“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.”

So it is with the “insiders” of feminist text, who trot out that invariably terminal judgement of anything written, performed, or created outside of those texts. Fractelle, take note: if you admit liking your father, you are no better; your recent girly lapse could very well be, his fault.

A lot of women like traditional roles and flourish in them. How many times need that be repeated?

Anansi,

'There would always have to be ‘a reason’...'
Exactly like when a woman commits a violent crime too. There always has to be some extenuating circumstance.

Fractelle, SJF,

Nobody is saying they want women to be 'cosseted pets'. The purpose of bringing up chivalry and such is to counter-balance the assertion that the gender role that men have had is a representation of aggressive domineering misogynistic abuse that so many feminists like to characterise. Sure, a lot of women weren't happy with their gender role, and most are happy that this has changed. But to demonise the the motives of all men throughout the ages, who loved their wives and children, to protray them all to be violent aggressive domineering abusers doesn't hold with the attitudes of chivalry. Men have genuinely loved women for centuries and are sick of this twisted version of history and masculine nature. The term 'patriachy', to me, is an expression of this world view; All men acting together in concerted attempts to materialise their inherant hatred of women.

Back to the topic.

I still reject the premise of this article. 'more involved, committed and responsible fathers.'. It's basically a backhanded way of saying before this 'revolution', fathers were just not committed or responsible.

Imagine if we talked about a motherhood revolution, where mothers are patronisingly praised for their efforts in the workplace. These new women are now finally committed and responsible enough to aid in providing financially for their children.

Fractelle, as Usual Suspect has pointed out my comments need to be viewed in the context of the discussion SJF and I are having rather than as an attack on women. I think that Usual Suspect has phrased the domineering position more strongly than SJF has suggested but he has captured the sense of how some of the talk of historical domination of women by men comes across at times.

Some people do dominate spouses, some of our religious fundies still think that they should be head of the house. Some people will use physical violence, others will use different tactics or a combination of tactics but the characteristics that lead to that are based on values and character not dangly bits.

Men are generally more effective at physical domination when they choose to go that route, we are generally stronger but then women might well have the edge in emotional and verbal domination.

I find the use of terms like domination/dominated to describe the roles socialised and forced onto people in times past to be insulting to all concerned. Individuals have obviously chosen to abuse those roles (from both sides), sometimes there may have been widespread abuse for a period, the roles have probably never been perfect and have certainly passed their use by date but that does mean that one side has consistantly used them to their own advantage.

I hold doors for all sorts of people, I'll give up my seat for someone when they appear to need it more than me and I'm not at all surprised that you do so. I know that women have given their lives for others but as I understand the conditioning of the past for men it was an obligation for women a choice (except maybe where their own children were involved). Women had different responsibilities socialised into them, some men took on those responsibilities when the need arose (being the prime carer when the mother died) but we can still look at history and see that the social conditioning for that responsibility was mainly directed at women.

R0bert

R0bert (Usual Suspect)

I never, ever used the term ‘domineering’ – only ‘dominant’ and ‘dominator’.

For the record, to ‘domineer’ means to behave in an arrogant and overbearing way. The words ‘dominant’ and ‘dominator’ are from the verb ‘to dominate’, meaning to prevail, command or influence.

If you don’t believe me, I strongly advise you to look them up.

I used the terms ‘dominator’ and ‘dominant’ because we were discussing Warren Farrell, who has grown very rich by writing book after book supposedly exposing the myth of male power. I’m not sure how one talks about a writer of books on male power (or lack thereof) without talking about systems of dominance. In fact, Farrell himself uses examples of dominance from history in order illustrate his own points.

Understanding is a two-way street and it is not my responsibility to change accurate and accepted wording because people such as you and Usual Suspect choose to misunderstand it, and then choose to be threatened or offended by your own misunderstanding.

Steel

‘A lot of women like traditional roles and flourish in them. How many times need that be repeated?’

To me … Only once, because believe it or not, I’m one of those ‘traditional’ mums. I was a full-time mum for ten years after my twins were born. And when I returned to work, it was on a part-time freelance basis from home.

For the most part, I flourished in the parenting role. Having achieved most of my career goals beforehand helped a lot, which is an advantage my mother’s generation – and the generations of women who preceded her – did not have.

Also, in the unlikely event that my husband and I were ever to separate, my decimated career means that I would be dependent on his goodwill for financial security – especially in the first 2 or 3 years. Because he’s a fair-minded man, I know it’s unlikely that I would have a problem; but some of my female friends have not been as fortunate.

SJF, play semantics if you like and then pretend that others are choosing to misunderstand you but I think most will read something other than influencing into "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."

R0bert