“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??

The rules of misogyny are based on observable patterns of behavior.
Social conditioning created the behavior. The rules simply describe the behavior.
As you probably know it is the naming of the behavior that is unacceptable in most societies.

I have just happened to watch a documentary on BBC IPlayer...about twins separated at birth, and brought up in two very different cultures and environments. It is always interesting to watch these programmes about twins separated at birth to observe the interplay between nature and nurture - and the distinctive qualities of each of those factors.

These twins were both girls....born in China.....one was taken off to live in Sacramento, California in a typically middle class American family; the other was taken to live in a remote village in the northern reaches of Norway

Two very different families ( apart from both being two parents - mother & father....both of the mothers, however, were very much the 'primary' parent...but with the fathers still playing a supportive, though still nurturing role) and totally different environments/cultures/languages.

The programme saw the the American raised twin visit the Norwegian raised twin in Norway. by this time they are 10 years old, or thereabouts, and yet the similarities in personality, gesture and skill are remarkable. Both swam like fish, for a start.....beneath the surface of the fjord.

I've seen twin programmes before......and it is clear that culture can either inhibit or enable certain latencies or potentials in the nature, or shape the way they express.....but the latencies, the potentials and the genetics are always still there.

*There is no evidence it's more instinctive for women to parent than men8

i'm not sure if you have children, but the powerful surge of love, and yes, instinct, soon after birth is not quite the same for men. Even if they love their child dearly on first sight.

As you probably know it is the naming of the behavior that is unacceptable in most societies.

Which is why that rule is the most significant to me.

You can guarantee, any dissent will be based on recognising the behaviour, rather than addressing it.

Of course, not all women feel this 'surge' straight away, for some it takes time; and there are some for whom it never really happens at all.......for whatever reason.....That is why mothers often don't want to let their baby out of their sight. For fathers, not quite the same urgency.

The rules of misogyny are based on observable patterns of behavior.
Social conditioning created the behavior. The rules simply describe the behavior. As you probably know it is the naming of the behavior that is unacceptable in most societies.

You could use that argument for any set of observations. They are based on some person's observation. Even if a lot of people agree with them, that doesn't place them beyond criticism.

Even if the observation is a good one, it does not mean it applies to any particular example someone thinks it does.

And even if it's considered not the thing to point out misogyny, which I think is actually only true in some cases (like not on a feminist chat, say), simply saying that any criticism is simply evidence of it is a fallacious type of argument.

It's the equivalent of a situation where someone criticises an idea like TWAW, and the response is, "part of transphobia is denying that TWAW. Therefor your claim is evidence that you are transphobic, so your idea must be invalid."

Stereotype that allows men to get away with not getting involved in dirty nappies and toddler tantrums

Maybe you have had bad experiences yourself.......but my father, and the father of my second two children was very much involved with nappies, bathing, soothing, cuddling..........Although if you ever use a personal experience to illustrate an example where such blanket generalisations about men don't work or apply on this board, there will always be some who immediately say 'NAMALT' as a derogatory put down.

There is no evidence it's more instinctive for women to parent than men

Are you a mother? Genuine, and honestly asked, question.

Goosefoot, they're also hilariously awful when you flip them round, a couple of examples:

9th rule of misandry: Women always know the "real reasons" for everything men do and say.

12th rule of misandry: whatever men suffer from, women suffer from more.

9 reminds me in particular of the rash of threads where DHs spending 'too long' on the toilet was discussed at excruciating length.

As you probably know it is the naming of the behavior that is unacceptable in most societies

I think most of us can recognise unacceptable or abusive behaviour. However, it often seems unacceptable, or against the rules of certain strands of feminism, to name positive male behaviours on this board...or give examples where those rules don't apply.

Maybe you have had bad experiences yourself.......but my father, and the father of my second two children was very much involved with nappies, bathing, soothing, cuddling

I would say that even the demonstrating of a lesser drive in men to take part in parental duties wouldn't excuse them from it. Just because women are safer drivers (according to insurance agencies), that's not going to justify me running every delivery job at work while the men enjoy their tea.

I don't know what this idea of no evidence in this case really means. Men don't, for example, have the urge to nurse a baby in the same way women do, and can't even if they want to. Of course that's partly (largely?) tied up in physicality, but that's the point.

There also isn't any case evidence that men are equally nurturing, or more so. So at best you can say there isn't any evidence that is scientific. It's not something that would be easy to define for the purposes of an experiment and in any case it would be mainly observational, and that kind of science is not all that reliable.

But you can't conclude take that to mean that there is no difference, that's not a neutral position. So when looking at something like public policy, or a behavioural study, you couldn't assume that you should see women and men behaving the same way, all other things being equal. Or that signs that they aren't behaving the same way means an inequality. That's where you start to run into trouble with an assumption that no evidence favours the idea that they are the same, and you can get policies that are essentially trying to push people into a behaviour based on an ideological preference, masked as "scientific".

There is nurturing as an instinctive impulse......and nurturing that is tied up with personality trait. In terms of personality it is certainly true that there are many men who are far more nurturing than many women - in terms of gentle qualities associated with patience and soothing encouragement.

My best, most successful driving instructor was such a man. An elderly gentlemenI tried a female driving instructor, at first, thinking she might be better for me - as a woman......but she turned out to be a discouraging nightmare.

I don't think there needs to be a conflict with stating that some instinctive urges and responses are real, and rooted in biology; and recognising that as human beings we are all different: with different characters, temperaments, aptitudes, skills etc.

It need not be the same as saying all women are naturally more gentle and focused on home based pursuits, or that all men are all sporty or pugilistic, or good at car mechanics.

But if you are home based and have enough money, then certain types of temperament can actually be quite fulfilled.

Not everyone is very social....and some are quite content with their own company, or just the company of their family group, for quite long stretches of time; some are very 'earthy' and like gardening, growing things, looking after animals as pets, or in nature.

Some find comfort in daily, practical routines and organisational activity ( household tasks and chores); while others have a strong aesthetic streak and like to create a beautiful home, filled with beautiful objects and artefacts, and to make their home as comfortable as possible and so on......

If we were all financially secure, with a big enough home & garden/land......many would be quite happy to cut back on work commitments, or even give up their unsatisfying jobs altogether, I reckon...male or female.

You implied that some of us who posted content ( on this thread) that you didn't like or approve of ( or perhaps, on other threads too) must be men, and MRA at that...

Just quote me and if it turns out that I did imply these things I will offer my apologies.

It doesn't sound like me, perhaps you are mixing me up with another poster?

Just quote me and if it turns out that I did imply these things I will offer my apologies

Sometimes when people gang up with each other...and start talking cats, or similar.....as a way to ignore or cold shoulder someone; then individuals can merge into one unified body in the experience of the person/s thus targeted.

But, yes, maybe later I'll go back through and look for 'evidence'.

...(not all cats are like that ( 'NAMALT' implication)

Cats are different, though. Cats are great and I'm very much in favor of encouraging them to stick around. Helps that their meows rarely pass the thousand word limit too ( clearly referring to my longer posts)

Too right ( you)

Here is at least one short exchange........between yourself and another.....but, yes, I agree , that you were not the most aggressive, or inherently hostile, by some margin.

You could also look back over your own posts.......and see how it developed.

. On top of that a large percentage of your posts are simply disparaging comments, personal insult and insinuation ( my post)

To be fair that's me you're describing not prodkit ( your post)

and just general smug superiority

Gawd! It's like you know me IRL

Sometimes when people gang up with each other...and start talking cats, or similar.....as a way to ignore or cold shoulder someone; then individuals can merge into one unified body in the experience of the person/s thus targeted.

If you look through the threads on the MN forum you will find that there is often more than one conversation going on at the same time in the same thread. Both on topic and off.
Accusing people of ganging up to cold shoulder someone when this happens is an erroneous and juvenile view of how people interact on this forum.

Just I had a little look through the thread and got as far as my post of 27th April in which I agreed with all you said about The Bridge. I was only joking about being smug, I'm not really. Anyway whatever I may have said on this thread to you or about you that has hurt you then I apologise. I don't come here to upset people. Sincerely.

Accusing people of ganging up to cold shoulder someone when this happens is an erroneous and juvenile view of how people interact on this forum

Still fairly accurate. Juvenile behaviour is not calling someone out on their behaviour; it is displaying it in the first instance. I observe more than I post on this forum. The patterns are clear, and often the main perpetrators too. It was your inability, along with a few others, to tolerate an open discussion that creating this boring sludge fest in the first place.

Anyway whatever I may have said on this thread to you or about you that has hurt you then I apologise. I don't come here to upset people. Sincerely

Thanks!

The thing about 'in jokes' and friendship groups is that they don't tend to translate well on open public forums. That's why it is usually best to keep things as impersonal as possible. Just stay with the discussion.

Goosefoot, as an example, does that brilliantly, and as a result is one of the best posters on this forum, for me, certainly. There are no ideas that cannot be discussed or explored, and a level of personal detachment is also achieved.

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

Supercilious use of adjectives a speciality....." disdainful"; " risible"; "absurd"; " juvenile".......