Was Greer Right When She Said Men Hate Women?

[LastGirlOnTheLeft]

I have just skim read The Female Eunuch and like everyone else, the stand out line to me was that men hate us but we aren't aware of the extent, and neither are they!!

Do you think this is true?? My DH, my late father and my brother, all immensely like/d and love/d the women in their lives. I hate to think it is true, but if it is, I want to know! I want to know my enemy.

susan brilliant post

Ooh x-post. I meant your longer post.

I suppose it depends of the strength of the women to stand up for herself and what choices she makes in life.

And again, here it is. The complete inability to understand a structural framework. Radical feminism isn't about individual women and what choices they make (and how you can find ways to sneer at them). It's about women as a class and about the structures and power relations that disadvantage women in a patriarchal society.

thousands of women who feel morally obliged I can't control or am not responsible for other women's actions/thoughts, only of my own.

You may be able to say NO and put your mum in a state-run home Do you have a problem with this idea?

I note that there is no mention in your response about my wish to make things better for those who provide care and to reward them properly, making it a genuine choice. Again, maybe if women said NO, things would soon have to change. We're half the population, society can't function/manage without us.

Vitalogy so does that mean that you agree that care should be valued more highly than it is now? Or should it continue to be unpaid and undervalued? Saying No is too simplistic- how can you realistically say no to your loved ones unless you have a heart of stone? If your position is that care should be valued and that carers should be financially compensated because care is just as important as economic work, that is basically what radfems want as well.

I suppose it depends of the strength of the women to stand up for herself and what choices she makes in life.

Errr except that decisions are NOT made in vacuum. Any decision a woman makes has been influenced by what the society as a whole says is ok or not.

Eg When I had my two dcs 15 ish years ago, it was not ok to carry in working full time. People were regularly saying that those mothers were just delegating parenting to other people and why did they bother to have children in The first place. So when I was made redundant after dc2 birth, stopping work to become a SAHM felt the ‘right’ thing to do (even though I hated it....)
Nowdays, when you read MN you have plenty of women saying it’s a bad idea, what about pensions, your financial independence etc... being a WHOM is seeing as normal when it wasn’t 15 years ago.

Society has a huge role to play in the decisions we take and saying that we are totally free in our choices is naive.
Some people are more aware of that influence but even when you are aware actually standing up to it and actually say ‘tough, I’ll do what I think is best’ can be extremely hard.

The way I see it now is that it's all about exploitation. Society is structured so that powerful single minded males are gaining more power by exploiting others including women, children and other men.

Examples of late
Hollywood men exploiting young women and boys
Male war cults using children as wives or suicide bombers
Our government underpaying carers who are largely female
Etc etc etc

I see it as a societal problem that requires scapegoats and exploited people in order to make the rich males richer.

Just thought of another example. ..charities paying staff abroad who then use that money to exploit young women in prostitution.

I can't control or am not responsible for other women's actions/thoughts, only of my own.

The issue is why is it women who perform 95% of care, whether for children, the disabled or the elderly? Why is care at the same time either underpaid or completely unpaid? Why are women often left to suffer poverty because of the care they have provided for others?

It's not about you on your own, and you realise that yourself when you say that women should all say no. But saying no isn't really realistic. Wouldn't it be better if you could be a SAHM but know that your financial future wasn't screwed because of it and you received payments and pension contributions in return for the work you did as a carer? Or alternatively, if you could continue working, knowing that your child was being safely looked after, perhaps even onsite where you worked? If you think no, then fair enough, but it would be interesting to find out why not.

Vitalogy I’m not sure if you realise how selfish you come across.
The quote that started this thread is about a general view. How do men, as a group, see women, how do women, as a group, act.

Bringing everything back to yourself and saying ‘well I’m not responsible for other people actions’ is missing the point. In some ways, you, as an individual, isn’t important here. But the women, as a group, is what we talk about.
And is very much bringing the idea that the ‘I’m alright man’ is the only thing important to you. Even if the majority of women actually do not share your experience. It’s also making it somehow their ‘fault’ because surely if you ca;do it, then everyone can and should do it....
So many things wrong there.

so does that mean that you agree that care should be valued more highly than it is now? I do yes.

Saying No is too simplistic- how can you realistically say no to your loved ones unless you have a heart of stone? Not easy no but not impossible. So you're saying that saying no means a women would have a heart of stone, thanks for that.

It filters down and then our whole culture has become toxic. So we police each other with these rules to maintain the dysfunctional status quo via media or societal expectations.

If we look at it like that we can then have a shot at dismantling all exploitation of women, children and men.

Therefore it's not that men hate women, it's that our society scapegoats women and others in order to maintain the system that empowers the few.

Historically it's possible this system began with farming and physically women were forced to take on the shit work in order to maintain the system. It's grown from there so that we're all conditioned and stuck in the system. So a woman can't just say 'no, I'm not doing that' because she thinks of she doesn't it will all go horribly wrong and everything will come crashing down.

I’m not sure if you realise how selfish you come across. What, for saying I have strength and say no.

you, as an individual, isn’t important here Yes I am important and so are the other women on this thread and the wider world. Stop trying to belittle an individual from feeling strength. A group can't feel strength if the individuals within that group feel weak.

"Nowdays, when you read MN you have plenty of women saying it’s a bad idea, what about pensions, your financial independence etc... being a WHOM is seeing as normal when it wasn’t 15 years ago."

It's important to distinguish "is" from "ought" in this sort of discussion, I think.

In society as it is currently constituted, where there is bugger all social security safety net for women, and no such thing as alimony, and the stats show overwhelmingly that women come out of divorce worse off than men, then it is a bad idea to be financially dependent on a man.

Of course it ought to be possible to restructure society so that it isn't.

How about, for instance, when a couple decide to have a child, both parents are required to put a certain portion of their income/savings into a fund to be held in case they split up (kind of like escrow), and to be used to support the parent (mother 90% of the time) doing the bulk of the child care until the child is of school age? Then leaning heavily on employers to consider making a proportion of their jobs "school hours only" (because a major thing that stops women going back into work when their children start school is a structural issue of not enough part-time jobs being available 9.30 to 3.00pm).

I'm not saying this is a "good" solution (it's the first example that popped into my head), simply that it's a different solution to the options currently on the table, and an example of the sort of thinking that might allow one to say "look, society as it is currently set up isn't working for women - so let's move the goal posts instead of constantly telling women it's their fault".

Not easy no but not impossible. So you're saying that saying no means a women would have a heart of stone, thanks for that.

No, and I apologise if that's what you think. The point is that you may feel able to say no, but others do not. They should not have to say no- care should be valued higher to the extent that people should be rewarded for providing it and if they do not provide it themselves, there should be an appropriate and reliable state funded alternative. The onus should be on the state to provide this- it should not be on the women themselves to say no, because often they can't.

Hopefully now though you are able to see that radfem is not inherently incompatible with being a SAHM and that radfems are not out to 'get' women who care for children at home. Many radfems argue that mothering and other caring relationships should be the focus of state policy. Instead, our society focuses heavily on sexual relationships, e.g. marriage and the gender roles involved in that. Those gender roles serve an important purpose because they ensure that care remains undervalued and unpaid and performed nearly exclusively by women. That's why feminists want to break them down.

Women are fearful of saying 'no' because of immense social pressure. But we should of course feel able to have the choice without anxiety. We're so deeply conditioned we don't even realise it's going on all over the place in every aspect of our lives. And when we meet it and realise we're being exploited it makes us feel both angry and powerless. We have to find a way to sort out societies exploitation of all peoples so that none of it is acceptable anymore.

Actually, that point about marriage versus mothering as the focus of the state is very much to the point, I think.

Historically (and even now in terms of what it offers over simply cohabiting), marriage is ultimately about property rights and ownership (no longer the literal owning of women, but it's a financial contract about who owes what to whom, who gets what in the event of a split or death, what inheritance rights the children get by default). Mothering is about looking after a new, vulnerable human being.

At the moment, law and public policy and politics tend to focus more on property than on people. Particularly female people (low convictions for rape and sexual assault being a prime example). A radical feminist analysis would say the public sphere has got the emphasis wrong.

The idea that radical feminism is somehow against stay at home mothers because radical feminists say they want to dismantle gender (an oppressive set of sex stereotypes) is, frankly, a complete crock of shit and utter (and wilful) misrepresentation of radical feminism.

Exactly.

Yes the focus is on property and assets because our society is based on making assets for the top. Therefore we are stuck believing assets = value or worth. That's why sahp aren't valued by others and themselves. Because they aren't accruing wealth their value is in what they save. Or it's linked to their partner's assets via marriage. Or if they're a lone sahp they are supported by the state.
We need to change that way of thinking. The value of a sahp is in their care of their child and the household and that's not measurable in financial terms and that's OK.

Money is an imaginary concept of I owe yous and is not the be all and end all of life. We're just conditioned to think it is.

They should not have to say no- care should be valued higher to the extent that people should be rewarded for providing it and if they do not provide it themselves I still would have said no even if I'd been offered a large financial reward.

Hopefully now though you are able to see that radfem is not incompatible with being a SAHM Not really, no.

Why I came on this thread in the first place I don't known. I very rarely post on this part of the forum, only if a general thread title pops up that may interest me. They drain me. So I'm off. Sorry if I didn't respond to anyone quoting me.
You all have strength within. Best wishes.

Not really, no.

Lol. Another satisfied customer...

Recently I have read Mary Beard's Women and Power which details the silencing of women who want to enter the power sphere of society since classical times. I have also read Mary Shelloyds and her mother Mary Wollstencraft's biography about creative women wanting to be valued equally. I've also read Rose McGowan's Brave about cult exploitation of children and women, and men to some extent.

It all points to our culture of exploitation.

I also read something about a quaker guy who experienced exploitation of women and back then slaves aswell as animals so became an abolitionist, feminist and vegetarian.

What I'm trying to day is I think it's a massive problem and the route of it is exploiting others by the few to maintain the few. I think we're on the brink of deciding which way we go. All of us. Do we carry on our do we change it to make everyone, men women and children across all countries equal in value and stop all the exploitation whether it be justified by sex, gender or age.

If we tackle all of it add unacceptable then the ones who benefit from it can't split us off and say it's about women and we should basically know our place out gaslight us.

How do we tackle it though? Where do we even start?

Apologies for autocorrect.

Not really, no.

None so blind as those who won't see!

In my full matriarchy, the tax and cash transfer system would have non-gendered allowances for caring responsibilities - children, older relatives, disabled relatives. Remunerated caring careers would be given better wages and higher status (Labour's National Care Service is a great idea, I think). And each individual would make a free choice between pursuing a high paid career that used high quality care services employing decently paid and qualified people, and doing it themselves without being consigned to penury.

The problem is that economists and policy makers cannot conceptualise value outside of GDP. I suppose, in many ways, what radical feminism actually is, is anti-capitalist. Because it gives equal value to the monetised and non-monetised aspects of the care economy.

“How do we tackle it though? Where do we even start?”

By working together maybe. Loved your last post.

I started following these boards as I have an interest in society and wanted to understand feminism and get my head around it. I’m learning a lot (good and bad).

It does seem that the powerful prefer to keep us at each other’s throats.

I guess when I started reading this thread it just seemed like an attack on men as a group and tbh from some of the posters, it clearly was.

Only when we all start working together can we force change. If we keep demonising each other we will continue to go around in circles.

Ray, how is it demonising each other when it is men who have the most power? When it is men who overwhelmingly abuse, rape and assault? Until you accept you have privilege and power nothing will change. Do you understand your privilege?