To think there is a group on MN deliberately trying to downplay the institutional oppression of women?

[PerryPerryThePlatypus]

I've been hanging around these here parts since Pom Bears were just a bizarre crisp but more and more I see posters chipping away at other posters experiences, feelings of unease etc. It's difficult to articulate but it's just a shift from NAMALT to women are just as bad so stop complaining. An almost subtle silencing.

@Pumperthepumper

That can't have been me. That poster was banned.

What do women "win" at?

Baroness there is a difference between not wanting to be approached by a stranger and not wanting to be approached by a stranger (who is a man).

pumper yes I'm serious, I think it is sad that you are fearful of being spoken to by a man for fear of being attacked. Statistically it is not that likely you will be attacked. In the station example they are more likely to be going to ask you if you have a fag or know what time the train is than anything else

taratill I have never been approached by a stranger who isn't male when I've been keeping myself to myself

Men aren't more likely to have HFA, they are just more likely to be diagnosed.

I should know, I have HFA. And sometimes it makes me pedantic

Taratill

"I don't particularly get the talking at the railway station either argument either. It's not harassment at all, some people are chatty others are not. If you are clear that you don't want to engage and the person persists then it could amount to harassment whether the person is male or female and if the person comments in a sexual way (big tits) then that's sexual harassment.

I think it's a sad world if a man can't talk to a woman for fear of offending a 'feminist' . I really do. I love talking to people I meet male or female, and pick up on social cues if they do not want to do so."

Yes to this.

"That can't have been me. That poster was banned."

I don't think that was quite subtle enough and I think you may find yourself banned again for saying it

This is because I ignore feminists and judge everyone on their worth.

Ironically, that is what every feminist I’ve ever met would like you to do.

humanGnome sorry, I didn't realise that. Genuinely was asking the question, I'd love to know what research they were doing.

taratill do you have those statistics? I have a friend who runs marathons, when she's training she carries a rape alarm because she is vulnerable when she's out by herself. Every time I meet a female friend we text each other to say we got home safe. My gran doesn't leave her house after 4pm in winter because it's too dark for her to be out alone. I tell my children not to speak to strangers. But it's my issue and I need councilling because I'm wary of strange men approaching me?

"This is because I ignore feminists and judge everyone on their worth."

Judging people on their worth is the core of feminism.

This is because I ignore feminists and judge everyone on their worth.

Question is how much of that worth is tied to their sex.

To the original question: yes, I do. I do think there is a group trying to downplay patriarchal society and it's issues for women. Absolutely. There is nothing tinfoil hat about it.

Pumper, there's a difference between carrying a rape alarm 'just in case' and assuming every man you come across is going to attack you.

"Men tend to 'win' if they stay in employment full time when women choose to have children."

Is that a feature of these inalienable differences? Does that drive men to stay in full time employment and not want to care for their children?

"They win in board rooms and other high-stress environments; often due to the benefits of testosterone and different brains." What does "winning" in the boardroom/high stress environments mean? Being represented in greater numbers, or paid more or something else? How does testosterone help in that environment? What are the key inalienable differences between women's and men's brains that mean men will "win" in these situations?

"The 'win' in certain fields as they tend to be able to visualise certain issues and therefore can respond to them better"

I have no idea what this means. What does visualizing certain issues mean?

"They're more likely to be monomaniacal or have HFA and can excel in a narrow area of academia" This sounds very interesting. What aspects of men's brains make them more likely to be monomaniacal and focused on narrow areas? Or is the testosterone?

"They're stronger so win at most sports. Due to testosterone (amongst other hormones) they tend to make better soldiers and other similar jobs." Men are clearly stronger than women, so will generally win against women if they compete against them in physical sports certainly. Does this mean you think that women's sport is pointless as they can't win? Or that women should compete against men in all sports and accept that they will always lose.

Could you define what you mean by "better soldier", an example of an army where this is the case would be very interesting.

Also, I'm a little confused because you talk about inalienable differences between women and men, but then talk about men "tending to" and being "more likely to". That sounds like it's not so absolute?

@HGP have you read the "Hour between Dog and Wolf"? Its about how testosterone and cortisol in men leads to stock market crashes/ booms & busts etc in our economies. There are a LOT of drawbacks to male hormones and he makes a great case for more gender balance.

I.e. men don't 'win' a lot of times they lose. Go feminism go go go.

btw, HGP does sound like an example of someone tried to downplay patriarchy. Textbook I'd say.

hGP, I agree with you on equality of numbers in certain positions. I think everyone should have the same opportunity to get there but I actually think that there will always be fewer women than men who actually want some of those jobs. I'm much happier being at home than working late nights and doing lots of travel. I also think a job should always go to the best person - not just go to someone to make up the numbers.

Pumper, there's a difference between carrying a rape alarm 'just in case' and assuming every man you come across is going to attack you

There's a word of a difference between thinking every man I come across is going to attack me and not wanting to be approached by strange men when I'm alone.

My point was, these aren't particularly special measures, are they? They are measures that most (all?) women take to feel a bit safer. I don't think I'm a particularly unusual example.

That was also in response to a pp who suggested (non-patronisingly, of course) that I needed therapy to get over my issues.

Pumper you're not unusual. I'm a bit at people suggested you are.

@bumbleymummy do you think that trying to increase the number of women in a role means that any women appointed will not be up to the job?

Schrödinger's rapist, innit.

Why wouldn't you want to be approached by strange men unless you think they're going to attack you?

"do you think that trying to increase the number of women in a role means that any women appointed will not be up to the job?"

No. Why on earth would you think that?

"I also think a job should always go to the best person - not just go to someone to make up the numbers." Sorry, I was wondering what you meant by this? It seems to be implying that at leased some women are appointed to positions that they are not capable of doing under the guise of equality.