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?

I just have no idea what you're on about clarity. I seem to be misinterpreting you constantly.

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.

Thanks for the clarification. I was a bit unsure about the inclusion of estates; but it could be people wanting them to go with the title that causes the inequality here, I guess?

Anyway, I was shocked to learn that this is exempt from gender self-identification.

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

Jane Austen only wrote about the society she herself lived in. She certainly did not set out to write fantasy novels set in dystopian worlds. If at all, she idealizes things a bit.
The Bennett family did not exist in real life, but the conditions under which they live their lives were those Austen encountered in real life.
(There's a reason she's not known as the first author of dystopian fantasy)

Yeah that's what I'm thinking Bertrand. Of course individual men make choices, like all humans. But how can we ever hope to make society different we don't look at societal and group influences?

Bertrand, I said this:

We should consider both the individual and the group,

As I don't agree with an either or approach.

Sigh...

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"

You know, I am quite sure that those who want to silence talk about men as a class do not want there to be any debate about the current patriarchal oppression of women.

The original debate was just women talking about their private lives, and the individual men in their individual lives, and even that was silenced.

Ok, so we should consider both the individual and the group clarity. Great. So what does that actually mean, in practical terms?

Again Sparrowhawk, I think

We should consider both the individual and the group, is what I think!!!!!!

I'm all for finding out the underlying causes of why men rape women. Then we can work on preventative measures.

But given that they always do have a choice, punitive measures would be very effective.

Is that what you mean, clarity, what Datun says? Understand the group causes to create preventative measures but in the meantime use punitive measures on individuals?

Sparrowhawk it means that whilst people are quoting endless crime statistics remembering that they only talk about crime and not the people who are perfectly law abiding. It means looking at the groups who commit crimes, to analyse why this group is particularly over represented, but not regarding everyone in that group as a criminal or potential criminal.

Jane Austen only wrote about the society she herself lived in.

Somebody asked to "quote any legal rule stating that men have more rights or privilege than women" and you stated primogeniture.
Seems like it isn't an actual law, even if it was 200 years ago.
Let's not muddy the waters with incorrect facts.

I've never known anybody to regard all men as criminals. Do you know people who do that clarity?

As for regarding men as potential criminals - how am I supposed to know that the man walking behind me on a dark night isn't going to attack me?

Is that what you mean, clarity, what Datun says? Understand the group causes to create preventative measures but in the meantime use punitive measures on individuals?

Sparrowhawk, yes, that is part of it - although I align myself more towards deterrent and keeping society safe type perspectives on punishment than I do with vengeance ones.

Who said anything about vengeance ?

As for regarding men as potential criminals - how am I supposed to know that the man walking behind me on a dark night isn't going to attack me?

You don't, but preconceptions are not always helpful. A crime committed against you is not guaranteed to fit statistics. Our preconceptions do not always fit statistics. You might be attacked in broad daylight.

"If men are talked only about in terms of being a 'class', this can perpetuate the gender stereotypes feminism seeks to obliterate."

This is the wrong way round. Because of a series of (continuing) gendered assumptions about physical and intellectual capacity, emotional stability, and 'nature', plus a history of inequality, men are still paid more than women. It's only by facing that fact and redressing the balance that we can get equality.

Who said anything about vengeance

Me, I'm allowed to mention it. You seem to be taking my posts as a personal criticism. They are not.

This is the wrong way round. Because of a series of (continuing) gendered assumptions about physical and intellectual capacity, emotional stability, and 'nature', plus a history of inequality, men are still paid more than women. It's only by facing that fact and redressing the balance that we can get equality.

It works both way round, lanouve. Gendered assumptions perpetuate inequality and oppression no matter which ones (male or female) are referred to.

'Me, I'm allowed to mention it. You seem to be taking my posts as a personal criticism. They are not.'

I'm not taking them as personal criticism, I'm finding them confusing, hence the confused face. What sane person would advocate vengeance as a way of dealing with violence - it's such an odd thing to mention!

'You don't, but preconceptions are not always helpful. A crime committed against you is not guaranteed to fit statistics. Our preconceptions do not always fit statistics. You might be attacked in broad daylight.'
Ok, so I should view all men as potential attackers, day and night?

Sparrowhawk if you are viewing people as attackers anyone could be. What happens to you does not have to fit statistics or pre conceptions. Just be aware and learn how to defend yourself, escape and get help.

it's such an odd thing to mention!

So, I'm odd. Sit there and boggle if you want!

'Sparrowhawk if you are viewing people as attackers anyone could be. What happens to you does not have to fit statistics or pre conceptions. Just be aware and learn how to defend yourself, escape and get help.'

Yes, in theory anyone could be, but in practice practically all attackers are male. So it makes more sense for me to be careful around men.

claritytobeclear

You sound intelligent, but also a little confused, if you don't mind me saying.

There is no analysis without statistics.

Without analysis you cannot form a conclusion.

With no conclusion there can be no action.

Yes, in theory anyone could be, but in practice practically all attackers are male. So it makes more sense for me to be careful around men.

Does it? Why not just be prepared? Know what to look out for (beyond being a man) and what to do in case of being threatened and then, in the meantime, just relax and enjoy yourself!

There is no analysis without statistics

Datun I am just acknowledging there is a limit to statistics. Statistics do not entirely inform the analysis. I'd look at statistics, to detect a phenomenon and then have to investigate further possible reasons for that phenomenon.