“Women basically already have equal rights in the West”

[Ethelfleda]

I’ve heard this statement from a few people over the past year or so, always from men.
I know they’re wrong but I so rarely know how to tell them they’re wrong.
I want to tell them they’re wrong without patronising them because it is my belief that once you do this, you alienate your audience and they won’t ever come around to your way of thinking.

What do you say to this statement??

Thank you very much for that example, kesstrel, I find the more subtle contrasts much more interesting and thought provoking than the big, chunky contrasts that I tend to jump to.

kesstrel did any of them deny that bodies are sexed? Did they argue that we all receive the same socialisation regardless of our sex? Or did they argue that boys and girls are socialised differently as a result of their sex? This is what I mean by the interplay between biology and culture. Apologies if I'm not being clear enough, but when I tried being clear it was imputed that I'm spouting others' ideas with no understanding.

Personally I also think it's all culture - but the sexed body still underlies it. Without the biology how would we know who to oppress?

Thank you for that link QW I haven't heard of that site before.

Obviously the sexed body underlies socialisation. But if that's all that does, why use the word "interplay", which suggests a much more interactive process than just society recognising someone's body is female and then treating her accordingly?

But I don't want to nitpick over choice of words - I accept what you meant.

But you've only identified 2 positions here:

1. That gendered behaviours must be biological in nature
2. That gendered behaviours are socialised based on society's perception of the sexed body

Whereas what I saw in this thread was a complex and nuanced discussion about the extent to which some gendered behaviours might at least have a biological component, especially those related to children, with no denial at all that socialisation plays an important role.

Whereas what I saw in this thread was a complex and nuanced discussion about the extent to which some gendered behaviours might at least have a biological component, especially those related to children, with no denial at all that socialisation plays an important role.

You saw that on this thread? Srsly?

The premise of the thread is absurd, as are most of the anti feminist arguments presented that simply ticked most of the rules of misogyny.
Cat stories, recipes, or snarky comments are, in my opinion, an appropriate response. Unlike your personal attacks these are within the talk guidelines.

But your so called 'rules of misogyny' are just a list of made up bullet points.

Just above you, Kesstrel is attempting to have a nuanced discussion about the extent to which gendered behaviour may be biological in part, as opposed to sociological. You just seem to be posting cat stories, recipes, and snarky comments by your own admission.

It seems to me that you're trying to sabotage a discussion which threatens your views, which you've evidently decided are incontrovertible and above analysis.

I personally think the problem is that some people so strongly associate their identity with a proposed theory that's it becomes absolutely inconceivable for them to ever challenge it. It's like how suicide rose in certain parts of Ireland after the troubles ended and it was proposed that in some instances it was because people now lacked a focus or 'purpose' to fight for.

This entire thread has been a risibly unsuccessful attempt to turn victim blaming women for the abuse they suffer into a "nuanced argument".

How so?

Whereas what I saw in this thread was a complex and nuanced discussion about the extent to which some gendered behaviours might at least have a biological component, especially those related to children, with no denial at all that socialisation plays an important role

My view of this is that society operates, very roughly, as a heavy handed averager. It picks up on observed, inherent (or apparently inherent) differences in distribution of skill sets and applies them to those sharing those visible characteristics. I think this actually made perverse sense in the days of subsistence existence and what we're seeing today is the effect of a system hardened by centuries of survival in the wilds trying to adapt to a world where people have the luxury of choice with a comparatively small risk of death.

This entire thread....

More than 30 different women have contributed their thoughts and arguments to this thread, both agreeing and disagreeing but in a thoughtful way (apart from a few attempts to derail). Your contempt for them is misplaced.

This is how people's views are shifted, not through sneering and belittling, or driving them away from this board for "wrongthink", but through listening and discussion.

This is how people's views are shifted, not through sneering and belittling, or driving them away from this board for "wrongthink", but through listening and discussion.

I agree. There are far to many Ms Havishams on this forum.

Do you have anything to contribute that isn't a snarky comment or a self pitying whinge?

Are you intentionally funny?

* ..*There are far to many Ms Havishams on this forum...

Wealthy spinsters who were once jilted at the altar but who are now feminist so have ditched the "miss"?

Is dat what dey are?

Wealthy spinsters who were once jilted at the altar but who are now feminist so have ditched the "miss"?

Well, I did speculate that feminism was about ‘getting revenge on men’ for many on here, so that’s pretty accurate.

You and your speculations - what are you like..

🤣

A pbp who isn’t up on Dickens.

Trolls used to be so much more erudite

Interest first post on this thread. What was that about sneering and belittling?

There are far to many Ms Havishams on this forum.

You saw that on this thread? Srsly

You might also have noticed this if you had actually read the content and understood the intent...instead of leaping instantly to dismiss - and with unnecessary personal comment. You are doing it yet, again, with this post. Why should people waste time with post such as these...which are just provocative for the sake of provocation.

If you have a disagreement or a counter point to any of the assertions or questions posed, then detail it.....others are then free to question, or test, that point. That's how debate and discussion works.

Cat stories, recipes, or snarky comments are, in my opinion, an appropriate response. Unlike your personal attacks these are within the talk guidelines

somebody correctly identifies that sort of behaviour as pack-like and bullying.....based on a feeling and assumption of superiority. You don't own this board, and you don't own how the discussion of women's issues develops. If you have a point make it, rather than assume you are correct.

Telling people that they are "MRA's" is meant to be provocative.
If there has been any counter comment along those lines it is was warranted, and deserved.

We come to this board for discussion, not playground nastiness.

*I personally think the problem is that some people so strongly associate their identity with a proposed theory that's it becomes absolutely inconceivable for them to ever challenge it8

In a secular age, many people do cling to ;political theories as a kind of substitute. Adopting a fixed faith and belief that one day the promised land will come...dressed in the attire of one's adopted ideology. Thing is, if that is how you envisage treating people who disagree, or question any dogma or fixed article of faith, then it doesn't sound that wonderful, to me.

This is how it tends to go whenever a TRA activist or ally comes on to this board...Rather than attempt a discussion in good faith, or simply avoiding engagement, some delight in putting down, name calling or personal incrimination. The behaviour then becomes pretty similar to that which is being opposed.

This entire thread has been a risibly unsuccessful attempt to turn victim blaming women for the abuse they suffer into a "nuanced argument"

You must have been reading a different thread. For my part and contribution it has been mainly about how motherhood impacts on women in different ways to men. Not all of it necessarily negative or oppressive, or even socially constructed.