Anansi:"Call me simple, but aren’t you doing precisely that towards women or feminists"

You're wrong. I try very hard to dissociate the extremists from the "ordinary" woman who simply wants to get on with her life. It still amazes me that so many are incapable of reading what is written and understanding perfectly simple english. I've answered this same accustion in innumerable threads.

Anansi:"name ONE feminist or any poster, who has done just that."

Romany, in her recent diatribe; SJF, in pretty much everything she writes here; Eva Cox, in all of her outpourings; Elspeth McInnes, ditto. I could go on, but I don't think you really wanted an answer, did you?

Anansi:"It is high time for men to ‘want it all’: Career and children and demand changes in our working culture."

Men don't "want it all", that's a feminist goal. Men simply want a fair shot at having what they earn, both in monetary terms and in terms of the respect of their family and community. At present there is a constant assault on the respect due to men, with the worst examples being used to justify all sorts of assumptions about the intentions of the average man. Even the Sex Discrimination Commissioner admits she has little power to investigate gender-discrimination claims if a man is the victim, which is a very clear example of the way the system actively promotes a view of men as second-class citizens.

I do agree with you, however, that men should be demanding a fairer work-life balance for all. I suspect that many simply accept the status quo out of a sense of inevitability. It's hard to "fight city hall", after all.

"I do agree with you, however, that men should be demanding a fairer work-life balance for all. I suspect that many simply accept the status quo out of a sense of inevitability. It's hard to "fight city hall", after all."

Well about bloody time. Lets get organised - together.

I have had a gutful of this blame game, which only serves to divide and conquer. Women are not the enemy it is the minority of those at the top who are adept at keeping the average person from a fair, family friendly and equitable working life.

I don't deny that men are discriminated against, but the 'elephant in the room' is that it is by, primarily, other men.

R0bert

(Not meaning to be adversarial on following points ... just adding to the debate.)

‘I took it that Farrell was saying most men have not had privilige and power, rather they have been treated as expendable because their biological function is different to that of women in terms of perpetuating the species.’

Yes. This is Farrell’s ‘myth of male power’. That is, men do all the work and take all the risks, while all women have to do is bear and raise their children safe in the protected little cocoon men have built for them. The lower down the social scale, the more men are enslaved and exploited by this female-friendly system.

Privilege and expendability are two sides of the one coin. I agree that men are treated as expendable. However, I disagree that it is because they have a different biological function in perpetuating the species. Rather, it is because men’s superior physical strength has given them an edge over women in perpetuating the dominator social order that has been in place for about 6,000 years.

Also, Farrell ignores the fact that in the traditional sense, men have had less privilege and power than men above them in the pecking order, but AT ALL LEVELS of society men have had privilege and power over women. Within the context of their own domestic realm and in their own local community, ordinary men traditionally had more power and privilege than the most high-born of women.

If perpetuating the species is so valued, then our society has a funny way of showing it. Bearing and raising children has always been given a very low social status. Even today, it’s not even included in the census as ‘real’ work. Also, just look at the ridiculous amount of cultural space that most societies give to men who have fought and died in the service of their country (i.e. establishing and re-establishing dominance) – compared to the virtual zero cultural space allotted to the hundreds of millions of women over the centuries who have died in the service of giving birth.

Anansi

‘What I think would be interesting to examine is how one perceives a text on gender based on the gender of the reader.’

A bit like how one perceives a text on race based on the race of the reader. Or a text on history based on the nationality of the reader. Or a text on class based on the class of the reader.

Those who belong to the dominant race, nationality or class will bring to the text the perspective of an ‘insider’, while those of the dominated race, nationality or class will bring to the text the perspective of an ‘outsider’. Usually it’s the insider perspective that sets the tone and rules of the ensuing debate.

Even a book on women, written by women for women, will still be judged according to the values of the wider society - which remain predominantly male-centric.

SJF, we could go on for a long time putting our perceptions of that issue - could be interesting.

I agree with parts of what you said and disagree with others. That may be about how we interpret dominance and how negative your views are of mens motivations or how much role you think women have had in creating our history.

Those who dominate don't normally give their lives to protect the dominated, they don't normally get trained to stand when the dominated enters the room or when seats are in short supply. The dominators don't ensure that the dominated get a spot in the liferaft when the ship goes down if it's at the cost of their own lives.

I think there are aspects where women have been treated as less responsible, less capable and less grown up than men. In some ways treated as children (not quite but it's the best fit I can think of).

Rather than a plot by men to dominate women I see it as roles which have been created and supported by men and women because it was the best they knew how to do at the time. Some parts have also been influenced/perpetuated by religious dogma but thats a whole other discussion. Changed technology has allowed us to loosen those roles, to reduce some of the risks and increase others.

We have scope to do better but insisting on seeing historical differences between the genders in terms of dominance and power creates the risk of fresh harms, fresh imposed limitations where they don't exist and further grief.

R0bert

R0bert

Many women have given their lives to protect others, in many times of crisis - bravery IS NOT the preserve of men.

Courtesy works both ways, for example I open a door for others if I reach a door first, or give up my seat to elderly, disabled or clearly pregnant women.

I don't think anyone stands when "the dominated" enter a room anymore, besides isn't that type of behaviour part of treating women as children? I would feel absurd if men stood up every time I entered a room. I would much rather have my opinions treated with respect than be treated like some kind of freak. And considering just how infantilised women have been for eons, haven't we made fantastic progress from cosseted pets to independent, competent contributing members of society?

Having experienced 'physical domination' first hand and had my experiences trivialised by males as have other women when recounting their experience on this forum is a further example of aggressive behaviour. Or haven't you noticed this pattern after all your time of posting on OLO?