HRS,

Patriarchal means... father ruler. If you are not a father you cannot be a patriarch. Wrong bait.

Misogynist means... hatred of women. One need not be a man to hate a woman. There is a beast known as self loathing in the human condition. Its universal and not gender specific.

Based on the tone of these articles of 'woman=victim/man=victimizer', one could conclude that there is much misandry amongst women. Frued would call it projection. A 7 yr old would say 'takes one to know one.' Some(many?) men and women hate each other, what can ya do. Blame adam, eve, the apple, the serpeant, god, evolution, biology... blame, blame, B-LAME.

If a woman hates man, because of her experiences or due to an ideologically validating rendition of woman's history at the hands of evil, oppressive, war-mongering, pig-dog-bastard-rapist man... so be it. Hatred is a huge burden to drag thru life. Dont help the hateful carry their baggage. Dont live in that shadow.

The victim paradigm is politically expedient, in this rabidly touchy-feely world of non-reason and disdain for logic. It is widely used and extremely effective. This is the modern political landscape... fear, loathing, paranoia and hatred, fueled by emotionally laden ignorance.

Deal with people decently and humanely. Live by the golden rule.

l doubt that those who peddle the victim paradigm actually want to overcome the injustices they speak of. They certainly do not want to unite people. Politics divides. Fear solidifies the division, keeping them perpetually mired and thus dependent on politicians and their rhetoric.

Unplug from these people and they wither away. They need us, we have no use for them. They know it.

The author doesnt want to liberate women from their fear, she wants to stir it up. If she was serious she wouldnt waste her time with hypocritical forum blowhards like us, she would drop the spin, speak honestly and directly and lobby the law makers for actual change. But that sort of action would be too hard. She prolly thinks the pen is mightier than the sword.

trade215,

In this case, whats required isn't a change to the laws, we already have laws that forbid sexual assault.

Instead what is required is a change in certain sections of society that still hold onto the thought that a man is "entitled" to certain "rights".

In order to enact this change we need to discuss the problem. Thats what I think the author is trying to do, get a discussion going so that we as a community can sort out the issue.

To those who still hold on to the outmoded ideals of a wife being subservient and meek, umm get over yourselves. A marriage or relationship is a partnership, not a dictatorship.

James

I suspect that those who hold to the view that they 'have certain rights' feed on porn which portrays women as sex objects. It is possible to have a senior partner without being a dictatorship. Many women I know are more than content when their husband takes up their leadership role. In actual fact many women don't want whimps who refuse to lead their families.

Mmmmm … I’m really starting to get suspicious.

We’ve had about four OLO essays in the last month or so dealing with violent male dysfunctionality towards women. Definitely a case of overkill … but then that’s the whole point. This has been the 'set-up phase'.

Expect now to see a whole heap of OLO essays in the coming weeks and months that set out to smash the credibility of this outrageous feminist onslaught against men. This will be the 'knock em down phase'. And, of course, these essays are sure to be written mostly by women – for that nice Uncle Tom touch.

Pardon the cynicism but, as a long-term feminist, I’ve seen it all before. The backlash process is mathematical in its consistency.

Runner you really are stuck on the idea that the man is the head of the household. Some women are in violent relationships when they are more capable than their husbands who turn their resentment into violence. I like the Hindu wedding custom of getting the newly married couple to fish a piece of jewelry out of a pot filled with dyed water 7 times. The partner who extracts the jewelery the most is the lead partner.

Possession of a penis does not confer automatic wisdom nor does possession of a vagina confer incredulity.

Thanks for the link Aqvarivs. That was a much more interesting article that would make for an interesting discussion on OLO.

MLK makes a very valid point. Nothing like articles with emotive language to get the juices going for an 'opposing' view.

Feminism is a movement with many different streams of thought. Not all admirable. Just like any philosophical stream really.

In regards to violence, whether domestic or societal, why is it that it must become mainly a gender issue? Women against men, men against women. To my mind this perpetrates violence.

Col Rouge got a bit of a caning with his rape-verbal abuse remark. But in a way he does make a point. Are some forms of violence OK? How grave a victim experiences a violent act surely is a personally subjective experience. Like pain. What some of us accept as 'allowable' violence is generally determined by the norms of the times maybe modified by your own values. Just look back on what society once thought was acceptable, even necessary violence, that would not be tolerated today.

If we agree that perpetrating a violent act on another is not on, gender is only relevant to try and understand why it happens and how it can be prevented. But it is equally important to try and understand why some persons become victims, not once, but repeatedly, even of different offenders.

The majority of perpetrators of violence do happen to be men, but I suggest that that is because it is societally more acceptable, and often encouraged, for a man to be violent. To use testosterone, or some such thing, is to attempt victimhood for men, they can't help it.

Rape should never be confused with sex. Like a blow to the head is not confused with a caress across a cheek. Rape in marriage is just another form of violence in a domestic setting.