I'm starting to hate men

[Mamaka]

I posted this on relationships but didn't get any response:

I've noticed recently that I've become more and more anti men - I think since having my first child. So many factors that I could mention and probably many deep rooted issues contributing to this but the long and short of it is why do women have to suffer and sacrifice at every turn?!

I don't really want to feel like this. I have a son who I want to bring up/am bringing up to be a feminist but I'm worried about how my hateful feelings towards men are going to rub off on my dc.

I suppose I am asking if there is a way I can combat these feelings and start to feel more positively towards them.

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.

It was a joke

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.

She did not cause any serious disruption to male power.

HTH.

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?

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?

Can you clarify what you mean here please?

Come on people, apply some intelligence to this. Of course Margaret Thatcher didn't directly bring down the Argentine junta. But by humiliating them in a war, she made that government's fall inevitable. "Disruption" is the word that's been used for what women don't do. But political change can come quickly, and social change tends to be slower.

She did not cause any serious disruption to male power.

I'm confused. Was that her goal?
She dominated male oriented UK politics on a global stage for more than a decade, on her own terms and now she's been belittled because she didn't smash the patriarchy?
How can any female politician ever be judged to be worthy on those terms?

Tei, I've brought quite a lot of intelligence to this, and obviously far greater knowledge. Can I respectfully suggest that you take some time to look at the causes, effects and execution of the Falklands war before you make assertions that simply aren't borne out by the facts?

Oh I thought it was just me OP. I am so BORED by the sense of entitlement and by the total unwillingness to haul their fair share of the drudge work. I love DH very much, but if I suddenly found myself single, I wouldn't seek out another relationship with a man.

" "She did not cause any serious disruption to male power."

I'm confused. Was that her goal?"

No, it wasn't. Hence being allowed to do her job.

"She dominated male oriented UK politics on a global stage for more than a decade, on her own terms and now she's been belittled because she didn't smash the patriarchy?
How can any female politician ever be judged to be worthy on those terms?"

The conversation is about whether the existence of Mrs Thatcher proves that there's no such thing as patriarchy. Please see the conversation with TeiTetua for details of why I don't think it does.

No wonder we're not agreeing. If someone is talking about "whether the existence of Mrs Thatcher proves that there's no such thing as patriarchy", then I'm not part of the conversation, but if I were, I'd be saying "She never proved any such thing".

I simply objected to the statement that "Men have directed and ruled and controlled all of the genocides and wars in history". I pointed out that when given the opportunity, women are quite capable of directing and ruling and controlling a war. As far as I'm concerned, that's the feminist point of view, that women are able to perform any human activity, even the nasty ones.

Hopefully this isn't getting off the subject too much, but I think it is fair to say that Maggie was and is idolised by much of the Tory party, and that a majority of the current party would hold her up as their greatest leader post WWII. So given what a trailblazer she was, and how she must have proved any Tory Party old buffers wrong, not to mention how popular she was with (southern ) voters, do people think that the lack of a woman Tory leader since then is circumstance, or part of a larger conspiracy to hold women back? If power is all in politics, and women leaders conform to male stereotypes anyway, why would anyone be against Maggie Mk II?

"I pointed out that when given the opportunity, women are quite capable of directing and ruling and controlling a war."

And I disagree with you. They can only do that in the context of the patriarchal framework in which they find themselves. Whenever people discuss this, they always pretend that if women had had the same power as men throughout recorded history, they would have built the same structures as men and behaved in exactly the same way men have.

I just don't believe that.

Grimarse, in response to your question, it's because there's only room for one. Just like Elizabeth I, Victoria and women on Have I got News For You etc.

Now that you put it that way, I don't disagree with you, even if you disagree with me(!!) However, it's anyone's guess what the world might look like if women and men had an equal say in how things should be. We can believe what you say, but there's no way to prove it.

On the other hand, given the chance to run a war, women have sometimes responded with enthusiasm. You can't say "never".

Of course women will enter with gusto something they're not normally allowed to do when they're being accepted in a man's structure. So they'll run wars, run companies run gangs, mafia families, brothels etc. The question we can't answer, is whether those frameworks would have existed if women had had an equal say in building society. My hunch is that they wouldn't, but you're right, we can't know until we try.

Re your hunch, Basil - what leads you towards it? Some sort of fundamental psychological difference? Physiological differences?

The fact that over and again it's proved that if you give money to women rather than men, women will use that money to benefit the wider community instead of their own private interests. Aid agencies know this, which is why the serious ones are serious about improving women's beneficiary status; the Labour government which was determined to re-allocate resources within the family "from the wallet to the purse" knew this when they introduced family allowance.

You could argue that this is socialised behaviour driven by the need for women to look less selfish and more caring; but until we stop socialising women and men differently, we won't know if it's socialised or innate.

until we stop socialising women and men differently, we won't know if it's socialised or innate.

Even here in the feminist utopia* that is FWR, power structures emerge. They are subtle, and they do emerge, unless it is projection on my part, which is possible.

• this is a joke. FWR is not a feminist utopia. The pub is pretty close, though.

LOL. But they're probably not based on random things like what eye colour/ hair colour/ skin colour you have.

Whereas patriarchal hierarchies are.

Eh?

Are patriarchal hierarchies based on eye colour?

I understood that patriarchal hierarchies were based on chromosomes their sequelae in the form of primary and secondary sex characteristics, intersected with formal and informal power structures like legal frameworks and social constructs and things.

• and their sequelae

It is an example of something random, erinaceus.

Patriarchs are fond of constructing hierarchies based on random shit. Obviously that based on genitalia is the template, but they also go in for skin colour, beliefs, ways of doing things, ways of eating etc. To my knowledge there isn't one based on eye colour, but there might as well be - it's as valid as any other patriarchal hierarchy. It's an example.

Ah. Random. Like chromosomes.

XX, XY, other. Roll of the dice.

If I was born myself but XY, how aware of my privilege would I be? An experiment for the future, that one. In the meantime, you have given me an idea for a science fiction short story.

Glad to be of service.