To be frustrated and angry that women are still expected to be the "emotion keepers" in families.

[seeker]

And if we don't stop doing it, our daughters will still be thinking they are responsible for "keeping men sweet" in 30 years time?

[Bonsoir]

In a healthy functioning couple - indeed, in a healthy functioning family- people take turns to keep destructive emotions at bay. Problems arise when one person is overburdened with the negative emotions of others. Issues of emotional immaturity are often revealed when one person leaves the family. This is one reason why it is IMO crucial for families to regularly break with routine and for DC and parents to eg take holidays alone and with other non family members as it provides opportunities to develop new emotional coping skills.

[Buddhagirl]

Great English there. Fail.

[Buddhagirl]

I agree to a certain extent op, dont think it is completely gender issue however. Whoever is the less able to keep emotions in the relationship (maybe more men than women) would put pressure on the other partner to do it.
I'm currently in the pub to get away from my depressed husband because today I'm done with keeping all the emotions in check.

[mathanxiety]

When does a preponderance of opinion become a pack mentality?

Ans?
When that preponderance of opinion tends not to agree with Countrykitten's opinions?

As an example of scolding may I offer your post in response to one of mine upthread? Or perhaps it is more an example of someone arguing by sticking her fingers in her ears and saying Lalalalalalala...

"countrykitten Thu 28-Mar-13 08:10:34

mathanxiety that is a very stupid assumption projecting your own prejudices. What a dreadful way to view the world.

But your post did make me laugh though - was this black, female manager also disabled....? Don't believe a word of it."

It is also an example of a rather puerile style of argument that consists of shaking your head and denying flat out what someone else has remarked, while offering absolutely no reason for that denial, but heyho.

[seeker]

I am puzzled by the "pack mentality" Do you mean a couple of people who agree with each other?

Lots of people came piling on to the thread at the beginning to say disobliging things about me, and I didn't think of that as a "pack mentality"

[flippinada]

Font = don't.

[flippinada]

Countrykitten going back to the start of the thread the prevailing opinion was pretty much a combination of a) how dare you say that and b) you're taking nonsense. Some posters elaborated on this theme at length, some with unwarranted and rather nasty personal attacks (my perception).

So it's not true that people with an opposing view are getting shouted down.

Fwiw I don't engage with "typical" women's media myself as I don't like it; for news and current affairs I tend to look at the internet (BBC News and broadsheets, Guardian,Telegraph and Independent if anyone is interested). I do think this idea of "keeping women in their place" exists, but people font really want to think about it or discuss it.

[seeker]

I apologise for the "silly" comment- I really shouldn't have said it. But you were so misrepresenting what I had said that I lost my temper in a childish way. I was wrong to do that.

[quoteunquote]

OP, I have never lived my life the way you are describing, sounds odd.

[AutumnMadness]

countrykitten, "supporting" women's rights does not mean agreeing with everything that comes out of women's mouths. Many women defend female genital mutilation and take their daughters to be mutilated. Would you agree with them?

As far as "interpretation" goes - as I said above, you are not helping the situation as you provide no explanation of your thoughts. If you put no effort into making people understand you, what do you expect?

And yes, the "silly" comment was probably not the best. But it is only one tiny thing among a multitude of very constructive comments that many people on this thread, including seeker, have been providing you with. I've been called all sorts of rather unconstructive things earlier in this discussion. You did not seem to mind that at all.

[countrykitten]

'We' being the sort of pack mentality that is starting to appear on this thread as on so many others on MN? It seems that posters/people like you are fully supportive of women and women's rights in theory but faced with women who disagree with you become scolding (the 'silly' comment) and will wilfully misinterpret what has been posted.

Another posted on this thread that the sensible posters had left long ago and that is what I propose to do. It's a shame.

[AutumnMadness]

countrykitten, you have not denied it outright, but you made it very clear that you engage with a very limited range of public media and generally focus on the outlets that are both more women-friendly and read by a minority of people in the UK. So far, you have not been willing to enter any discussion of what happens outside these media. How are we supposed to interpret this?

[seeker]

Your opinions are not being dismissed.

If you express an opinion in a debate that goes against the experience of other people, then you are going to get challenged. It's fine to say that "in my personal world this does not happen". It doesn't in mine either. But to say it doesn't happen anywhere else- particularly when you're given loads of places where similar discussions have taken place on the section of the media you say you are most familiar with- looks a little blinkered.

[AutumnMadness]

countrykitten, your views may well be more valid than mine. But if would be nice if you explained them as opposed to just saying "I do not believe".

[countrykitten]

Autumn where have I denied that women's magazines can influence people?

[countrykitten]

Tewi I am not offended at all. Merely bemused but starting to see that if posters on here are not in full agreement with the OP then their views are roundly dismissed.

[AutumnMadness]

Btw, countrykitten, I also find most popular women's magazines ridiculous. But this opinion of mine does not mean that they are not read by others, and that they do not influence others' feelings and thoughts. The world is not limited to my head.

[countrykitten]

It would be nice if people re-read my posts and looked at what I actually did say.

Seeker made comments about the fact that merely listening to R4 does not make me qualified to speak about these issues and then proceeded to lecture me (in a very hectoring tone) about how much R4 does focus on women's issues. Rather shooting herself in the foot I feel.

I do NOT believe that 'most' people would necessarily blame a woman for being raped in the situation as described. I said (in my post if anyone had bothered to read it) that some vile people would.

How are your views any more valid than mine? You have no idea what I do for a living or what my life experiences are and yet my views are being dismissed simply because I choose not to watch Eastenders and read Cosmopolitan.

[AutumnMadness]

countrykitten, nobody is suggesting that you should not be making comments or judgements. We are suggesting that these comments and judgements should be informed. Forgive me, but so far your comments have been extremely short, devoid of any explanation or actual demonstrated development of ideas. Granted, none of us here are having an academic discussion, bringing in research citations and declaring philosophical assumptions, but you are taking this position to the extreme. You are basically saying "it's not in my life, therefore it does not exist". Do you really think it is a sensible argument?

If all of us adopt this position, focusing only on our own immediate experiences, then there will be no conversation, we will have nothing to share, nothing to talk about. What is the point of conversation if you are not interested in the lives of other people?

Catmint, thanks! I am just passionate about the subject.

[TeWiSavesTheDay]

Country, you are clearly very offended, but I don't really see how someone could have no experience of women being blamed after they were raped when there is a wealth of press on this exact topic, and personally, i find it comes up in conversation with friends/family discussing the news or personal experience.

Sorry, but I do believe that either you are very selective in what interaction you have with the outside world or you ignore those discussions that don't for with your point of view.

That makes it harder for you to contribute to a conversation about general attitudes.

[countrykitten]

Right - so you are proven wrong (twice) and I am 'silly'! Could you be any more patronising and rude?

[seeker]

Oh, don't be silly, country kitten.

[countrykitten]

Actually no I didn't say that so perhaps you should re-read what I DID say which was that I did not believe that this would be the prevailing view in the situation as described.

You asked me if I read 'women's magazines' and I am sadly clearly an inadequate as I do not - I personally find the whole idea of 'women's magazines' rather ridiculous - I was using Heat as an example of such but I am actually not sure if it is one. If it's one of those TV magazines then I apologise, but I think you know what I meant.

[seeker]

At what point did I mention Heat?

You said that you had never heard anyone seriously suggesting that women should accept any responsibility for being raped.(I paraphrase). This to me suggests that you don't engage very much with mainstream media. Because anyone who does could hardly have failed to at least hear discussions on the subject, even if not the actual allegations.

[countrykitten]

Right - so I CAN comment with some knowledge on women in society then as a R4 listener? So your own patronising remark that I am not 'well qualified' enough to comment on these issues since I DON'T read Heat etc. is rather a redundant one isn't it?