Jocelynne Scutt misses the point that “victim feminism” not only reduces women to “glamour” status within society—something they do indeed trade off—it also entails an inevitably passive stance. The criticism can be interpreted that women should stand up for themselves and not merely seek redress from society. Victim feminism is abrogation of responsibility. Women have the power to leave relationships before they degenerate into abuse. Indeed, if women were to take responsibility for themselves they would either refuse to put up with abuse in relationships, or they’d abandon relationships with men altogether.
The fact is that violence occurs in the “tension” between men and women, and while nothing can excuse male violence, it’s simplistic portraying the woman as the passive victim. I and many men can attest that the tension and the violence is often provoked by women, who are by no means passive psychologically—or physically. The “nagging wife” archetype is not a myth and equally deserving of the designation “husband torture”! I recall a girlfriend punching me in the balls once when I was driving at speed, and my reaction was to hit back, though in the rage and pain, of the moment I showed more restraint than she did.
During my first marriage I was often reduced to an incoherent psychological wreck by my wife’s utter refusal to compromise or to let anything just drop. Nor was she averse to violence. I recall many sleepless and debilitating nights when she refused to stop, indeed our marriage was marked by what I can only see now as deep antipathies. Yet when I tried to end it she was the one who was absolutely psychologically dependent and held on to our marriage by every means at her disposal. Why did she not see it was impossible and end it? Why did she need me to get through life?
Women shouldn’t only report abuse, they should refuse to endure it and end the relationship, even pre-emptively. Victim feminism, expecting society to protect them, is abnegation of responsibility. The culture of women mothering and mithering over men must end.

The whole article is just so disingenuous.

Squeersy's aim is dead-on,

It's this kind of gear

''reported experiencing at least one type of controlling behaviour', this 'most commonly' comprising 'name calling, insults, put downs or behaviour that made the woman feel bad'.'

ooowww. He made me feel bad.

This is a *gender-neutral* behaviour, seen in even the happiest of couples at times, but twisted and contorted in some 'study' to fit the all encompassing male=abuser women=vicim narrative.

Men also speak out against crime and violence against women, but perhaps not loudly enough, and obviously not all men, not the perpetrators or the thoroughly misguided. And many in our society, perhaps a majority, are apt to 'mind their own business' or 'not want to get involved' when they witness or have a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. We are timid - though that is not always a bad thing, depending on circumstance. Some men deserve a good thrashing all the same, but taking the law into one's own hands is frowned upon these days - as is chastising an unruly child or a misbehaving youth. Nonetheless, speaking up about witnessed transgressions should be encouraged, if not outright demanded of every responsible citizen.

Unfortunately we have an imperfect society, including visions of women (or 'girls' mostly) behaving badly - and some of the shenanigans of 'youth' leave much to be desired in the area of decorum and self-respect. To some extent, laissez-faire behaviour can lead to misunderstandings (probably partly motivated by 'wishful thinking' or 'natural urges'), and a poor level of self-restraint and respect for others may then lead to destructive outcomes. Naivety and 'raving' or 'pinging' (whatever that means) make for a hazardous combination.

"Growing up' at too young an age, and before attaining true adult 'maturity', does not appear to be serving our society well, and, in combination with a less than modest and 'reserved' example set by adults and 'role models' in some quarters, has bequeathed us many unfortunate and unappreciated consequences - insufficient regard and respect for women unfortunately being one of them, and perhaps insufficient respect by women for themselves.

Squeers, well said. Though for a moment that you used to date my ex but she was more prone to a punch at the kidneys.

There are those of both genders who believe that a relationship (or the aftermath of one) should allow them to dominate the other person, to meet their own needs via the other person (and generally with no regard for the others needs).

The feminist victim brigade would have us believe that women don't initiate violence (or if they do it's lashing out against an oppressive partner), that women have somehow managed to juggle almost all of the early childhood nurture and child raising in western history whilst having no role in the shape of western culture, that behaviours are controlling when done by a man but perfectly normal when done by a woman.

There should be room to speak out about issues that hurt and harm, some issues will impact on one gender more than another but the victim mentality lacks any balance. It only see a problem when it's happening to those who they identify with and are often dismissive of (or supportive of) harm done to others.

R0bert

No one has a problem with people who have been very poorly teated seeking sympathy.

The problem here is paternalistic ideas about women that mean that some people see women as victims too easily. For example, it is well understood that most domestic violence is reciprocal and in most cases, on objective judgement, people would say both participants are as bad as each other. However, we socialise people to see male participants as evil wife-bashers and female participants as poor little victims.

Another example is the rapid expansion of the definition of domestic violence, sexual assault and sexual harassment. Any heated argument is now dv, anyone who has had sex with someone who was drunk is a rapist and anyone who had flirted with someone who wasn't attracted to them is guilty of sexual harassment.

Being too willing to see women as victims is ultimately a condesending attitude towards them that has no place in modern Australia.

The first comment in this thread stirred some memories for me because when I made similar observations about the dynamics of interpersonal relations within marriage in my blog post http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2006/11/24/no-to-white-ribbons/ and I then spent a few years being attacked as an excuse maker for domestic violence by various lefties all because I made the argument that the problem is an often toxic dynamic between partners rather than it being just a case of the pernicious nature of the male.

Iain,
yes, it's not a very original point we make but it deserves more attention. There's two sides to every dispute.
The other point I suggested, which women also generally don't want to consider, is the long-time culture wherein women need a man as a crutch in life, or to keep up appearances, or even to sponge off.
I used to say to my wife that she didn't love me, she loved the "idea" of being married, I was one of her possessions and a mode by which she maintained her "status" in life. When I left she was more devastated by the humiliation than the loss and I've often thought it's much easier when a partner dies that when they divorce; it's all sympathy for the former and gossip for the latter--especially among women. I've had half a dozen relationships that were bloody hard to break and emotional blackmail was de rigueur, this even from really capable and intelligent women. There really is a pathology of emotional/social and even cynical dependency, women on men, out there; a passive/aggressive desperation for "normalcy" that sets women up for abuse. This, I think, is what feminists like Naomi Wolf object to; to these needy and cringing women who let the feminist movement down, appealing to higher authority, reinforcing their subaltern status and patriarchy, rather than taking charge of their lives and asserting their independence.
Half the time, I suspect domestic violence and its non-reporting, is due to the agonised frustration on both sides and an unwillingness, or a failure of courage, to just end it or let someone go!

I hasten to add that though I'm generalising I don't suggest we all fit the stereotypes I'm alluding to, male or female, but that the stereotypes are nevertheless real.

Thus do we appear to sit on the horns of a dilemna - one view aspiring to solid relationships, where both parties strive to make it work; and a counter-view strenuously maintaining independence and freedom of movement into and out of relationships. The rigors and culture of the modern work environment appear to be increasingly impacting on the atmosphere and expectations of the home environment?

While there is, and has been, a wide cultural view of the male as protector and provider, we have increasingly a re-balancing, an accelerating movement towards universal financial and cultural independence - of rigorous assertion of individual rights both within and outside the home environment. Taken to an extreme, what may the future hold? Total independence? Economically, socially and culturally? And a possibly increasing revision and deterioration of the resilience, incidence and very nature of relationships and of marriage?

Always will we have a segment with licentious tendency, and a segment with rigidly spiritual inclination - and with the majority falling somewhere in between. Hence, 'buyer beware', in the face of the diminishing reliability of cultural and societal prescriptives?

Yet there is hope in love, as perhaps the most powerful human emotion and motivation, albeit increasingly tempered with caution and an eye to both emotional and economic survival. Purity of thought, action and intention reside increasingly in a challenging, complex, harsh and unforgiving environment. More's the pity.

However, physical, psychological or emotional abuse should never be condoned in any relationship, irrespective of circumstance, and we must strive by some means to reinforce and reinvigorate the exercise of moral fibre - but don't ask me how.

‘… the problem is an often toxic dynamic between partners rather than it being just a case of the pernicious nature of the male…’

That argument is a furphy. A toxic dynamic does not have equal implications for male and female partners. Women are approximately seven times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner, either ex or current, than a man is, and an even greater likelihood of serious injury.

A woman who is nasty, spiteful, narcissistic, provocative, violent and generally horrible deserves to lose a relationship. She does NOT deserve to be injured or killed.

The ‘few disturbed men’ argument is also a furphy. The vast majority of ‘normal’ men take advantage of a toxic culture that breeds both violence amongst men and a sense of male superiority over women.

Most men are not, as you say, pernicious, and would never harm a woman physically. However, most men will defend their priviged right to enjoy pornography, to cheapen women through humour and sexual objectification, to play or watch violent sports, to glorify war and weaponry, to assert control over others through superior combat or physical strength or bigger and faster toys – all of which come under the general heading of ‘normal’ masculinity.

Violence against women will only cease – or at least seriously diminish – once the cult of masculinity is no longer glorified. But I’m not holding my breath.

The problem is not violence per se, it is marriage contracts.

Imagine a world where corporations merge on a marriage contract based on Love, Santa clause and the tooth fairy and if you break the contract you have to give 50% of the company assests to your ex partner and pay for his/her mistakes (aka kids) for the rest of your corporations life.

The business world would turn not into domestic violence but an arms race and open warfare. Society would cease to exist.

So why do we have unjust, violence creating marriage contracts?

Because like Santa and the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny, marriage contracts stimulate business and the economy and thus POLITICAL POWER -- that's why.

Now seeing politicians are ultimately the ones who must determine how to solve violence in marriages what do yo think they will do to solve the problem?

You guessed it -lots of talk, some weak unenforcable legislation and then ---- a big fat NOTHING!

SO girls you think Nicola Roxon the politician will solve your domestic problems ... Think again!

If people want domestic peace they ought to have marriage contracts the same as any other legally functioning and responsible business.

Killarney,

it's good to get a female perspective, but you haven't given it much thought.
It seems to me that where violence is not attributable to a "toxic dynamic", one party dominates while the other is passive, and the aggressor is violent for violence sake. But I doubt that's common--although disturbingly, according to Martin Amis, if one human being gains complete power over another, sooner or later his thoughts will turn to torture. This suggests narcissism on one side and prostration on the other, and hopefully it's rare.
More generally, if we think of relationships as like power-struggles, violence occurs as a barometer of the conflict, the frequency of violence being an indicator of its intensity. My mother has put up with violence all her married life, mainly psychological violence. IMO the physical violence is/was much less frequent because all the power is with him and she rarely struggles against it. When she does, violence ensues. Ironically, there are probably plenty of marriages out there where a hand is never raised and all looks respectable, not because peace prevails, but domination, dependency and fear.
It seems to me that persistent violence, whether physical, psychological or emotional, is an indicator of dependency and incompatibility, while gratuitous violence on one side indicates morbidity.
If we are to move on from the classic patriarchal model of marriage and family, wherein the Pater rules supreme, it's going to require action on the part of his subjects, and not wishy-washy PC or appeals to secular authority.
Healthy relationships based on real equality are difficult and demand maturity, compromise and independence on both sides. If this can't be attained or maintained, they should break, period!
And this is where women are, perhaps, more at fault than men; they all too commonly refuse to take charge of their own lives, or they hold on to rotten relationships. Women should be to be proactive, rather than passive victims.

Killarney

>>>>That argument is a furphy..<<<<

No its not a furphy and frankly I don't buy your attempt to justify feminist position on domestic violence with statistics about fatalities. We both know that the vast majority of domestic violence incidents are at a level far below that. Its also becoming quite clear that women are often just as violent and abusive towards their partners as men are.

>>>>A woman [,,,}does NOT deserve to be injured or killed.<<<<

True, however the feminist influence upon the debates about domestic violence has painted every woman as a saintly victim and every man as an evil abuser no matter what sort dynamics have actually been in play in the relationships or even who has the injuries.

>>>The ‘few disturbed men’ argument is also a furphy. <<<<

That is bollocks and suggests that your experience of the real world is rather limited.

>>>> However, most men will defend their privileged right<<<<<

Are you a Feminist woman? You sound like one!

Men and women are different and there is nothing wrong with that difference, but what you have to understand is that all of us men are programmed to be warriors, to be competitive, to want to succeed, with out such drives there would be no progress no technology and no society. Women have their own qualities which complement the masculine and in our modern world there is a far greater blurring of the differences but you can't think that the world will be a better place if either the masculine or the feminine were to absolutely dominate. We are hopefully to be moving towards a synthesis where both the male and female qualities of our collective humanity can be acknowledged and celebrated both for their differences and similarities. wishing away the masculine in favour of the feminine is not the answer.

>>>>Violence against women will only cease once the cult of masculinity is no longer glorified.<<<
Have you read any of Erin Pizzey Killarney? I really think that you should because she has the runs on the board when it comes to understanding domestic violence.

Of course, we're all talking here from the perspective of the modern developed world where, in the blink on an historical eye, the dynamic between men and women has shifted fundamentally.

The "cult of masculinity", as Killarney refers to it, is the reason we evolved to this stage of evolutionary practice. It's only in the first world that we can dispense to a degree with the role that masculinity has played throughout human development, and still plays in developing or traditional societies.

Imagine a small society laid out in traditional style. Everyone was pretty well up close and personal with other community members. The men did their [masculine} thing and the women did their {feminine} thing. All was overseen and policed by the close nature of interaction in the group.
Now imagine a "developed" society where we all partitioned ourselves away from each other in nice little boxes replete with net curtains where all sorts of dynamics unfold between men and women - dynamics that are not policed by the society around them because they are hidden away until things get out of hand. Imagine also a society where the reliance on traditional gender roles was more or less negated by the development of technology, and you have a society that no longer has a compass to give definition to it's behavioural structure.

Our society delivers us all sorts of challenges. It seems from some aspects that it is perpetually frustrated that men and women haven't yet developed the ability to morph into one androgynous gender, because that is what our modern construct promotes.

'While there is, and has been, a wide cultural view of the male as protector and provider, we have increasingly a re-balancing, an accelerating movement towards universal financial and cultural independence - of rigorous assertion of individual rights both within and outside the home environment. Taken to an extreme, what may the future hold? Total independence? Economically, socially and culturally? And a possibly increasing revision and deterioration of the resilience, incidence and very nature of relationships and of marriage?'

That's gold.

Why is it reading the comments on OLO is so much more rewarding than reading the articles.

This is a massive feminist blind spot when it comes to pay rates as well. It's almost as if the massive transfer of money from men to women in society just doesn't exist. Sure, if you go for this independence is king idea, it's irrelevant, but tell that to the women who actually want to arrange their family structures with some element of dependence.

The other aspect that is ignored is the woman's social capital that enhances her life especially in older age with the closer family relationships afforded by not being the primary earner. This, while not easily measurable, is totally ignored as part of the trade-off. In feminist speak this purely a 'burden' of 'unpaid' caring 'work'.

Maybe I don't know the dictionary definition of 'victim' feminist, but as I said to me it's nothing to do with rape victims speaking out or not, it's this idea that women are being shafted in every aspect of society and men are living the life of riley. Or, as I normally phrase it...

Women: The downtrodden martyrs of society.

'The Australian component of the International Violence Against Women Survey found 'over a third of women (34%) who had a current or former intimate partner reported experiencing physical and/or sexual violence since the age of sixteen …' As for current relationships, for Australia 9-11 percent 'reported experiencing physical or sexual violence from their partner at some point in their lifetime'. Additionally, 37-40 percent 'reported experiencing at least one type of controlling behaviour', this 'most commonly' comprising 'name calling, insults, put downs or behaviour that made the woman feel bad'.'

I still cant get past this.

Why isn't rape bad enough? Why? Why is it merged into the same ball park as calling people names? Why is it called sexual assault or sexual violence?

I think rape is heinous. I don't think insults are in the same ball park, not even the same sport. It's only in the ridiculous world of victim feminism that we have these expanded definitions that make an offensive mockery of women who are raped. All for the purpose of expanding the proportion of 'victims', and expanding the proportion of evil men.

Woman 1: I was raped
Woman 2. I know exactly what you mean, my boyfriend called me a bitch after I belittled him in front of his friends!

I would think 100% of men and women have experienced 'at least one type of controlling behaviour', this 'most commonly' comprising 'name calling, insults, put downs or behaviour that made them feel bad'.

What kind of lives these people, these 60% of women who have never, 'in their lifetime', experienced this behaviour.

Poirot,
I meant to put the word "healthy" (as applying to relationships) in brackets above, as the dream of equality is so idealistic and far-removed from the dynamics of the competitive system we're all embroiled in.
And as you suggest, Houellebecq, there are definite pluses for meek women who tend the family and leave the high-powered egotism to their men. As with my mother, she gets all the kudos and he's despised. An uncomfortable truth some feminists don't want to face is that many women are comfortable, or at least adjusted, to being dominated by their men; they want to feel loved, safe and protected by their alpha male, even if that means cowering under the occasional blow. And of course it saves them the trouble of taking responsibility for themselves, or indeed "thinking" in any critical sense. Actually it's hard to imagine critical thought being possible in a state of willing subjection?
Of course for some feminists all this marks me off as a "misogynist", for daring to question the prevailing wisdom. This is what I object to the most; political correctness generally indicates a lack of critical thought which nevertheless imposes a popular censorship over dissenters. Certainly there are misogynists out there who's claptrap is an easy target, but there are also many who seem to think more objectively than many women.
I consider myself a feminist, btw, and we shouldn't forget that it's feminists like Naomi Wolf and Camille Paglia who expose the weakness of, for instance, victim femi

There's also the other side of the coin squeers,

' An uncomfortable truth some feminists don't want to face is that many women are comfortable, or at least adjusted, to being dominated by their men;'

There are men who are emotionally dominated by their spouses, withdrawn to the only place where they have what it takes, in the working world. They live to keep the wife happy to have a semblance of a happy life.

Now, I would call these men weak, and tell them they need to grow some balls, these men who have all but died by the death of a thousand cuts. But in a feminist world, if these were woman in unhappy relationships, they would be considered victims. I think men and women have different expectations about personal responsibility.

And lets not forget there seem to be men trapped these days by the not entirely unrealistic expectations about custody and divorce settlements. Men have been given a taste of a closer relationship with their kids, have done a lot more day to day caring, and know this will end quick smart once the divorce happens. The rise of MRA groups I think is mostly centred around rejected fathers, living to see their kids on weekends while still slogging it out providing for the mortgage for the house the ex lives in.

As I said, this non-riley life of men is denied by the victim feminists. It's a unilateral tale of woe for the women victims, the downtrodden martyrs of society, with the men supposedly holding all the cards, while in reality world both sexes have different crosses to bear in relationships.

This patriarchal dominance is furphy, I saw most of my mates dads given a list of jobs to do on the weekend and many were shells of men berated and belittled by their wives. They took their responsibilities WRT kids and providing seriously, and escaped out of the house on errands wherever they could to avoid the missus' nagging.

Houellie,

"This patriarchal dominance is a furphy..."

Yes!

If I stop and think of all the couples I know, I conclude that in the great majority, if not all of them, the woman calls the shots. Even the ones where the male is in an important position or has a career where he is seen as a dominant alpha male - on the home-front he acquiesces to his wife's preferences and decisions. I well remember one fellow who is the head of a substantial HR company worth millions. He's doer and go-getter. At one gathering he was regaling me and others with all the things he was achieving - and then the apparition of his wife rose up at the end of the table informing him that they "would" be leaving in half and hour. The look on her face and her countenance was enough to let all of us know that it was a command not a suggestion.
Maybe some women find the best access to power is from within the confines of the married or partnered state, whereas outside independence wouldn't offer them the same mechanisms for forthright action and influence.

Squeers,

You're right that a feeling of protection, safety and kudos offered by an alpha male is something many women find comforting. I still think the majority of us are so programmed for traditional roles that the advent of independence for women is really above and beyond most machinations. And we shouldn't underestimate "appearances". Once a couple set themselves up together, they want to appear successful at that particular enterprise. If they really don't get on, they weigh up the pros and cons and decide whether the pretence is worth the torture of staying together.

'Once a couple set themselves up together, they want to appear successful at that particular enterprise. If they really don't get on, they weigh up the pros and cons and decide whether the pretence is worth the torture of staying together.'

Too true Poirot. But I look at it also as an aversion to calling the loss on an investment. Once you invest x amount of years in something, you're more likely to try to ride out the bumps in the hope things will get better. That's the whole basis of marriage isn't it better or worse? That's what saltptre was getting at that that idea is anathema to "you're worth it". Commitment, compromise? What the hell do I know I suppose I'm not even married.

They stay in in the hope prices will rise again. They don't want to accrue the loss. Then there's the devil you know of course.

'Maybe some women find the best access to power is from within the confines of the married or partnered state, whereas outside independence wouldn't offer them the same mechanisms for forthright action and influence.'

I think also, being sexist of course, that many women by nurture or nature really are more into their kids than some career, and the money from the provider allows them to have their cake and eat it, with the sacrifice that they lose a bit of financial independence. Now if you're determined to stick at it, or these days if the courts will protect the cake for you, you might as will keep eating like there is no tomorrow.

I'm sure there are some dreadfully abusive patriarchs out there, but as I said it's not my experience and I cant see it as the norm that the feminist likes to extrapolate to.

What are your thoughts on the extrapolation from rape to insults and 'making me feel bad'?

A guy in a bad relationship is a wimp, a woman in a bad relationship is a victim of the patriarchy seems to be the summation of it all.

'I don't buy your attempt to justify feminist position on domestic violence with statistics about fatalities'

Oh, dear! I most humbly apologise for letting silly things like dead women get in the way of your hard fought right to be as prejudicial and closed minded as you think is your right as a member of the privileged gender that is responsible for the overwhelming majority of the raping and bashing that creates all those inconvenient statistics.

'the feminist influence upon the debates about domestic violence has painted every woman as a saintly victim and every man as an evil abuser '

The statistics - the credible ones, that is, not the pathetic faux methodologies cooked up by self-serving MRA 'studies' posing as research - show over and over and over again that gender violence results in women ending up killed, raped or seriously injured to an overwhelmingly disproportionate degree, compared to men.

'what you have to understand is that all of us men are programmed to be warriors, to be competitive, to want to succeed, with out such drives there would be no progress no technology and no society'

And where is all that programming coming from? A toxic society that breeds in men from the cradle that they are the privileged gender because they have the brute-strength advantage over women. One that leaves boys with little option but to play along in this destructively competitive endgame or be deemed - heaven forbid - unmanly.

And where has all that self-centred, egotistical warriordom got us? Endless war. Global imperialism. Financial ruin. Environmental destruction. Imminent annihilation of the species. Nice one, guys. Take a bow.

At least you noble warrior alpha males can take comfort from the fact that, when you finally destroy the world, you'll be taking women with you.

Nice one, Killarney,

All the men on this thread have been thoughtful and reasonable in their responses - and in return you come on here spitting venom.

What do you want from men when you can't even discuss the issues without resort to odious, sarcastic and derogatory rhetoric?

I think it might be instructive to examine your own attitude for clues as to why some men feel that women aren't the sugar and spice they're made out to be.

'Maybe some women find the best access to power is from within the confines of the married or partnered state, whereas outside independence wouldn't offer them the same mechanisms for forthright action and influence.’

And maybe some women see that for the snivelling, manipulative drivel it is. Maybe some women actually demand their right to independence and security on their own terms. Just because some women like the pretend power that comes from pussy-whipping a man whose gender privilege has given him the means to achieve the power the patriarchy denies her, that doesn’t go for the rest of us.

Women can't win, can they? If they settle for back-seat power tethered to an alpha male's every whim, they're cunning bitches. If they assert their right to follow their own path and challenge the restrictions that society puts on them, they're evil feminists.

Either way, it's the men who win, because it's the men who make the rules - at least for now. They know they've had it too sweet for too long. And they're terrified of losing it.

'All the men on this thread have been thoughtful and reasonable in their responses'

Good Lord. If you honestly believe that, Poirot, then I feel even more sorry for you than I already did. Or haven't you noticed that all those 'thoughtful and reasonable' men have made it virtually impossible for women to freely participate on this forum, unless they share your unending capacity to grovel to the perennial male ego.

I don't think you'd know a misogynist if one fell on you.

Killarney,

"I don't think you'd know a misogynist if one fell on you."

Hey, hey, you reckon?

But I certainly recognise a vinegar-sour misandrist when she swaggers on-board, all guns blazing in the direction of anyone who happens to possess a penis.

It's all a bit sad really - and the greatest shame is that your attitude and style does "nothing" for your cause.

Here is someone who is worthy of my respect as a defender of women - and of environment - and of sustainability...because it's all connected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva

If you could garner even one iota of this woman's wisdom and graciousness in defence of the women of this world, you might be able to climb out of the pit which you inhabit.

Killarney,

Unfortunately, some of what you say is all too true I fear, but I really don't think it's nearly as dire as you suggest. We in Aus, and in the West generally, I would suggest, are in a transition, a tortuously slow one perhaps, but a transition nonetheless. But, apart from male-hating females (and vice versa), men and women still make a good team, in effect the 'perfect' team, and whether we like it or not we have evolved that way, and evolution is a tortuously slow process.

Now, I'm not suggesting we have to wait for evolution of the species to bring us all more into line with the paradigm shift in physical, cultural, technological and lifestyle circumstance which has taken place since the dawn of humankind (maybe 1-2 million years ago), but the acceleration of change over even the last 200 years takes quite some adapting to - and that is what has been occurring, an adaptation of attitudes and inherent traits to this changed circumstance. Some are, and have been, better able than others to make this adaptation and suppression of 'nature' and of 'tradition' - but it has been happening with cooperation and understanding on both sides, male and female together. Such it has been, and must be. If some want to go it alone, that is their choice, and no-one should stand in their way - as long as it does not entail riding roughshod over others.

>>Either way, it's the men who win, because it's the men who make the rules - at least for now. They know they've had it too sweet for too long. And they're terrified of losing it.<<

For some men the above statement would be all too true (might I suggest particularly in some parts of the developing world), but in my world of the 20th and 21st Centuries, women have not been absent either in the decisions which have created better lives or in the decisions which have created havoc. Not in the spotlight perhaps, but not silent either, in thought or in deed.
TBC>

Cont'd:

The times they ARE a-changing - not fast enough for some, and a bit too fast for others. There are effective matriarchal societies and effective patriarchal societies, but we are in flux - spinning in the centrifuge and only making sludge, at least for the moment.

Still, much as I may endeavour to understand the need for and the nature of the feminist movement, I believe in mutually beneficial partnership, and if, or when we achieve feminist rule or male dictatorship, then I'm out of here quick smart.

Oohh Spicey!

'Maybe some women actually demand their right to independence and security on their own terms. '

Some no doubt do, but it doesn't sound like a very successful pair-bonding strategy. Do you really think men in relationships have independence and security on their own terms? If you do I think you're very naive. Relationships involve compromise and dependence.

'gender privilege has given him the means to achieve the power the patriarchy denies her'
As I said in an earlier post, there is more than financial power at stake. This reminds me of the ridiculous feminist notion that men don't have to choose between career and children. Men, pst, must be quiet here, miss their children when they have to go to work. Women on the whole have been able to achieve a better balance between work and family life, and good on them.

You may think more women are interested in high flying careers, but most of the women and a lot of the men I know are not. These positions of power are for people who don't have or want kids, or for people who are happy rarely seeing their partner and kids, and who have a partner who is happy with that. People with family commitments or wanting a better balance in their lives need not apply.

' If they settle for back-seat power tethered to an alpha male's every whim, they're cunning bitches. If they assert their right to follow their own path and challenge the restrictions that society puts on them, they're evil feminists.'

Are those the only 2 options? What about creating a true partnership with a man and negotiating in the relationship the role that each party wants to provide to the family unit, based on trust, compromise and empathy? That's what I see happening every day.

'Either way, it's the men who win'

Win what? Perhaps if you didn't see the whole world as one grand Adam vs Eve, you could win too. Anyway, I thought it was only the nasty men always looking for dominance.

Jingle belles, Jungle drums ...

Can the people who believe in LOVE, Santa, Easter bunny & tooth fairy stop clogging up this forum.

No one wants these immature imbeciles running our economy, or legislature or our lives.

Oh, what's that you say? They are running our lives & whatsmore they want to keep existing fairytale marriage laws to keep the populace self divided and easily ruled.

Sheesh ... go figure!

In the meantime DECEPTION and violence rule the families in our suburbs to the delight of casino owners, chambers of commerce, drug crooks, bikies, fat-head politicians and out of touch prime ministers.

There you go, Killarney - Houellebecq's last post is reasonable and thoughtful. It's "not" misogynist. In comparison to your tirade, it's the soul of temperate exchange.

I have difficulty with first world women who ignore the fact that women in developed countries, those who have gained much independence, cannot see that they themselves support the status quo. They are right behind the men in all the things you protest against. Capitalism and consumerism are their major nourishment. Women just whoop it up spending and consuming in the "nasty" male paradigm.

Getting back to Houellie's point about families, etc. I'm trying to understand your resentment of males and the extent to which it poisons your outlook of the human state. I can only assume that you're a type of women who "feels dominated". I never feel like that with men. If I became involved with a man who attempted to dominate me like that, I would soon find the door.

In my opinion, it's not necessarily about domination, but about different roles in play between the genders. Often the women becomes "the well", the place where all succour is derived in the family unit - never diminishing no matter how much is drawn from her depths. That is real strength.....It's the anchor of all emotional development among humans - and it's the ultimate power (although it can't be exchanged for money, goods or status, so it tends to be negated by the feminist movement).

Poirot, are you forgetting that Houellebecq is seeking recognition as a mother (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13686#236995)? Of course he is going to be reasonable and thoughtful.

He of course deserves to be called a mother (preferably without any add extensions ).

R0bert

Poirot,

thanks for being bipartisan. Us blokes must be a bunch of misogynists, despite trying to be reasonable, otherwise why are the ladies staying away in droves? Apart from Killarny, of course, who sees through our reasonableness.

Thanks for the heads up about Houllie, RObert. I for one support his ambitions to be a mother. I remember when I was a single mum myself, with four littlies to look after--everybody seemed to think I should get a job, unless I was prepared to get a sex reassignment (the doctor advised such a MASSIVE operation was too risque).
Anyway, the revelations about Houllie got me thinking about that Monty Python sketch; as always, eminently reasonable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUBAx8jbYNs

Squeers,

Thanks for the Python clip : )

You know, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to take some of the credit for all of you ratbags finally finding your feminine side. It's been a long road since I arrived on OLO to a horde of macho, beer-swilling brutes, revving your engines and calling me "wench".

....but, HARK!, I'm hearing lullabys, and smelling the aroma of talc and freshly dried linen......

.....where was I? Oh yes, jolly good show, boys. I'll never feel the dearth of female company again on this forum now that all you mothers have found your true calling in life.

: )

Why not take all the credit, Poirot?

Anyways now that we're all agreed that Houellebecq is a real mother... I am concerned lest he also become a 'victim'.

How he copes with the stretch marks will be a guide.

That's not fair Squeers. Here I was thinking I was funny and Python did it years ago. Way to steal my thunder. I have yet to have someone successfully argue how it's any different from the Gay marriage issue though.

I've been desperate to re-brand myself Trev from Killarney's 'male priveledge', to be a downtrodden martyr of society.

I would love nothing more to be a member of the virtuous gender, a victim in every social context, free of any responsibility (It's the Patriarchy's fault), free of all that origial sin male guilt for the sins of men throughout the ages. Still, it's an easy position for the feminist to take, boiling down as it does to if women had the reins all these years, it would all have been so much better. I Love a woulda coulda shoulda.

The great feminist bedtime story; If women (aka the virtuous gender) had had the chance, the world would be so so rosy, well the angels would look like dirty slappers compared to how wholesome things were on Earth.

There's no way men could give birth. They'd do one of two things. Either be macho and tough it out until someone dies (The Gyno, midwife, wife and the baby), or take so many drugs that the baby would be a retard. We don't do moderation so well.

I can envisage Stallone doing his own c-section in movies.

As always, I'm half serious, with that mother thing. Don't you think Mothers get more kudos in the child rearing and nurturing stakes? Why is empty gay marriage symbolism more worthy than my request?

I'm a bloody good mother! I even 'juggle' and tell people I'm 'time poor', I only get 10 hours out of 24 due to my unconventional experience of so-called reality. I just love adverts that appeal to 'Busy Mums'. I want that so much. I want to be a martyr too!

Ah, to sit back, know nothing is your fault, that you're the victim, and that being called a bitch is conflated with being raped in articles like this.

Now I've heard it all:)

KELP...said:)...."Can the people who believe in LOVE, Santa, Easter bunny & tooth fairy stop clogging up this forum."......lol....if one was to take those 5 factors out of our earthly equations.....just call on JayB:)....He doesn't like lies either:)....lol...please!..:0 think of the children:)......

cc

Squeers,

I'm intrigued at your doctor's advice that your MASSIVE operation was too "risque" - rather than "risky"....or is that a silkily fine Freudian slip you're wearing under that manly facade?

Geranium3.1,

What are you doing here?

I'm baiting the neanderthals. Seems like they are back and intend to breed.

God help the homo Saps.

It's amazing how selfish some people are about words, Houllebecq… But sometimes words themselves don't help.

By males, your Renaissance paintings are a collection of old masters to be admired for what they are – the same by female 'artistes' is your collection of old mistresses to be admired for what they were.

Mothering your children connotes nurturing, niceness and necessity and takes decades – fathering your children sounds like a biblical sex act and takes secon... less time.

The loaded meanings of gendered words creates unnecessary obstacles in life and that's before we confront what 'victim feminists' will allow.

Sometimes it's easier to use neutral expressions – who can disagree with being a good and loving parent, child or sibling?

I know you're desperate to rebrand yourself and you deserve "to be a downtrodden martyr of society" but maybe the best we can achieve is a word mashup…

If, despite mothering your children, the professional 'victim sisterhood' still insist only ma's can be martyrs – as a father you should insist on being called a fartyr.

Geraniums will grow in almost any type of soil if well-aerated and porous. Heavy
clay soils should be improved by adding organic matter each year! You just know where I grow the best:)

"What are you doing here?....Just thought I'd drop in and lend a leaf or two:)

The comings back of the Neanderthals is a contant problem:)

Good luck.

cc

Geranium,

You're a keeper!

It's sad that divorce and domestic violence are part of the national economic outlook. As such politicians will huff and puff and do NOTHING to upset the casino barfs and other ugly commercial elements from profiting from large scale social misery.

Mention fair & just business style contracts for marriage specifying guidelines for everything from kids to sex to putting out garbage will always get negative responses. Perhaps the most lethal of these is to be ignored into oblivion. Funny enough, women hate marriage contracts as they have most to lose. Women prefer violence to truth! And most men are too dumb and shag-nasty to understand.

I think a lot of the blame goes back to our colonial past where Barry O'Farrel type governors ruled with corruption rather than wisdom. Stacks on the mill rather than sustainability.

Maybe our rum-corps based colonial prison society is what the majority deserve. Certainly if they refuse to understand and accept due changes.

But frankly I'm OVER it!

Catch you on the flip side!

Kelp, what a lovely thing to say:)..(your a keeper)..thank-you.

While western cultures differ greatly, hunter and gatherers as we once were, will never come our way again. While men should be in touch with their feminism side as a 50% surety for the understanding and long term survival of the life paring/marrige. During the twentieth century, anthropologists discovered and studied dozens of different hunter-gatherer societies, in various remote parts of the world, who had been nearly untouched by modern influences. Wherever they were found--in Africa, Asia, South America, or elsewhere; in deserts or in jungles--these societies had many characteristics in common. The people lived in small bands, of about 20 to 50 persons (including children), who moved from camp to camp within a relatively circumscribed area to follow the available game and edible vegetation.

The people had friends and relatives in neighboring bands and maintained peaceful relationships with neighboring bands. Warfare was unknown to most of these societies, and where it was known it was the result of interactions with warlike groups of people who were not hunter-gatherers. In each of these societies, the dominant cultural ethos was one that emphasized individual autonomy, non-directive childrearing methods, nonviolence, sharing, cooperation, and consensual decision-making. Their core value, which underlay all of the rest, was that of the equality of individuals.

We citizens of a modern democracy claim to believe in equality, but our sense of equality is not even close that of hunter-gatherers. The hunter-gatherer version of equality meant that each person was equally entitled to food, regardless of his or her ability to find or capture it; so food was shared. It meant that nobody had more wealth than anyone else; so all material goods were shared. It meant that nobody had the right to tell others what to do; so each person made his or her own decisions. It meant that even parents didn't have the right to order their children around; hence the non-directive childrearing methods that I have discussed in previous posts. It meant that group decisions had to be made by consensus; hence no boss.

cc

Geranium,

When I think of hunter gatherers it brings to mind horny women rubbing against the local phallic rock or men, club in hand dragging their newest mate to the Cave by the hair.

Plus ca change, plus la meme chose!

lol....the understanding is noticed. I thought cave dwellers had a greater vocabulary:)KAEP....I do think a sence of humor is vital, and to think with all that cranium spacer that evolution supplied, did find just room for a laugh or two:) Thanks for being a good sport.

Oh and just before I wonder off else-where, I'd like to fix your little mistake.
(club in hand dragging their newest mate to the Cave by the hair.)
Must of been those Neanderthals you mentioned earlier, but I doubt they did it either. I'll stick to my hunter and gathering ancestry.....its a little less violent:)

......"warlike groups of people who were not hunter-gatherers".....you may of watched too much Fred Flintstone...lol....

cc

Geranium,

From my understanding, hunter-gatherer societies still had social rules, passed on from men to boys, women to girls, and education via the same methods, with the most skilled doing most of the teaching.
Also, there would generally have to be leaders - a top man or woman - and my understanding is that there is always a top woman, even if not the designated 'boss' of the group, but without whose (this alpha-female's) agreement almost anything other than strictly men's business would have to be rethought.

When you think about it, female concurrence in decision-making (not subservience or mere acquiescence) was essential to the wellbeing of any group, and it is the automatic recognition and application of this 'rule' which seems to have taken a bit of a back seat in parts of our culture, and which is in some need of a 're-balancing'.
Sure, female suffrage was a start, and the feminist movement a continuation, but we have not yet achieved the full restoration of this most fundamental of 'balances'.
Unfortunately though, the absence of this automatic balance appears to have induced some feminists to perhaps take a leap too far - quite understandable of course, given the fragmented nature of our modern culture.

We have unfortunately almost totally lost the closeness and comfort of 'community' or 'tribe', and now have to rely on a group of friends and acquaintances - or 'work-group' - to fill this void. Barely adequate really, but it is all we have.

I guess the industrial revolution has a lot to answer for, as far as family and community relations are concerned.

Flower pot/David......I have only one song for all of mankind, Iam sure there are a whole lot more. Bob Marley just before he died. I think it raps it up for what I've been saying.....:)

http://tinyurl.com/crpkz8x

The Transnationals of the human race.... it cant of been that hard, or maybe it was.

E

With out love, what are you?

"From my understanding, hunter-gatherer societies still had social rules.....yes they did, and what happen to them?

Whats in my heart should be in all:)

http://tinyurl.com/6pdshg5

Humans have not far to go:)

Continued tomorrow.

cc

Saltpetre...with-in the hunter and gatherers society, the rules were governed by the numbers that dictated the harmony within the groups. Now days, we still have the groups, but only of the waring type. Example...with our caveman mentality, those rules now don't apply, and instead of harmony with-in our species, our numbers are now working against us. The cure for this and all we see (IMO) is simple. If one was to winde back all our numbers, all the problems that affect one,s day to day lives which in just watching the amount of stress and divorce rates, reducing the amount of people can only be the cure. If the lead up to 7 billion was the cause, the answer has to be the opposite. Men and Women worked very well in smaller numbers and the facts are there for all to see. Before religion, humans worked equally as well with religion, until the numbers invented new extremists which again, proves the whole point to all of us today.

Iam not going to rattle on too much since I cant put 30 years of study here with-in 350 word limits.

Its the global numbers that makes us feel this way....Like I said...if we started with the hunters and gatherers numbers, then the numbers grew (with-in the industrial rev as you pointed out) to go forward with the facts any-more, would just be insane.

Women and men or Men and women which ever way you like, can see every day what stresses them and what stresses you and all.(the planet as well)

http://tinyurl.com/cqhz9gc

These hunter and gatherers will show what happen when numbers where dictated before more modern cultures tried to show the new ways of prosperity with thinking more is better:)

Now what do you think Flower pot:)

These times will haunt us all in time.

Reverse is the only answer.

cc

Common flower pot:)...there comes a time to move on....religion in-clued. "Man can not live on bread alone":)...even you know that.

RIP....CJ morgan.

cc