is there a new cognitive dissonance thread?

[kickassangel]

if so, please link, i can't find it.

if not, i'd like to add some things

using personal experience to prove a point is not a great argument. we have to start with the bigger picture, then see personal experiences as a case study which exemplifies, but does not prove a point.

i'm not even sure that i view myself as a feminist. i view myself as someone who believes in equality (not just on male/female issues). the generalisations about feminism being a religion i find offensive, as they both ignore the patriarchal society we live in (and this assertion can be backed up by endless statistics & experiences), and assume that one particular viewpoint is religious.

is marxism a religion? what about other schools of thought?

feminism is a broad range of thought, and there will be changes and shifts within the arguments, just as there are in other sociological concepts. and there will be women who abuse, just as there are men who do so.

however, look at the structure of society, and it is impossible to say that it isn't patriarchal. just look at the possession of wealth, the media representation of people, the male/female ration in positions of power.

if it was as simple as some women 'not bothering' to push themselves forward, there would still be enough women to fill 50% of all key positions in society, and to hold 50% of the wealth, but that isn't what happens. so, it sin't due to a lack of women exerting themselves, it is due to the inherent sexism within society.

Goodness, Footlong, that's very rude.

Yes I am picking up very bad habits from the Mysandry cabal in these parts. I should not sink to their level. Apologies.

Link to the context then?

"Misadnry cabal" eh? That doesn't sound very friendly. Have I missed something?

*Misandry

More than likely. But I am not going to point it out to you. As that would just start a squabble between myself and the ones I consider to be in the Misandry cabal.

Link as requested

www.feminism101.com/theysaywesay.html

^If men were stronger than women, the
weakest man would be stronger than the
strongest woman.^

Which is just sophistry. And I think sophists are generally full of it.

And before any of the Misandry Cabal start ranting at me for taking this off topic, I was not the one who bought up that website. I am simply repsonding to someone elses attempt to take this thread off topic.

OMG, Lightbulb moment. Thank you, Footlong. I've been wandering around blinkered all my life but now I've read your posts, I've seen the light. Please keep posting so I can learn more
You're absolutely right, this is a Misandry Capal

It just sounds obvious to me. Like if I said "Americans are richer than Indians". Well on average that's true but the first thing anyone would point out surely is "not all of them".

If you're into logic, surely a statement like "Men are stronger than women" does imply that this is true in all cases.

your man is smart than chimp analogy doesn't make sense. While you may have met men who are thicker than your average chimp, I certainly haven't.
I have, however, met lots of women who are stronger than men

ElephantsAndMiasmas - As I said it, sophistry.

It is intetresting that statement like 'woman do more housework than men' is accepted as fact around here. But according to the logic of that site, it should always be cushioned with caveats.

So we should start insterting words like average, and 'not all' into sentences which inherently dont need them as anyone with a minimum of common sense knows they are self obvious.

Sakura - Get the hint please, I am ignoring you.

I suppose we should, yeah. TBF most people do anyway, or get pulled up on it if they generalise like that.

Anyway, what the 101 site is saying may not be to your taste, but it's not actually factually incorrect, so not bollocks by my definition.

Is that the only bit you have read?

you go on a feminist thread to ignore feminists you sound barmy

I read other assorted bits... but lost the will after that.

And I include sophistry as bollox, so to me it is bollox. But each to his/her own.

And I def disagree that people get pulled up for generalisatons on this board. If they generalise against woman, then yes, but make generalisations against men... thats perfectly ok.

I am trying very hard to not name names, as that will just start a squabble. But some of the outlandish comments about men, just since I have been here' have been amazing, and not one single time was it pulled up.

Footlong, you still don't get it.

YOu do not get to set the terms of the debate

The fact that you insist on setting the terms of the debate, and then further insist you are not behaving with privilege is too grating for me to overlook

.

Ok Sakura.. I will spell this out for you. Hopefully to end it.

I am not ignoring feminists, I am ignoring you. There are a lot of reasons for this, but I will not get into them, as no doubt the Misandry Cabal will just call me mean and report me again. But suffice to say, I dont think we can have a mature discussion about anything without it turning into a squabble which pollutes the board for everyone else. I cant make you stop posting, I cant make you stop commenting on my posts, all I can do is try and ignore you and hope you get the hint that trying to engage me in a squabble is a waste of time.
Dont take this as a victory, it is not. I have nothng but disdain for you and your attitude.

You do not get to set the terms of the debate

got it and replied

Footlong is taking the piss.

Seriously though, this is getting to be ridiculous. Do we have to post in Pig Latin, or go and hide in the Good Housekeeping topic and post in code just in order to have a discussion about the OP without some angry, inadequate man assuming a female poster doesn't know how websites work?

'And before any of the Misandry Cabal start ranting at me for taking this off topic, I was not the one who bought up that website. I am simply repsonding to someone elses attempt to take this thread off topic.'

'I dont think we can have a mature discussion about anything without it turning into a squabble which pollutes the board for everyone else.' Who is 'WE'?

He can't make anyone stop commenting on his posts, but I suggest we all try. All we can do is ignore him and hope he gets the hint that trying to engage us in his deeply silly squabbling and attention-seeking is a waste of time.

IGNORE THIS MESSED UP TROLL.

Footlong why don't you go and do your talking somewhere else? Your opinions on the threads you have blundered into have added nothing except for the "squabble" that you claim Sakura is indulging in, because you seem incapable of listening to what the people who are trying to have a conversation are trying to say (to each other mind, not really to you). You may not have noticed (and I'm not sure that you care) but most of the people who hang out on this board enjoy talking with Sakura and have done so since this section of the web site was set up, specifically for feminists who enjoy mumsnet as mothers to talk about things of importance to them. Not that we all agree with each other, because we don't - and it woudl be very boring if we did. You barging in and trying very hard to talk about something else is irritating to say the least.

On and on the website design, you might not like it but it's quite obviously not written by a three year old, what a pathetic comment to make. That you don't understand why the "men are stronger than women" line is important to feminism just shows your total lack of interest in feminism, so really why are you forcing yourself on us here?

Who is 'WE'?

Well seen as I adddressed the post to Sakura, I thought it might have been obvious.

Anyway, back to the conversation, I don't think that anyone can have it all, or that it is a good idea to suggest they should. Life is a series of compromises most of the time.

However it is noticeable that the phrase is usually used of women who choose to have both a career and a family, and never used of men who have been doing both for generations. I suspect that the missing component is the wife role, as it is difficult to avoid attempting to do everything otherwise. Lots of careers are built on the premise of having a support function at home.

...'behind every great man', and all that.

I am interested in LG's earlier suggestion about financial compensation for childcare and housework.

The question of continuing education at a very reasonable cost or no cost for those who have taken a few years away from the formal workplace to care for children or for elderly parents on the other end of the scale needs to be examined too.

The education model as it exists seems to have a bad case of cognitive dissonance, pushing young people through the system into third level and professional training at a time when the biological clocks of women must run smack into the demands of most careers, and ensuring that even among those who do not go to third level education, those who take time off work for family reasons remain in the entry level pool, earning less, contributing less in taxes...

I am surprised that some bean counter in the department of Education hasn't suggested stopping spending money on the education of girls, as a lot of them won't earn or pay taxes to their full potential once the demands of family take their toll.