want oppression to disappear and differences to be celebrated not be discriminated against.

As a woman, I have no desire to 'run' the world, whatever that might mean. I simply want to improve the way I and other women can live our lives.

If the men in charge were 'nicer', would it matter that they still ran the world? Or do you think it would be a better situation if there was a 50/50 split of those in power between men and women? I don't really get this. If it's still 99 per cent male dominated, I cannot see the lot of women improving. The common consensus appears to be that men continue to subjugate women for their own benefit. How else do you change this?

There is no evidence that if women ruled the world, without the current patriarchal structures, that they would behave like men currently do.

Women and men are both human. Brain difference is somewhere between minimal and non-existent. All societies need a structure of some sort. There may be no evidence that women would behave like men, but that is simply because you haven't had a crack at it yet. Unless there are significant biological differences between the sexes that compel men to be more divisive, greedy, cruel and violent, I put it to you that it would be pretty much what we see now.

Why wouldn't it? HTFH.

The only difference will be that there will be more women of power, equally abusing it as men have over the years.

That is feminism in a nutshell though, isn't it? What is good for the goose etc.

No. HTH.

There is no evidence that if women ruled the world, without the current patriarchal structures, that they would behave like men currently do.

Funny how we all throw around 'if women ran the world' - men and women alike, and quite often those who claim feminism has 'succeeded' or that feminists are power hungry or want all men dead or something and yet in that statement we all admit we know who runs the world.

And aint that strange.

As a woman, I have no desire to 'run' the world, whatever that might mean. I simply want to improve the way I and other women can live our lives.

I don't believe we have got there yet, but hope springs eternal.

Given that according to various studies a high proportion of women don't orgasm through PIV I would imagine men's 'need' for PIV is higher than that of women. There are some women who go through their whole lives never orgasming during sex and plenty of others who go off sex entirely at some point, possibly for the rest of their lives.

Larry - I've never read any feminist saying that the world would be different if women ran it - can you point me to where you found that?

Yops,

IF that is what feminism is, then I am a feminist! It is when some feminists start talking about the 'patriarchy's' tendency to violence and evil, and that the World would be a different place were women running it that I take issue.

I am all for equality and allowing women and men to try to achieve what they can and, as you say, be equally prattish about what they do with it.

Similar reaction to some white men believing that racial equality has ruined their lives
Apparently some white men have such low self-esteem they believe they cannot achieve a good standard of life if they have to deal with others on equal terms.

The only difference will be that there will be more women of power, equally abusing it as men have over the years.

That is feminism in a nutshell though, isn't it? What is good for the goose etc. Why shouldn't women have the opportunity to be as good/bad/rich/poor/twatty as men?

It never ceases to amaze me how certain posters believe human beings have somehow evolved beyond biological drivers, and all in about 200 years.

We are still great apes and both sexes have a huge desire for sex, especially at their most fertile. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are rare, otherwise we would not be the amazing species that we are.

And, as for paying for sex, you can see rich men choose pretty young women all the time (effectively paying) and the young women happily embracing this trade off. All equality has meant is that we are increasingly seeing rich women going out with attractive young men (Madonna and many others spring to mind).

The idea of a perfect equal society is at least tens of thousands of years away. The only difference will be that there will be more women of power, equally abusing it as men have over the years.

Imagine if I said 'I wish I could switch off my love of sport, so I could get some work done instead of watching Real Sociedad vs Getafe for the next 2 hours.' Would people have a problem with that?

Sexual urges can be a distraction, as can many other urges. Imagine if obese people could switch off their obsession with food. Would humans having more control over urges and distractions be such a bad thing?

what does men "need" PIV mean?

I assume it's linked to the idea that the OP's acquaintance saying he "genuinely wished he could have choice over when to experience desire. He simply lives through the frustration when for him there was no outlet."

" I suppose one day there will be a generation of men who know only fully emancipated women and to them this patriarchy will be just ancient history"

I just can't see this happening unfortunately. Not without a total reorganisation of society and no more poverty, crime, you know utopia.

Look at what is happening around the world. IS, the Taleban, Saudi, + many other organisations who have women as chattel as a basic part of what they want of society.

Even in the "West" - women's rights are being pushed back in the states, western europe there are groups agitating to reduce women's agency. Parties in the UK with removing some of the things that allow women to compete more in the work environment.

& etc etc and so on

I just, don't see it. I don't think most men, around the world, want it. And I'm not sure how we can ever win this fight. Which is awful, because all we want to "win" is to be treated as full human beings with all that comes with that.

Feeling a bit despondent at the moment.

Oh and agree with Yops about what does men "need" PIV mean?

"As women are now in the developed world at least capable of working and supporting themselves, able to decide to have and raise children without a male partner and unlike them we don't need piv sex so much we have to pay for it. "

Do men need piv sex more than women? In what sense? Not disagreeing necessarily, just wondering what was meant.

Disco I did find myself wondering as I read that article how it might relate to radfem women-only enclave things (I'm not sure of the correct terminology!).

I don't think there are too many people cheering these blokes on. I would have thought most people would just be a bit , shrug and let them get on with it. Interesting that the MRAs hate them though!

And yes, the sex worker thing is very telling. When radfems withdraw from society, they don't decide they still need heterosexual sex and pay for it. I think if these men were to all become political homosexuals, the response would be very different too.

I think there's panic over women choosing to not get involved with men because for two reasons. First of all, despite the pretence, the smooth running of society as currently configured reliefs massively on the unpaid, unacknowledged labour of women. Secondly, if women go off somewhere, who are men now superior to? No point in having a society with a sex hierarchy if the lower tier refuse to take their position. And what do you do then?

I just mentioned in the pub, but there's an article on the DM at the moment about single women deciding to pay to have babies through IVF/insemination - and how terrible that is (the doctors don't mind, the religious people do).

They are particularly boggled by the (tiny number of) virgins choosing to do it.

Gosh cadno, such erudition and concise prose is just a treat to read.

They can fuck off if you want - who cares.

On the first bit I suppose it hinges from the fact that men are allowed to do what they want, as they are masters of their own destiny, have massive bollocks of objectivity, and if they decide to go off by themselves then they must have a good reason for it and that's down to them and so what really.

Women OTOH are supposed to be wives / mothers / daughters and exist in relation to men and look after them, and going off by themselves fucks with the entire structure of society.

I read the article nino links and about 1/4 of the way in I thought

How interesting - when women decide to live separately it elicits a very different response I think than when men do it.

When women do it there is a bit of a feeling that something in the order of things is wrong, that women shouldn't really be doing that, going off by themselves, that no good will come of it somehow

When I read that I just thought well no loss there and I can't imagine I'd be the only one!

So I thought that was quite interesting and then I read that while they vow to cut women out of their lives many of them still will deign to interact with them when they are paying them for sex.

And at that point I thought well they're just bog-standard scumbags then aren't they, nothing interesting or different to see there at all.