I'm starting to hate men

And nor will May.

Are you seriously suggesting Tei, that Thatcher had anything to do with the downfall of the military junta in Argentina? Or that she lead/started the response to the Falklands War?

She did not cause any serious disruption to male power.

HTH.

TeiTetua if you look carefully at that photo, you may notice that Mrs Margaret Thatcher is the only woman in it, surrounded by men.

Look carefully? That's the point! A victorious chieftainess surrounded by her warriors.

She sat at the top of a system designed and controlled by men. She worked within the parameters set by men. She could only function in the role they permitted her to have, if she accepted their framing of how the world is and works and did not disrupt it too much.

That's rather unfair. She was recognized as doing the job better than any man could. "The only role they permitted her to have" was exactly the role she wanted! And it included making war. I'd say she pretty much accepted the framing of how Conservatives thought the world was and didn't disrupt it. But she caused a little disruption for British coal miners and for the government of Argentina.

It was a joke

2 of my sisters have said if they ever divorce they are taking my example and getting girlfriends

I don't know. Political lesbianism has gone out of fashion, and I have read several blogs saying that it does not work, and just hurts the lesbians those straight women try to be lesbian with.

Just gay-marrying a female friend in an arrangement where it is understood that sex will not be part of the deal, seems more sensible.

I agree. I'm now in a lesbian relationship after 15 years of living with a man. The difference is incredible. And I'm not talking about individual personality of my 2 partners, whether people like it of not both men and women do have specific traits...or it seems the people in our family/area do. All the men/bils seem to act the same childish way and try and enforce this 'man of the house...you look after the kids' type regime upon their wives and I can't stand it.

2 of my sisters have said if they ever divorce they are taking my example and getting girlfriends

It was to Basil re her previous post, but it's an open question to anyone really.

Grimarse

[...] Is that what you are saying?

To whom are you addressing this question?

I would recommend you reading Backlash by Susan Faludi, Grimarse.

It covers this more comprehensively than can be done in a MN thread.

Women have had to fight for every single change. Men haven't just recognised their privilege and relinquished it. It's taken a great deal of energy and work to get the changes we've had. Just having women in 'positions of influence' within the systems isn't enough. They would still be fighting against the tide, if, of course, that's what they are inclined to do.

So when the system is shit, it is the fault of men because they hold all the power. Women have zero influence. And yet systems evolve over time, and gradually improve the lot of women - laws change, attitudes change, balances in the workplace and the entire education system and qualifications change. And men have no contribution to those positive changes. Is that what you are saying? That women somehow have zero influence, zero input to the system, and yet it (sometimes glacially) gradually changes to give them stuff? If so, that must be men changing the system, mustn't it?

TeiTetua if you look carefully at that photo, you may notice that Mrs Margaret Thatcher is the only woman in it, surrounded by men.

She sat at the top of a system designed and controlled by men. She worked within the parameters set by men. She could only function in the role they permitted her to have, if she accepted their framing of how the world is and works and did not disrupt it too much. Having a vagina within that system, is unusual, but in of itself it does not disrupt the system.

That is true of every single woman leader in recorded history. We are allowed to function in a man-made system, sometimes even progress higher than some individual men, so long as we don't try to hard, to make it more human-shaped instead of just man-shaped. Most men if you ask them, are happy to give us equal pay for equal work; but if we demand that the workplace is fundamentally altered so that it fits the needs of women as much as those of men, they are outraged by what they see as us demanding "special treatment". Because wanting the society you live in to be structured for half the people in it to function as effectively as the other half, is special treatment in some people's eyes.

Honestly, this board has existed for at least 5 years, we've covered this on several occasions, this is feminism 101. Keep up.

Omg
This post appears to have turned in to 'ask John'

OP- on your original post, I totally sympathise. I don't like holding resentment for anyone at all. However, I was seriously and publicly assaulted a few years ago - witnessed by men who didn't help me and then my husband left me two days after my dads funeral for a 24 year old because 'it's been hard for him' since I was attacked.
This combined with other incidents and I'm sorry to say I feel the same way, I am constantly reminding myself of the lovely men I do know- but it's tough.

Good luck, try and stay positive , your PoV is totally understandable but I hope that lovely men are out there and you encounter more of them xxx

Men have directed and ruled and controlled all of the genocides and wars in history.

Explain, please do:
1.bp.blogspot.com/-MnaifNbWYEc/U-PUvF1J0JI/AAAAAAAAJpI/nlzHCOceN7Y/s1600/Margaret+Thatcher+in+Falkland+Islands+after+Argentina's+surrender,+1983+2.jpg

I think though more equal communities/societies have shown less violence. I'm not talking about western society but smaller tribal type communities where violence against women is virtually unheard of. So suggesting that women would just act like men do now in an equal society is a bit against 'history'.

And of course, women are the life bearers. Generally it is within their interests to be less violent.

Yeah, we can only answer the question if we try it.

If women start to come from a place of more equality, more power, more able to act outside the constraints put on them by The Patriarchy, why wouldn't they act in more selfish ways? Power corrupts. Our brains are the same. Why wont we have a continuation of the same shit-show where the poor and the weak continue to be downtrodden?

I posted on this upthread (Mon 18-Jul-16 08:59:08). Fictional and real-life explorations of women-only societies and separatist living spaces respectively do retell the same story of a power structure and struggle emerging. However, if one has always lived in a society structured on inequality - as most people have - it is difficult to imagine something radically different. I am inclined to agree with Grimarse that it is not a given that a woman-led, woman-equal, or woman-only society would be less unequal in general. I do think it is worth a shot though. I do believe that at present there is a power differential along sex and gender lines that pervades almost every aspect of life for almost all people.

Suits me

If women start to come from a place of more equality, more power, more able to act outside the constraints put on them by The Patriarchy, why wouldn't they act in more selfish ways? I don't know. Let's try it and find out!

On the contrary, the evidence that we have is that when women have an equal or greater say in how society works, they organise things differently from the way men do

I'd agree with this. But is it because women are socialised to be more co-operative and empathetic? They are coming from a place of disadvantage, of oppression. If women start to come from a place of more equality, more power, more able to act outside the constraints put on them by The Patriarchy, why wouldn't they act in more selfish ways? Power corrupts. Our brains are the same. Why wont we have a continuation of the same shit-show where the poor and the weak continue to be downtrodden?

Actually history does not suggest otherwise.

The figures really are quite clear. Men have directed and ruled and controlled all of the genocides and wars in history. Women have participated in them because we live in society and participate in it. But we have not been permitted to shape our societies. Only to survive in them and make our way in them as best we can. There is no evidence whatsoever, that if women had an equal say (50%, rather than 0.2% say) in how societies are structred and operate, that we would do them exactly the same as men. On the contrary, the evidence that we have is that when women have an equal or greater say in how society works, they organise things differently from the way men do (for example, when charities direct funds to women in developing countries rather than "elders" (ie men) because that way, the whole of hte community benefits, rather than the chosen families in the elder's cliques).

My, you do feel comfortable amongst your friends. I can see why you spend your time here.

If you think women do not participate in genocides (re. Earlier posts) they certainly do. What makes you think women with power will be less violent. History suggests otherwise.

So OP...seek wider counsel xxx Muppet

Anti-male propaganda?

Oh, my fucking sides! You muppet.

Just seen this. Have a life, OP, so im not going to read 22 pages but maybe 30 years of anti-male propaganda without any balancing media comment has coloured your attitude.

Ooooch, you seem to come from a parallel universe, where all things are nice and fluffy and the world is ruled by women!

Because here in this world, it's more like 30 years of anti-female propaganda that you get by default. The only anti-male propaganda is observing male behaviour.

Pray, tell me, how do you travel between worlds, and how do I get to your homeworld? I'd love to see it.