I'm so cross

[Yolandafarthing]

Just need somewhere to vent. My local parent's Facebook group had a post from a woman complaining she has hardly any help from her husband WRT housework/childcare and asking if others struggle too. Cue loads of other women commiserating.

Then the bloody admin shuts the comments on the thread down, because "it feels pretty negative to men, and I know that many of us have fantastic, pro-active and supportive partners, many of whom go to work as well as parent, and some of us are two Dad or two Mum families. If you swap the word 'man' for other descriptors like ethnicity or religion, it becomes clear that sweeping statements are unfair and inaccurate....I don't want [group name] to be a place where we perpetuate sexist stereotypes."

I'm fuming. This is a woman speaking. A woman silencing other women, because poor men.

Thoughts?

claritytobeclear

Oh, sorry! I wasn't holding you personally responsible!

I think the tales I am hearing in the last few days about women being deleted from Facebook groups, having their accounts suspended, banned from online (lib)feminist forums, etc merely for asking for a debate over these new laws, has got me rattled.

Zephyr it sounds like you've had some really bad news. I'm very sorry.

TheSparrowhawk

Sorry, you've totally lost me. So we shouldn't consider the role of society in causing suffering, but when considering why a man rapes we should look at his socialisation? Isn't that a total contradiction?

What I am saying is that whilst society (or biology) can predispose people to certain behaviours it doesn't make those predisposed behaviours prerequisite. I'm saying there is always choice involved. Making the right choice might be made more difficult be contributory factors but not impossible.

So we do consider the role of society but at the same time acknowledge society's role is not the only influential one.

Zephyr01

I'm so sorry. Bloody hell.

'What I am saying is that whilst society (or biology) can predispose people to certain behaviours it doesn't make those predisposed behaviours prerequisite. I'm saying there is always choice involved. Making the right choice might be made more difficult be contributory factors but not impossible.

So we do consider the role of society but at the same time acknowledge society's role is not the only influential one.'

This is exactly what feminists say all the bloody time. Do you seriously think that feminists believe people don't make choices????

zephyr.

Not totally unexpected unfortunately, but you kind of hope for the best. Looks like this might be my last cricket season, but on a feminist note at least it's the one where the women's game really came good!

Which laws are those? Not being goady - I know this happens (in the upper classes at least), but are there laws?

I am not an UK citizen, but I do think that primogeniture is a law - in Jane Austen's Pride&Prejudice the protagonists mention that the Bennett girls cannot inherit the estate owned by their father. Which, if it weren't a law, he could decide to give to them, right?

As far as I am aware, things have not changed since then, but I am sure some UK citizen will be along to tell you the details, shortly.

In Germany, inheritance is law to a certain extent - you cannot just decide your children are to inherit nothing. (Only if they did something horrible to you and you can prove that.) I assume that is the case in the UK also.

Thank you all! I'm going to sign off for a while as I need to have a good cry and then work out what to say to the family.

Bugger.

Take care.

Take care Zephyr

This is exactly what feminists say all the bloody time. Do you seriously think that feminists believe people don't make choices????

Sparrowhawk, I was just answering your question, here:

So we shouldn't consider the role of society in causing suffering, but when considering why a man rapes we should look at his socialisation? Isn't that a total contradiction?

Are you now, albeit quite forcefully, simply agreeing?

Take care from me too Zephyr.

It's more that I've lost track of what your argument is to be honest clarity.

Sparrowhawk, oh. I said what I did on the back of lots of crime against women statistics being quoted. I think it is important to acknowledge these but not go overboard in saying how much men are predisposed to violence and oppression against women, whether through societal or biological influences. Because that firstly can be used to minimise their responsibility, secondly alienates half the population and thirdly could make some people reject feminism.

Which laws are those? Not being goady - I know this happens (in the upper classes at least), but are there laws?

As far as I know the rule of primogeniture generally effects titles. So normal people can distribute their will in which any way they like.

Primogeniture is part of common law and it is rigourously upheld. It was designed to keep property in the family. But only down the male line, naturally.

It is the one exception to the transgender issue of identifying as the opposite sex. Currently if a girl is born first, she will get skipped in terms of the title, inheritance and seat in the House of Lords, in favour of the next subsequently born boy.

If she then identified as a man, she still can't claim the title, because it is the one part of the law that is excluded.

Notably, the Queen said she would dispense with this rule should William and Kate have had a girl first. As it was, they had a boy. I can't help wondering if she said this after the first scan...

'I said what I did on the back of lots of crime against women statistics being quoted. I think it is important to acknowledge these but not go overboard in saying how much men are predisposed to violence and oppression against women, whether through societal or biological influences. Because that firstly can be used to minimise their responsibility, secondly alienates half the population and thirdly could make some people reject feminism.'

I get what you said earlier about looking at people's choice to do things. But there has to be a reason why 98% of the people who choose to commit violent crime are men and ignoring that or avoiding saying anything about it for fear of upsetting certain people strikes me as rather pointless.

ignoring that or avoiding saying anything about it for fear of upsetting certain people strikes me as rather pointless.

Sparrowhawk, I'm talking about acknowledging that, not ignoring it. I agree the circumstances of abuse and oppression must be talked about in order to protect victims. I'm merely talking about balancing this need with also acknowledging that no matter what the societal or biological circumstances are there most usually usually is choice involved too. A predisposition is not a prerequisite. I'm just talking about having a balanced approach which does not ignore or fail to acknowledge any factor.

Ok clarity. So you're arguing that the millions of men who commit violence every year choose to commit violence? I'm not sure how that's news to anyone but fair enough.

in Jane Austen's Pride&Prejudice the protagonists mention that the Bennett girls cannot inherit the estate owned by their father. Which, if it weren't a law, he could decide to give to them, right?

OK. Even if this fiction is based on fact - when is it set? 1800?

As far as I am aware, things have not changed since then, but I am sure some UK citizen will be along to tell you the details, shortly.

I am a UK citizen. Not a lawyer though. I'm pretty sure what you are saying - inheritance must go to the male isn't law. If it is, it's one of those laws that nobody follow. Maybe it's that way in Germany, though I'd be surprised.
In the UK, you can leave all or none of your money to any, all or none of your children.
You can give it all to your youngest daughter or all to the cat's home if you wish.
Happy to be corrected if a lawyer comes along, in which case all of my relatives and everyone I've know well enough to know have broken this law many times.

That law is about the passing down of titles and seats in the house of Lords deydo. It used to apply to property - in fact women at one point couldn't own any property at all - but it doesn't any more.

Thoughts with you and your family Zephyr

Sparrow, I think you are being a bit reductionist regarding my posts there....correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, I'm talking about choice. Because that is what a generalist, considering men as a class ignores. I'm not ignoring societal or biological influences but acknowledge if men are talked only about in terms of being a 'class', this can perpetuate the gender stereotypes feminism seeks to obliterate.

Ah.. so we can't look at men as a group, we can only consider individuals?

We should consider both the individual and the group, Sparrow, IMO. You can do both you know! I fully expect you do. I don't know why you keep taking a single strand from my posts out of the context it was written in. Why create controversy where there is none?

I'm not sure how the debate can work if we're not allowed to talk about "men as a class" and "women as a class".......