R0bert,

I think the distinction SJF makes is that women are domineering and men are the dominant dominators - with an implied single exception of one lucky Mr SJF.

R0bert

‘… play semantics if you like and then pretend that others are choosing to misunderstand you’

You ARE misunderstanding me. Not only do you lack the grace to admit to it, but you choose to side with someone who has clearly gone off on an obnoxious, personally insulting tangent that had nothing whatever to do with what I wrote.

I made the mistake of trying to have a discussion with you about the power issues discussed by Farrell. Instead of giving some respect to the points I made, you retreated into another one of your childish, manipulative I’m-so-hurt-that-you-suggest-that-men-are-brutes defences.

I might remind you that this particular exchange evolved from this comment you made several posts ago:

‘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.’

This remark - one that you obviously endorse - is one of the most insensitive comments I have ever read on OLO. It is unbelievably insulting to ALL women everywhere – and it underlines why I find Farrell so poisonous.

I could have chosen to do a vicious personal dump on you, in the manner of Steel or U.S or Seeker. Instead, I chose to engage with you on the topic.

And for my efforts, I now have my words twisted into some astoundingly ridiculous fantasy that every man in history has used his superior strength to beat up every woman in history every day for 6,000 years.

If it makes you feel better to think that, by all means do so. Who knows? It might even be true.

SJF,

You seem to be easily insulted. In my supposed 'obnoxious, personally insulting tangent', please explain where you are personally insulted.

Please also highlight any of my 'vicious personal dump' on anyone.

It seems any critisizm of feminism is a personal insult to SJF.

Yet she accuses robert of 'childish, manipulative I’m-so-hurt-that-you-suggest-that-men-are-brutes' defences.

Then she decides roberts comment, to suggest the majority of men do not have privilige and power, and are treated as expendable (which she agreed with previously) is..... wait for it.....

'one of the most insensitive comments I have ever read on OLO. It is unbelievably insulting to ALL women everywhere '

Now, I am guilty of exageration and extrapolation to make my points, but nowhere near as much as SJFs suggestion of viciousness, vilification (commment by proxy), personal insults, most insensitive comments on OLO, unbelieveably insulting to... wait for it.... ALL women everywhere. I'd love to know what forum she's reading.

'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.
'
I find that amusing actually (I'm not so easily offended as you SJF). Class inequity trumps gender inequity. Ask any garboligist with 4 kids whether they are better off than a doctors wife. Ask a peasant sh!t kicker whether he is better off than the Kings daughter.

SJF

What I have learned on OLO is that you can say "men are discriminated against" - which indeed many are.

But, if you say women are discriminated against, you receive a level of vitriol that if it was physical would be considered violence and is the reason I don't participate on these threads as much as I would like - I have had enough bullying for one lifetime.

I and every other woman who has posted on OLO have always acknowledged that DV occurs with men as victims too. Nor have any of us denied the importance a father figure plays in a child's development.

Yet women continue to be blamed by a particular contingent of men who clearly do want want to seek solidarity with women in working towards a more equitable world. They claim that feminism is to blame for all the laws of the the land.

I look at the political leaders, captains of industry, religious leaders, union bosses, university heads and STILL the majority is overwhelmingly male. And STILL women are blamed if men do not receive custody of children in divorce cases.

If men want to change family law, we need more female representation in all aspects of power, until then we will all be ruled by a minority of males who do not care that so many men are unhappy.

As for Farrell - I find him extremely worrisome, what he writes appears so rational until I read something like this:

" I was similarly surprised to discover that children raised by single dads are more empathetic. We usually think of empathy as something transmitted via the mother. Yet, in study after study, no matter what the family structure, the amount of time a father spends with a child is one of the strongest predictors of empathy in adulthood."
http://www.warrenfarrell.com/articles.php?id=6

Given the complete lack of empathy shown towards women who simply dared to express an opinion, I really have to wonder just what 'studies' Farrell is referring to. Where's the evidence?

Where's the empathy?

Fractelle,

'a level of vitriol that if it was physical would be considered violence'

My god we are getting dramatic.

'I have had enough bullying '
Where are you bullied. Maybe you feel bullied when your opinion doesn't match with the majority. I feel bullied when I have you, CJ and Romany all casting aspersions on my mental health, or questioning my relationship with my mother. See, that's an example of a 'personal' attack. SJF, you listening?

It seems to me that if someone doesn't agree with what you are saying, it's considered bullying by you. It's a strange definition from someone like yourself who admits to baiting and teasing people, although as I've said that's more than likely a back-peddling tactic.

' lack of empathy shown towards women who simply dared to express an opinion'
Hey, I'm not the one calling people obnoxiuos, childish, manipulative, or saying anything I don't agree with is a vicious personal attack, comparable to violence.

Fractelle, whilst I have concerns about some brands of feminism I'm most definately one of those who wants to blame feminism for the worlds woes. Not sure if I was included in your comments but just in case.

Agreed that over time and across the world males do hold most of the positions you talk about but as a reminder of what can be.

For where I live
The local counselor is female
The city mayor is female
The state premier is female
The state govenor is female
I assume in Kevins absence Julia is acting PM, if so the Nations PM is female
The Govenor General is female
The Queen is female

Of the nine levels of government representation I can think of for where I live seven of them are currently occupied by women.

On the other hand every level of management at my work in the chain from my position up is male (but we do have quite a few female managers).

SJF, I think I made it clear that you had not stated the male domination thing in the terms Usual Suspect used but I state that his comment captures how that theme often comes across. I attempted to distance your posts from US's description not link them.

I'm trying to work out why my views are "unbelievably insulting to ALL women everywhere", I've not blamed women for the situation I described, rather it's whats people both men and women have come up with to meet the needs, realities and myths of the times. I don't consider the social structures of the past to be a construct designed to benefit either gender across time but rather a mismatch of things that have often served the needs of the day and sometimes stayed beyond their use by date.

I've not tried to stop you expressing your views but have expressed my concern at the risks of viewing history that way, different things.

R0bert