Vanilla,

And there endeth the lecture:-) Obviously you take this a lot more seriously than myself. I generally wont bother scanning multiple topics to find out where I got a certain impression. I just took your word for it when you disputed my interpretation of your position to be honest.

I am probably very guilty of the extrapolation you describe. I do think that you interpolate, and underestimate the prevalence of feminist views the posters are critical of that you label 'fringe' or outdated. I find it reassuring to hear your views as they are more moderate than most feminists I encounter, and perhaps I expand your definitions to ensure you will refute them.

As to the misogynist debate, ask most women, or even men, what Misogynist means, and then ask them what Misandrist means. This little OLO world is not the real world. Anyway, I don't hear you asking Billie for references to posters using the phrase man-hater.

SJF,

'It's extremely difficult to ascertain that women and men are being equally paid for equal work'

Exactly! So why the call of discrimination from feminists when accurate figures are not so easily attainable.

Any why is it discrimination whenever 'society's messages' influence people's actions? Why do you think when men are under-represented in anything, it's not considered a problem? Do think society's messages are equally influenced by both men and women?

What is to be done if not enough women are interested in the roles of decision makers the feminist want equal representation in? What if in the end there will never be equal representation in EVERYTHING, which seems to me to be the feminist aim. Are we to then force women to be CEOs and politicians, or have some ridiculous incentives to ensure equal representation in everything.

Do you think a man who ‘chooses’ to work full-time because society’s messages have taught him that he should provide for his family – when society has not fed his wife the same guilt about not working full time – is a ‘choice’ borne of gender oppression, not to mention double standards?

For the record, HRS is the only genuine misogynist I see here - I often disagree with you, Whitty and JamesH, but your arguments tend to be well constructed critiques of feminism, and I suspect you can both see that dismissing every single feminist viewpoint is irrational.
R0bert's another poster who outlines problems with feminism, and I tend to think his contributions are quite productive.

I'd agree that using the term 'misogynist' as a blanket criticism of those who criticise feminism is unfair, though I don't actually see it happening all that often - and sometimes, people such as HRS who do dislike women, use feminism as a trojan horse to attack women in general.

The evidence of that I've outlined, but I think I can simplify it - whilst HRS may stop short of criticising women directly, I think it's safe to say that

a) women who speak out for their gender can be described as feminists.
b) to reject all feminists in a broad swipe, means that you are rejecting any women who would speak on behalf of their gender.

Thus, whilst he mightn't criticise women, he just attacks anyone with the temerity to speak on their behalf.

Sometimes it's an effective smokescreen for misogyny, but I think it's important that people see through this subterfuge.

I also think misogynists do immense harm to those who would genuinely seek to address the problems with feminism, as people are more likely to dismiss honest criticism, because of those who are using that tactic to further their prejudices.

HRS: "The word misogynist is probably one of the words most often used by feminists to abuse others. I have been called misogynist many times by various feminists (and in particular by the highly abusive feminists Turnrightthenleft and a C.J Morgan)"

I think that any reasonable person who bothered to read the interminable bleating posted at OLO by Timkins and his sock puppet HRS would be entitled to infer that he has a deep antipathy to women. The term 'misogynist' is therefore an appropriate descriptor of this unfortunate person, and is not a term of abuse.

Whitty

‘Do you think a man who ‘chooses’ to work full-time because society’s messages have taught him that he should provide for his family – when society has not fed his wife the same guilt about not working full time – is a ‘choice’ borne of gender oppression, not to mention double standards?’

My answer is No … because society places a higher value on paid work done in the workplace over unpaid work done in the home. Oppression is about the socio-political factors that give certain groups lower social status. Gender oppression tends to keep women as a group at a lower status than men as a group.

While the man’s choice in the above example may be a limited one, it still gives him greater value and status in society than a woman who chooses to stay home with the kids and/or work part-time. It also guarantees him greater independence, financial security and an uninterrupted career path – all much more highly valued by society than staying at home, earning little-to-no money and doing work that, while rewarding, can’t be put on a CV.

R0bert

In general reference to your last post to me, you seem to be confusing oppression with unhappiness. You also seem to be confusing gender politics with gender relations.

Feminism operates mainly in the area of gender politics, not gender relations (although certainly they can overlap). Gender politics is not about which gender is happier. Neither is it about how women and men can relate better to one another (although feminist theory can often help people to better analyse problems in gender relations).

Gender politics is about which gender controls the social, political and cultural agenda. The last time I looked, it was men.

‘I may be persuaded to provide examples …’

No … no … please! I’ve spent far too much time away from the ironing, trying to sift through all your ‘examples’. Enough already! :)

SJF:
"because society places a higher value on paid work done in the workplace over unpaid work done in the home."

That could be because the 'paid work' is contributing to society, whereas the housework is not.

"Gender oppression tends to keep women as a group at a lower status than men as a group."

How are you measuring this 'status'? Does a woman's vote count for less? Do they have less rights? Are there specific government structures set up to support men but not women?

"While the man’s choice in the above example may be a limited one, it still gives him greater value and status"

Women have just as much opportunity to gain that 'value' and 'status' if they chose.

"...while rewarding, can’t be put on a CV."

You seem to be saying that the most important thing worth having in life is a career. It's also far from the only way to have social or political influence. It fact it's probably far easier to become more involved in such processes when free from the obligations and restrictions of a career with a particular company.

"Gender politics is about which gender controls the social, political and cultural agenda. The last time I looked, it was men."

Do you have some sort of measurement for this 'control'? Women make up about 50% of society, have about half the vote and control more then their fair share of discretionary spending. It seems to me less that they don't have the control and more that you don't like what they do with it.

SJF,

'society places a higher value on paid work... '
Does society, or do you? Or feminists?

I would think 50% of society is women, so are the women oppressing themselves? I think a lot of women value the nurturing of children more than paid work, which is why they choose to stay at home at least part time. A lot would love to stay at home full time, because they find the job so rewarding, and only reluctantly go to work because of financial necessity.

All the men I know have always valued the nurturing of children, but see their role as being responsible for providing money for that nurturing to be possible, and don't think because they get paid their job has more value.

I believe it's feminists themselves that have downgraded traditional female roles, in their efforts to have women the same as men, and have equal representation in everything whether the actual women they are 'fighting' for want it or not.

Now that women have all the same opportunities as men, this oppression you talk of is ridiculous. Be responsible for your own choices. If you're a women, know that if you want the man to stay at home and mind your children full time while you persue your career, you need to choose a man that earns less than you, and loves children, and is secure in his masculinity. If you're a woman who wants to stay at home full time, find a rich man, or accept you will do without a lot of luxuries.

If you're a man who wants even to work part time and stay at home, you must find an employer accepting of your life choice, and find a woman who earns more than you, and wants to persue her career at the expense of her relationship with her children. I missed out on that, but I recognise that's the choice I made, and don't cry oppression.