R0bert, Fractelle

Just two quick final comments, here and in next post. If you respond, I'll read your comments but I won’t reply, as the thread seems to have run its course.

R0bert

I didn’t mean to accuse YOU of making ‘one of the most insensitive comments I have read on OLO’. I meant the ‘insensitivity’ to refer to Farrell. Sorry for my misplaced wording.

Just to clarify …When I said that Farrell’s claims about men’s expendability ‘are insulting to all women everywhere’, I was referring to the biological-necessity premise he uses to back it up (not the ‘male expendability’ aspect).

He is using a falsehood to justify a falsehood – and he is doing it at women’s expense.

Neither men nor women have a biological advantage in perpetuating the species. Women need men to reproduce and men can bring up children just as easily as women. What possible biological advantage is to be gained for women by having men stand up when they enter a room? And if putting women in life rafts ahead of men will ensure the perpetuation of the species, what about the millions of men left on dry land?

These codes of chivalry were about control of women, not biological necessity.

Instead of trying to enlighten his readers through his use of historical context, Farrell polarizes the genders by feeding into a common male anxiety about women getting the upper hand. After all, if men’s expendability can be shown to be in women’s biological interests, then it’s an easy mental leap to infer that all WOMEN view all men as expendable. THIS is what I meant as being insulting to all women everywhere.

Fractelle

I meant to take up some of the points you raised before but got sidetracked.

Your comment about Farrell sounding so reasonable and then throwing in something ‘worrisome’ is spot on. I think that’s what many of his critics find so murky about him.

My theory is that he lulls the reader into a sense of plausibility by making a series of sensible points. Then he quietly slips a misogynistic abomination in with the mix so that it slips easily under most people’s humbug radar. I don’t know if he does it deliberately or not, but he does it.

And as for those 'empathy studies' he cites, methinks they were probably based on questionnaires slipped into the dust covers of porn DVDs and distributed free to truckie stops, Hells Angels HQ, Broncos locker rooms and Melbourne’s Athenaeum Club.

Well, to me, my comments are justified and suspicions confirmed...

'These codes of chivalry were about control of women'

See how the motives of men wanting to protect women they loved is turned into a dominating, controlling motive.

Then she says 'After all, if men’s expendability can be shown to be in women’s biological interests, then it’s an easy mental leap to infer that all WOMEN view all men as expendable. '

I say, 'If mens chivalry can be shown to be motivated by a desire to control or dominate women, then it’s an easy mental leap to infer that all MEN view women as a possesion to control or dominate.'

SJF

Thanks for your comments. I agree Farrell reminds me of a line from Tolkien which goes something like: "Looks fair but feels more foul" I know this isn't quite correct, but that is how people like Bly, Farrell and Gray make me feel. If they really cared about both sexes wouldn't they be communicating to both men and women, instead of just men?

Clearly the majority of us (men and women) feel that the existing status quo is not helping anyone -not the average family. Therefore, I have to ask myself who IS reaping the benefits keeping women as primary carers and men as primary breadwinners (women lose on career paths and men lose on family life). Some who gain are religions; sects like the Exclusive Brethren use existing Family Laws to isolate fathers who leave their sect.

for example: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1745886.htm

"Ron Fawkes Interview

Read the edited interview of Quentin McDermott’s interview with former Exclusive Brethren leader Ron Fawkes, on being excommunicated from the Church and his family......

Q. Do you regret leaving the church?

A. No... I regret losing my wife and children deeply. But I don’t regret leaving the church. ...I regard it as a blessing from God now because I’m free to think for myself. Free to make choices. Free to exercise my own conscience.

.... I mean I’ve got some health problems, I believe due directly to the years of loneliness and sorrow, heartache - I love them with a passion. I love my children. I’d love more than to be reconciled with them. ..."

OK the E.B's are just one. Keeping women as primary caregivers and promoting the idea that feminism is to blame keeps the average Joe Schmoe and Joanne Schmoe at each other's throats so nothing changes. Who benefits?

I wonder if I would've selected a better partner than the one I did if my father had been actively involved with his family instead of being the product of his generation and remaining the distant father. We (my family) rarely saw him, either he was at work or out drinking and gambling.

SJF, thanks for the clarification.

Just to clarify, I think that the needs of both men and women have been placed behind the needs of society by socialisation. That has ups and downs over time.

I don't bielieve that either gender has had a distinct overall advantage or control over time, rather different roles, opportunities and limitations.

I don't think I brought Farrel into the discussion, rather I spoke up following a reference to Liz's site. I hope that I've got that right but I've not gone back and checked. I then responded to questions about why I don't dismiss all that he says and the rest seemed to flow from there.

As I said earlier it may be we all intepret what we read according to preconceptions. I don't see the world in terms of one gender controlling the other so I don't pick that up in writing unless someone is laboring the point.

Cheers
R0bert

To summarise,

The message of this article is really just 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.

In the discussion here, the concept of chivalry being analogous to treating women as cosseted pets, all about control of women was expressed.

My disagreement about this, in favour of an argument that many men use chivalry as an expression of their respect and love for women was considered an obnoxious, personally insulting tangent.

Further, my posts in general were dismissed and ignored as viciousness, vilification, personal insults, bullying and a level of hatred comparable to violence. I was repremanded for having the temerity to even address Romany.

SJF interpreted a quote from Farrell thus...
'if men’s expendability can be shown to be in women’s biological interests, then it’s an easy mental leap to infer that all WOMEN view all men as expendable. '

which to her represents one of the most insensitive comments she has ever read on OLO, unbelievably insulting to ALL women everywhere.

But from her logic above, it obviously follows that 'If mens chivalry can be shown to be motivated by a desire to control or dominate women, then it’s an easy mental leap to infer that all MEN view women as a possesion to control or dominate.'

So it baffles me how my objecting to this concept was considereed to be a vicious, personally insulting dump.

I leave this topic dased and confused by all this.