“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??

People often seem to forget that this is the feminism and women's rights board, not the trans issues board, and that therefore it is to be expected that most of the people here will be feminists.

It doesn't make one a 'liberal feminist' to reject the idea that there are no differences between the sexes ( quite the contrary)

Re-read my post. "This board is largely radical feminist. We acknowledge sex difference"

TBH I think the way historical societies are pointed to as undifferentiated examples of men being on top is not really helpful,

Anyone who is doing that hasn't read Engels and is unaware of the Mosuo people. Male dominance started with property ownership.

There s a reason modern feminism is largely predicated on the ability to prevent pregnancy.

The Mosuo, incidentally, are interesting because child-freedom isn't an option for them, yet the women are the primary decision makers. Kind of undermines the idea that female liberation from male oppression requires contraceptive access.

Yes, radical means root, but that doesn't really tell us what the root is. Rooted in the body? Sure. But there is a heck of a lot of room for disagreement about what counts as the body or not, and what to do about it.

One interpretation of that takes you right to the kind of feminism that leads to transhumanism - if the root of female oppression are the biological facets of being female, you remove those and no more oppression.

Not totally different is the kind of feminism that says we need social structures and institutions that make sure men and women fulfil all the same kinds of roles in society equally, and if they don't make those choices freely than we need to push them through various sorts of social pressures.

These aren't dissimilar from the Marxist answer to class struggle - you the proletariat the only class, a classless society - except instead you make everyone into a sort of man.

Or there are any number of other directions you can go in from there, and often you see them mixed together.

The Mosuo, incidentally, are interesting because child-freedom isn't an option for them, yet the women are the primary decision makers. Kind of undermines the idea that female liberation from male oppression requires contraceptive access

I've never believed that to be true, but I think you will find many feminists do, and that many people haven't really thought much about what equality for women would look like in a society without modern technology.

These aren't dissimilar from the Marxist answer to class struggle - you the proletariat the only class, a classless society - except instead you make everyone into a sort of man.

That is because Marx adopted much of his treatise from the Feminists who came before him, though I dispute your rather bizarre conclusion that man would be their ideal.

We seem to have reached the philosphical madlibs stage of today's conversation.

Gender, aka sex role stereotypes, vary from one culture to another in the ways the males oppress and control women.The female reproductive capacity is the basis for the cultural control of women. Even in areas where women have gained reproductive control the traditions of the dominance/submission paradigm have ossified

You have correctly identified that there are differences between men and women...but where we now diverge is that you automatically use the mantra: Men control women, or maybe, Men see women as property, or Men don't see women as human, and so on.......and these sort of basic assumptions underpin your thinking and therefore your take on most issues...and that is how you define feminism.

That is neither right or wrong. It is your interpretation and your belief. Nobody can throw you out of feminism for 'wrong think'; or maybe I'm a bit naive.....because there certainly does seem to be a strong reaction when some women question some of the basic tenets of what others consider to be feminism. Or question the blanket assumptions; or suggest more nuanced interpretations.To be a radical feminist sometimes seems to be to suggest that All men are rapists or Men are less evolved than women or Women would make better rulers than men......

Looking back to the thread starter Women basically have equal rights in the West...... If by equal rights you mean the same civil, legal and property rights etc as the men in a society, then that is true.

That is not to say in many societies this is not true. We know in some societies that wife beating is not only permitted, but even encouraged; that there is no such crime as marital rape; that women cannot own property; have no rights over their own children; cannot drive a car; do not even have their birth recorded, and so on.......

Beyond those obvious societal oppressions and inequalities, what you are describing are some of the darker aspects of human nature and of human relationships. There will always be the potential for the bigger and stronger to control and hurt the smaller and weaker...thus males have the potential to control and physically abuse females, and females have the potential to control and physically abuse children, (and small animals too).

Women are not immune from being the perpetrators of violence and abuse. We've all, I'm sure, witnessed women being abusive and violent towards children in public......in fact many societies and cultures still tolerate or permit this, in the way that they tolerate and even permit males to beat and imprison females.I've witnessed some horrible acts of sadistic abuse from women towards their children on public transport and in the street. And often people will just turn away...and permit it to continue.

A lot of such abuse is cultural, or due to personal up-bringing and practice...and often it is in poorer communities , or in uneducated communities that you witness or know that such abuses or behaviours occur. Life can be brutish and harsh, and human beings will always have that potential.

If there was a Children's rights movement, or an Animal rights movement ( oh hang on, there is......) women would be, and they are, culpable too. But nobody has suggested that because some women abuse children, and that some societies make child abuse an acceptable, or even recommended, practice that all women are culpable; or make similar blanket statements to some of those that are often trotted out in the name of Feminism.

Humanity contains much that is dark or destructive...and males, being humans, do too. Males are bigger, generally stronger and faster, and can have a quite different approach to sex than women. All of it biological in origin. Women are generally smaller, and are the ones that can become pregnant; the ones that carry children and tend to do most of the nurturing of the young.....and because of this have particular vulnerabilities.......and sexual vulnerabilities too......because most often sex, and pregnancy, have far greater repercussions for women than they do for men.

What we mostly seem to disagree on is whether these facts are inevitable ( due to human nature and biology) or whether these 'facts' can be eradicated through political action.

I've come to the conclusion that we have come pretty much as far as we can( in the West)when it comes to 'equality' between the sexes......in terms of legislation, law and so on........Beyond that is individual human behaviour........and all the state can do is prosecute when an individual breaks the law, or exert cultural pressure on an individual towards 'right behaviour'.

women are the primary decision makers

In many families, in our society, it is the woman who rules the roost; or at least makes and shapes key decisions.......in many it is not........because we have developed an individualistic, liberal type society.

People often seem to forget that this is the feminism and women's rights board, not the trans issues board, and that therefore it is to be expected that most of the people here will be feminists

This is the Feminism/Women's rights board ( FWR), and i imagine that the vast majority that post are concerned for women's rights, and for human rights generally. But there is no universal mantra ( such as TWAW) that must be adopted...or is there? Sometimes it seems like one is not permitted to question any dogma.

You have correctly identified that there are differences between men and women...but where we now diverge is that you automatically use the mantra: Men control women, or maybe, Men see women as property, or Men don't see women as human, and so on.......and these sort of basic assumptions underpin your thinking and therefore your take on most issues...and that is how you define feminism.

These are not assumptions. These are historical facts. Subhuman status of women was codified into law. Women as property was codified into law. Control of women was codified into law.

You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

You have correctly identified that there are differences between men and women...but where we now diverge is that you automatically use the mantra: Men control women, or maybe, Men see women as property, or Men don't see women as human, and so on.......and these sort of basic assumptions underpin your thinking and therefore your take on most issues

The statistics aren't just abstract numbers to anyone who has first hand experience. Many women come to feminism via the women's sector and have seen first hand the way control of women backed up by violence is rooted in men's beliefs.

If you believe that men cannot overcome their violent nature, then imo you actually have a lower opinion of them than most feminists who believe men can unlearn what they have been taught.

If you believe that men cannot overcome their violent nature, then imo you actually have a lower opinion of them than most feminists who believe men can unlearn what they have been taught

Most men are not violent towards women.Even if many are. Men are not 'taught' to be violent towards women, either ( although I have major issue with contemporary pornography). Such blanket statements are too crude and lacking in nuance.

I believe that all human beings, men included, have destructive and violent tendencies...and am not sure that will ever be eradicated. Human nature contains the whole spectrum of possibility.

All human beings have the potential to control their violent or aggressive tendencies ( & many do quite a good job of this most of the time - certainly the violent bit, anyway, even if not the aggressive)......but the tendencies themselves cannot be eradicated.

Referring to a whole group of human beings ( in this case, men) as 'them' displays a great degree of prejudice, and even disdain, dare I say.

Seriously? In that sentence what word would you have used instead?

Subhuman status of women was codified into law. Women as property was codified into law. Control of women was codified into law

Yes, definitely! But in the West it no longer is.

I'm not sure we can ever eradicate all negative human sentiment or tendency.....whether expressed by males, or by females. The best we can hope for is for the best standards of human conduct to be expressed as rule of law .

@Justhadathought Please answer my question as you directly criticized the language I used.
In the sentence men can unlearn what they have been taught what word would you have me use instead of 'they'? Why is 'they' disdainful in that context?

Male violence is glorified and celebrated in most societies, East and West.

I'm not sure we can ever eradicate all negative human sentiment or tendency.....whether expressed by males, or by females.

That is an absurd statement given that 95% of violence is perpetrated by males. You are literally straining gnats and swallowing camels.

Where 'literally' means figuratively, of course.

I'm not sure we can ever eradicate all negative human sentiment or tendency.....whether expressed by males, or by females.

I agree. We may as well try and stop dogs barking. There will always be violent people who’ve lived horrible lives.

I think it’d likely be impossible to stop it in the UK alone, yet alone the vast regions of the world which are decades us in socioeconomic terms. It’d probably do more good tackling say religion than talking about men if we honestly want to try and lower levels on world violence. But really our current society is probably the safest mankind has ever experienced.

10th rule of misogyny: The worst thing about male violence is that it makes men look bad.

I’m not sure I agree. Why would the Innocent man living across the street look bad? He may have done more for charitable causes than the typical talky feminist for all we know.

Women and men don't have equal rights because men have bodily autonomy and women don't. (Thanks to buffy for this, it's stayed with me)

The rights of an unborn baby trump the rights of a woman....

I've been thinking about that a lot, in this pandemic where it's clear men are a lot more at risk than women. There isn't even a whisper men should stay home/isolate differently to women. Because men, as default human, can't have specific constraints applied to them.

Women are used to having their behaviour constrained to avoid risk (not being out late, not walking home alone etc).

I find it fascinating.

Indeed. If covid was hitting women harder I'm sure every media outlet would be running "self isolate to keep your delicate feminine self safe or it's your own fault if you die really" articles.

I've been thinking about that a lot, in this pandemic where it's clear men are a lot more at risk than women. There isn't even a whisper men should stay home/isolate differently to women. Because men, as default human, can't have specific constraints applied to them.Women are used to having their behaviour constrained to avoid risk (not being out late, not walking home alone etc)

I'm not an evolutionary anthropologist, but I'd have thought that even with women's ability to control/prevent conception, that there is still an instinctive 'program' that suggests a need for a degree of cautiousness because of the inherent vulnerability of pregnancy and sexual threat ( which is why women's/girls single sex spaces are desirable and required).

This is not to say that's all lovely, or fair........or that we shouldn't, as a civilised society, attempt to contain or control our instinctive urges...especially the more destructive or threatening ones.....but there must be an inherent and instinctive set of responses and potential behaviours in the nature which suggest greater protection for females.

Yes, this is mostly from males...because in nature it tends to be the males that are the aggressors; the ones that fight other males for access to territory, and for access to females ( females can also be aggressive, of course, when in defence of their young, or their 'nest'..and there are female hierarchies in some species too).

Males too, and certainly most men, tend not to want to get on the wrong side of a far larger/physically powerful male.

Yes, it's all very crude and primitive.......but there is little point, I think, in denying some of the biological/physical reasons for some of the differences between the sexes. Civilisation & civil society attempts to tame nature and human behaviours, and to cushion some of their most destructive tendencies and forces......but I don't think we'll ever be able to eradicate them all, or eliminate all risk.

There isn't even a whisper men should stay home/isolate differently to women

There are no sexed based instructions for shielding...only for age related or specific under-lying health conditions. I'm not sure how many of our essential services would function if all men were told to stay at home and shield? As a sex men may be more prone to extreme violence and aggressiveness, at the extremes, but 'they' also have their uses, and in many instances are seen as more expendable.

There isn't even a whisper men should stay home/isolate differently to women. Because men, as default human, can't have specific constraints applied to them.

I’m not sure that’s the first reason I’d have thought.

More likely, it’s expected that guys just ‘man up’ and carry on as they do in most other areas of life - most just seem to accept this and do it without prompting as if it were their duty. Men are generally seen as the more expendable sex. Not sure why but maybe because they’ve historically been the ones to die defending their country and women/children - also probably from the media if you think how many more depictions of men dying the average person has watched in action/war movies etc.

For many of us, if we're honest, the reason we recoil from prostitution and pornography is because it just feels inherently damaging for women. The female sex tends, even with the ability to control their own fertility, to not want to give sexual access to random males.

Some women may well be more promiscuous by nature ( By promiscuous I mean having sex with multiple men, rather than simply enjoying sex a lot), but I suspect in many, even most circumstances, it is because they have been sexually abused as children - and as a result have a distorted experience of healthy sexual relations.

Watched a documentary about model/photographer Lee Miller last night. For a woman of her generation ( born 1907), she led an extraordinary free life.......and as well as travelling the world; living in foreign countries, and becoming the first ever American female war photographer; she also had multiple sexual partners, as well as open infidelities when married......

We knew that her own father has taken, what most would consider to be, inappropriately intimate photographs of her as a child/teenager..but it wasn't until the end of the film that we discovered she had been raped at the age of 7 by a family friend.

Have to say I viewed her life and particularly her sexual behaviour as an adult in a quite different light after I discovered that.......even as I already suspected that her 'boundary-confused' relationship with her father, had led her into replicating similar scenarios with older and more powerful men throughout her life.