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?

So we can't consider ways to make life better for men too until all inequality against women is entirely eradicated?

Kindly point out where anyone said that.

I was merely getting fed up WRT people going "feminism is about equality".

'Yeah, but apparently not so bad that they'd want to get rid of it. The males who are disadvantaged under patriarchy, most of them are like slaves planning to buy their freedom, and after that, buy slaves themselves.
They'd hate for the system to change, because then they couldn't own slaves.'

To be fair I think a lot of men can't envisage a world without patriarchy. It also seems that a lot of men, and women too, think that feminism is about turning the tables on men so that women treat men as badly as men treated women. The fact that men fear being in the position that women once were says a whole lot about the whole shitfest really!

So is it actually patriarchy or more capitalism that is the problem?

In what sense Zephyr?

Feminists aren't campaigning for equality. If we did, we would argue that three men a week should be murdered by their partner. That 117 million boy babies should be aborted before they are born. That young men should be scalped and murdered in honour killings for marrying outside their religion. That their penis should be rendered sexually dysfunctional, on a par with FGM.

We would encourage women to commit sexual and violent crime so that the 98% of male sex offenders was reduced to 50% female and 50% male. We would advocate for men to enter prostitution at the same rate as women. We would suggest that women leer at men and objectify them in the street/office/online.

That's equality.

Feminism is about the liberation of women from these oppressions.

The fact that some people eye roll over words like patriarchy, liberation and oppression, doesn't mean those things don't exist. Try freedom from chauvinism, sexism, objectification instead.

If women were considered equal to men on every level obviously, the converse would be true.

Equality would be the result, minus oppression.

Well said Datun.

Surely it's more like some scales, adding to each side as needed until balance is achieved?

No.
You look at how much women and men suffer and think it is fair that women suffer because men suffer, too.

Feminists look at who causes the suffering.

I want a world where men cause as little suffering to women (and other men) as women currently cause to everyone.

To make it easier for you:

Imagine there's a village, in which half the men beat up their wives every evening, and the other half of men beat up their eldest son every evening.

Exactly as many women as boys get beaten up. That is equality!

Now a feminist comes and says: "Hey, men beat us up every evening, that's shit! Let's tell them to stop, and if they don't, then let's all leave the village"

And now you come and say: "But if all women leave, then only boys get beaten up! That's not fair! Feminists want women to have it better than men! They ought to stay and be beaten by their husbands, only then things are equal!"

Don't you see how nonsensical this is?

stumblymonkeyagain wrote - "Saying that 'all men' are a certain way in relation to household tasks is both unfair and holds back equality for women."

I am very confident that feminists do not say "All men never do household tasks".

When do feminists say "all men"? Please give some examples.

The only context I can think of when feminists intend "men" to mean "all men" is the radical feminist class analysis of male biology e.g. "all men are male for their whole life" or "all men can never become pregnant" - these are situations that are controlled by biology, not controlled by any man, which every man can never change, and for which any man should not be blamed. In other feminist class analysis, "men" does not mean "all men" or "every man". Feminists say "men" meaning men as a social class, usually really meaning many men or most men .

When a person says e.g. "I bought food at the shop", they do not mean "I bought all the food that has ever existed since humans started farming thousands of years ago ". Adult native speakers of English would understand that the person really means "I bought some food", but their phrasing isn't usually nitpicked and misunderstood, because people give them a polite hearing and/or the benefit of the doubt, or don't respond like a 5-year-old child who still takes many words literally.

There is an anti-feminist double-standard in language policing that is used to silence feminists.

The fact that men fear being in the position that women once were says a whole lot about the whole shitfest really!

Indeed, indeed. All those patriarchy-lovers should take a look at old caricatures from the time of the suffragettes.

Without irony, men portrayed a world in which men have to stay home with the children and cook and clean as a horrible dystopia that will be brought about by women getting the right to vote.
A horrible dystopia, but yet one that they happily forced women to live in.

Yy datun, excellently put

vesuvia that's so true. No one ever goes and says "how can you say you bought food? There's still tons of food in the supermarket that you didn't buy!" or anything like it.

I think an important ideological point to make is that viewing anyone, man or woman to be either the victim of society or their biology perpetuates prejudice. It also minimises personal responsibility and limits people's potential. I believe we are all capable of being free thinking and behaving agents and whilst biology and society can predispose us to particular ways of thinking and behaving we needn't accept that is our's or anyone else's lot.

So whilst it is very important for there to be a platform to discuss abuse and oppression and fully acknowledge lived experience, I don't think it is correct to let these events limit our aspirations for women or men. Otherwise people may just give up on feminism.

'I think an important ideological point to make is that viewing anyone, man or woman to be either the victim of society or their biology perpetuates prejudice. It also minimises personal responsibility and limits people's potential. I believe we are all capable of being free thinking and behaving agents and whilst biology and society can predispose us to particular ways of thinking and behaving we needn't accept that is our's or anyone else's lot.

So whilst it is very important for there to be a platform to discuss abuse and oppression and fully acknowledge lived experience, I don't think it is correct to let these events limit our aspirations for women or men. Otherwise people may just give up on feminism.'

So what do you suggest clarity? That we say '85,000 women are raped every year in the UK but let's not bother examining why in case some people have a strop and hate feminists?'

Sparrowhawk

Upthread Bertrand said that patriarchy is bad for males too, quite often through the oppression of the 'working man', so is this down to the patriarchy or more capitalism?

For my part I'm dad to a boy and girl. I want to see my daughter have the same opportunities as my son and so far I'm convinced that she's doing ok. I want this to continue, but I also don't want my son to have to grow up feeling that he should be ashamed for being male.

Bertrand also mentioned the things men can do and I try as much as possible to be the best example that I can to my kids in this respect. But in a way, and I might not be explaining this well, if he keeps getting told that he's wrong because he's male, then what's the point in him trying?

So coming full circle, blaming the patriarchy seems in part to just be blaming men when the problem is more to do with society inequalities that disadvantages both men and women.

Reading back, that sounds very long winded and I'm not sure explains well.

One thing I'd like to point out here to anyone who thinks we're 'lucky,' is that every single 'lucky' right that you have, feminists fought for it. Men absolutely did not want to give women any rights at any point. Women had to fight and fight and fight and fight for the vote, for the right to own property, for custody of children, for the right not to be raped in marriage, for equal pay etc etc. At every single stage men opposed them. Men had no interest whatsoever in ever having any equality for women.

vestal

Your dystopian cartoon world where women getting the vote might mean men are expected to help, reminds me of the judge in the Lady Chatterley's Lover book trial.

His opening comments said 'would you really allow your wife or servants to read this book?'

Decades after the vote was won. Same old, same old.

No I do get what you mean Zephyr.

I can say, for one, that I have no interest in men being ashamed for being male - what purpose does that serve?

What I am interested in is men looking at the world as it is and acknowledging, without hedging and excuses, the oppression against women that exists. That doesn't involve taking the blame, that involves just acknowledging it. In my experience very few men want to do that.

Once that acknowledgement is there I think things really can change. But getting to that acknowledgement stage is really really hard.

I believe we are all capable of being free thinking and behaving agents and whilst biology and society can predispose us to particular ways of thinking and behaving we needn't accept that is our's or anyone else's lot.

Except there are laws being contemplated that affect 51 percent of the population, and not only are they not being consulted, they are actively being censored for objecting.

You tell me how to get my voice heard, and I'll do it.

So what do you suggest clarity? That we say '85,000 women are raped every year in the UK but let's not bother examining why in case some people have a strop and hate feminists?'

No we acknowledge to commit rape involves men making a choice to rape, no matter how misogynistic the society or how men's biology affect their actions. We encourage the perpetrators to take responsibility for their actions. However, also, when dealing with perpetrators we look at how their socialisation, physiological and psychological state might be affecting their abusive behaviour and look at ways to tackle this. Equally we support victims of rape and look at healing the physical and psychological trauma caused.

Some equalists think that equalism occupies morally higher ground than feminism. I disagree. I think many equalists ignore that equalism claims to be objective, rational and impartial but its alleged objectivity, rationality and impartiality actually favour the interests of men as a class. Equalism is based on a male-dominated worldview that will not allow an end to patriarchal oppression of women as a class.

Therefore, I think equalism cannot give genuine equality because, in equalism, it is men (the oppressor class) who decide what equality is and when it will have been achieved.

So-called "equality" on the oppessor's terms is still oppression.

in the UK ... you have those nice laws where sons inherit estates and all, and daughters don't.

Which laws are those? Not being goady - I know this happens (in the upper classes at least), but are there laws?
Because if so, I don't know anybody who's followed this law?
Or by "law" do you mean "something that happens which isn't law"?

You tell me how to get my voice heard, and I'll do it.

Why are you asking me, in particular, Datun? My post merely referred to personal responsibility. The only way I know of being heard is to keep speaking!

'No we acknowledge to commit rape involves men making a choice to rape, no matter how misogynistic the society or how men's biology affect their actions. We encourage the perpetrators to take responsibility for their actions. However, also, when dealing with perpetrators we look at how their socialisation, physiological and psychological state might be affecting their abusive behaviour and look at ways to tackle this. Equally we support victims of rape and look at healing the physical and psychological trauma caused.'

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?

I think you're absolutely right Sparrowhawk. I'm just back from my consultant and for me time is running out.

I hope both my kids can live in a fairer world, because I'm not sure I can leave it in a better state than I found it.

claritytobeclear

It's not that I don't agree with your post, I do. However a much more decisive, effective way would be to instruct all juries about rape myths.

Of every 300 rapes that get reported, only six perpetrators are jailed.

Many, many more rapes do not get reported (see thread after thread on here, for instance) because women have no confidence in the system.