Was Greer Right When She Said Men Hate Women?

It filters down and then our whole culture has become toxic. So we police each other with these rules to maintain the dysfunctional status quo via media or societal expectations.

If we look at it like that we can then have a shot at dismantling all exploitation of women, children and men.

Therefore it's not that men hate women, it's that our society scapegoats women and others in order to maintain the system that empowers the few.

Historically it's possible this system began with farming and physically women were forced to take on the shit work in order to maintain the system. It's grown from there so that we're all conditioned and stuck in the system. So a woman can't just say 'no, I'm not doing that' because she thinks of she doesn't it will all go horribly wrong and everything will come crashing down.

so does that mean that you agree that care should be valued more highly than it is now? I do yes.

Saying No is too simplistic- how can you realistically say no to your loved ones unless you have a heart of stone? Not easy no but not impossible. So you're saying that saying no means a women would have a heart of stone, thanks for that.

Vitalogy I’m not sure if you realise how selfish you come across.
The quote that started this thread is about a general view. How do men, as a group, see women, how do women, as a group, act.

Bringing everything back to yourself and saying ‘well I’m not responsible for other people actions’ is missing the point. In some ways, you, as an individual, isn’t important here. But the women, as a group, is what we talk about.
And is very much bringing the idea that the ‘I’m alright man’ is the only thing important to you. Even if the majority of women actually do not share your experience. It’s also making it somehow their ‘fault’ because surely if you ca;do it, then everyone can and should do it....
So many things wrong there.

I can't control or am not responsible for other women's actions/thoughts, only of my own.

The issue is why is it women who perform 95% of care, whether for children, the disabled or the elderly? Why is care at the same time either underpaid or completely unpaid? Why are women often left to suffer poverty because of the care they have provided for others?

It's not about you on your own, and you realise that yourself when you say that women should all say no. But saying no isn't really realistic. Wouldn't it be better if you could be a SAHM but know that your financial future wasn't screwed because of it and you received payments and pension contributions in return for the work you did as a carer? Or alternatively, if you could continue working, knowing that your child was being safely looked after, perhaps even onsite where you worked? If you think no, then fair enough, but it would be interesting to find out why not.

The way I see it now is that it's all about exploitation. Society is structured so that powerful single minded males are gaining more power by exploiting others including women, children and other men.

Examples of late
Hollywood men exploiting young women and boys
Male war cults using children as wives or suicide bombers
Our government underpaying carers who are largely female
Etc etc etc

I see it as a societal problem that requires scapegoats and exploited people in order to make the rich males richer.

Just thought of another example. ..charities paying staff abroad who then use that money to exploit young women in prostitution.

I suppose it depends of the strength of the women to stand up for herself and what choices she makes in life.

Errr except that decisions are NOT made in vacuum. Any decision a woman makes has been influenced by what the society as a whole says is ok or not.

Eg When I had my two dcs 15 ish years ago, it was not ok to carry in working full time. People were regularly saying that those mothers were just delegating parenting to other people and why did they bother to have children in The first place. So when I was made redundant after dc2 birth, stopping work to become a SAHM felt the ‘right’ thing to do (even though I hated it....)
Nowdays, when you read MN you have plenty of women saying it’s a bad idea, what about pensions, your financial independence etc... being a WHOM is seeing as normal when it wasn’t 15 years ago.

Society has a huge role to play in the decisions we take and saying that we are totally free in our choices is naive.
Some people are more aware of that influence but even when you are aware actually standing up to it and actually say ‘tough, I’ll do what I think is best’ can be extremely hard.

Vitalogy so does that mean that you agree that care should be valued more highly than it is now? Or should it continue to be unpaid and undervalued? Saying No is too simplistic- how can you realistically say no to your loved ones unless you have a heart of stone? If your position is that care should be valued and that carers should be financially compensated because care is just as important as economic work, that is basically what radfems want as well.

thousands of women who feel morally obliged I can't control or am not responsible for other women's actions/thoughts, only of my own.

You may be able to say NO and put your mum in a state-run home Do you have a problem with this idea?

I note that there is no mention in your response about my wish to make things better for those who provide care and to reward them properly, making it a genuine choice. Again, maybe if women said NO, things would soon have to change. We're half the population, society can't function/manage without us.

I suppose it depends of the strength of the women to stand up for herself and what choices she makes in life.

And again, here it is. The complete inability to understand a structural framework. Radical feminism isn't about individual women and what choices they make (and how you can find ways to sneer at them). It's about women as a class and about the structures and power relations that disadvantage women in a patriarchal society.

Ooh x-post. I meant your longer post.

susan brilliant post

Hairyball yes, a more articulate version of what I was trying to say (I haven't had enough coffee yet).

One of the central points of radical feminism is critiquing the underlying assumptions of patriarchy. And one of those underlying assumptions is that work is only real work if it's paid work, hence motherhood (which as we all know is incredibly hard and very real work, as well as very rewarding) isn't "real work" in the eyes of patriarchy. Radical feminism accepts that it is real work, very valuable work, and very female work (because it is women who gestate, birth and then feed babies). I have never seen a form of radical feminism which invisibilises or devalues motherhood, quite the reverse in fact.

This. All. Of. This.

Well, that's patronising.

It's not patronising actually. Not many women see elderly care as their role in life, yet they end up taking it on.

I've had experience of elderly care too. The word you use is NO.

Wow. Well that IS patronising to the thousands of women who feel morally obliged to do it and perhaps are worried about their parents or relatives being mistreated if they do not do it themselves. There are so many complex reasons why people decide to take on caring obligations. You may be able to say NO and put your mum in a state-run home, but many others do not feel able to do so.

I note that there is no mention in your response about my wish to make things better for those who provide care and to reward them properly, making it a genuine choice. That in fact radfem is not about hating SAHMs at all.

So many straw men (or straw women) on here.

One of the central points of radical feminism is critiquing the underlying assumptions of patriarchy. And one of those underlying assumptions is that work is only real work if it's paid work, hence motherhood (which as we all know is incredibly hard and very real work, as well as very rewarding) isn't "real work" in the eyes of patriarchy. Radical feminism accepts that it is real work, very valuable work, and very female work (because it is women who gestate, birth and then feed babies). I have never seen a form of radical feminism which invisibilises or devalues motherhood, quite the reverse in fact.

In dismantling gender what radical feminism seeks to do is dismantle the idea that women are mothers because we're innately nurturing (and the related view that sets nurturing up in contrast to, and exclusive of, "masculine" virtues like rationality, decisiveness, detachment). Everyone can be nurturing, rational, decisive, detached, engaged, caring, empathetic... to varying degrees as personality, upbringing and circumstances dictate. Women are mothers because of biology - hopefully then nurturing, caring, empathetic mothers because it's in the nature of looking after a child that one ought to be (but also rational in order to make good decisions about them, determined, detached when you have to say to them "you're not ill, you're pretending to be ill to get out of school today...")

The idea that radical feminism is somehow against stay at home mothers because radical feminists say they want to dismantle gender (an oppressive set of sex stereotypes) is, frankly, a complete crock of shit and utter (and wilful) misrepresentation of radical feminism.

I think their heads would explode I just want to give them a big hug and make all the hurt go away, only joking! Not.

it's very cutesy and lovely when you are talking about childcare. Well, that's patronising.

I've had experience of elderly care too. The word you use is NO.

I suppose it depends of the strength of the women to stand up for herself and what choices she makes in life.

And with regards to the OP, I am not sure whether men hate women or whether they are indifferent. Plus I am not sure which is worse.

I'm a rad fem SAHM. And fwiw, I have found the rad fems on this board far more supportI've than anyone else.

Not true Vitalogy and overnight. Quite a few of the women here are SAHM or have chosen be at one period of their lives.

I've been both at various points in the last 20 years depending on what has worked best for our family set up at the time. I still believe in the principles of radical feminism and am able to recognise that none of my choices were made in a vacuum.

I don't personally believe that SAHM/WOHM is a deciding factor in whether you can be a radical feminist. For me RF is the analysis of class structures and oppression and the understanding of what leads to the choices women make.

I loved/love that job, as do many other women.

Also, it's very cutesy and lovely when you are talking about childcare. But actually nearly all care for elderly and disabled adults is also provided by women. There is a social expectation on women to be a 'good daughter' and provide care for ageing parents for instance, often balancing this with caring for their own children. If you look at less palatable caring scenarios, it's easier to see that it's not a genuine choice. As the state pension gradually erodes and probably disappears, there will be an increasingly larger problem of female poverty in old age. 50% of marriages break down so women cannot rely on men to provide either. My wish is to reward people who care properly and to not simply put an expectation on women to do it for free and suffer the consequences. That does involve challenging the current perception of gender because that is based on an image of women as carers.

I loved/love that job, as do many other women. Some women want nothing to do with being a mother or mothering and in this day and age they have a choice not to, which is just fine with me. Yes some women are looked down on for that choice, which is wrong IMHO but if radical feminist had their way, it'd be the other way around, in fact, any radical feminists on this thread, what do you think of SAHM by choice?

I can only speak for myself. I would make it a genuine choice. So I would ensure that there is high quality and available childcare, enabling women to remain at work. If women wanted to stay at home and provide the care themselves, I would ensure that they were financially compensated for this in the form of state subsidies, including additional payments towards a pension plan. I would also ensure that employment policies were not based around the assumption that the worker has no dependants. This would mean increased flexibility, on-site childcare, working from home etc. Essentially, my ultimate aim would be to give care the same status as economic work. This might then lead to a shift in who provides it.

I think their heads would explode @vitology
Even though you’ve made a choice yourself

Do away with socially constructed gender, yes. That doesn't mean doing away with love or caring, just reconfiguring it so that it isn't the job of women and doesn't work to their disadvantage. I loved/love that job, as do many other women. Some women want nothing to do with being a mother or mothering and in this day and age they have a choice not to, which is just fine with me. Yes some women are looked down on for that choice, which is wrong IMHO but if radical feminist had their way, it'd be the other way around, in fact, any radical feminists on this thread, what do you think of SAHM by choice?

A few people on here just hate men in general because of what other men in the past have done. Fair enough the likes of @bewildered, @lettuce etc, you’re entitled to your bigoted uninformed opinion, just don’t try and dress it up as anything intellectual or as a movement of any sort, putting a label on blind ignorance doesn’t make it any more acceptable.

In any case the video is completely contradictory