You can argue about societal conditioning all you want antiseptic.

You can chalk anyone's opinions up to 'conditioning.' It's a way of dismissing people's opinions and saying that they're not capable of deciding matters for themselves. It's plain insulting.

I could say that you can't escape what appears to be 'conditioning' due to some negative experiences at the hands of the opposite gender.

Sound patronizing?

Indeed it does. It's because it is.

My political views differ considerably from those of my parents and most of the teachers I've had in years gone by.

How is it I managed to escape such 'conditioning?'

My conditioning comment and yours both a) make an assumption about the individual's history rather than the argument.

b) are a way of dismissing what people have to say.

c) Are indeed a way of saying 'your opinions aren't your own unless they're MINE'.

I stand by my remarks completely. It's a low argument that sidesteps the issues. When someone pulls out this chestnut they're on the road to conspiracy paranoia.

To get back to something resembling relevancy, the point I've been getting at is that these attacks on feminism do nobody any good.

You made a point about how many more fathers don't get access to their children. This matter actually generates some sympathy and is a valid cause.
Then you somewhat foolishly tie it to the 'name' matter by saying that the name is all the children will have.

Do you really think people are going to argue that women should be made to take men's names on the basis of this argument?
If you strive for equality between genders, then you'll be supported - if you attempt to reinforce old-fashioned male supremacy then you'll get shot down.
Surnames are a personal matter for many. Forcing women to take the man's name is unfair and I don't see how it can be called 'equal.'

Or, alternatively, you could discuss how decent fathers are sometimes denied access to their children and this puts men in an unfair situation.

Which do you think sounds more reasonable?

SJF, Romany and Houellebecq.

Houellebecq says, " I won't have it that the article was made for a 'whimsical and amusing thread utilising word-play' ".

If one comes across a group of people telling blonde jokes, or N jokes, or jokes about men being buffoons - they are necessarily reflecting their worldview and personal beliefs.

That this article has wider implications is a given and neither here nor there - that it reflects the author's personal value system is a given. Nothing to crucify her about. Nothing sneaky going on. it's what we make of it as readers (reflecting our own beliefs and convictions) that is reflecting that the issue still carries some importance.

Romany I related very closely to your post about wondering why certain things didn't seem to make sense; about learning more about history and especially at a tertiary level. I remember one of those, "Damn! Really?" moments when reading up on female inventors and patents.

<If you strive for equality between genders, then you'll be supported - >

TLTR

Women can vote, own property, have a business, go to university, dont necessarily need a man to have children. etc

So how do we now define equality so that when we reach it, we know we have achieved. Or is it something that a small group of women will decide when we have reached it?

<The phrase "Apex Fallacy" sprung to mind as it elucidates fully the inaccurate fashion by which they assess the status of women in America. The error in their thinking arises from a collective refusal to acknowledge that the vast majority of male workers toil in the nether regions of our economy. >
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1008/1008ihelensmithinterview.htm

Or is "Equality" one of those rubbery figures that is constantly having its definition changed so that it is never achievable.

Many moons ago, our engagement notice read 'Muirhead-Fites'. Husband's uncle remarked, "Should have read 'Muirhead-Capitulates'".

Pynchme

It really gets up my nose that so much of this kind of information only gets taught at Tertiary level and is not part of the public domain.

Like the whole thing about Shakespeare's sonnets. Even the average anthology does not explain how many and which were written to his male rather than his female love. (It always amuses me when staunch homophobes quote some of the most beautiful homo-erotic lines from Shakespeare to illustrate what "real" love is about!)

These kinds of things are not some esoteric cabbilistic secret - yet they add so much to societal divisions. The whole way we look at our history and thus at our present is informed differently. Not just regarding women and sexuality, but our entire worldview.

I know for certain that there is a lot I would have done differently had I known more about women's history and place in the world.

Although I might have turned into a fire-breathing dragon too!

Hiya Romany - yes - same sentiment. Btw I apologize that the last post was a draft in progress. I stuffed up and pressed send before it was completed.

James: The site that you linked is another very conservative anti-feminist American site. The writer is very poorly informed and is a protege of Glen Sacks; who is well known for his anti-feminist rhetoric. For example, her comments about chivalry are historically inaccurate and socially absurd.

Women and children were not protected because of a code of chivalry -think about women and children who lived and worked then and now in poverty; nevermind the crime issues related to violence in and out of the home. Chivalrous behaviour was a luxury afforded by men to middle and upper class women who they deemed worthy of the effort.

I always liked this write up about chivalry:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/sojtruth2.html

It's a great pity that people who want to live in the idealized 1950s are resorting to steeping themselves in hate speech that seeks to maintain and justify the attitudes and behaviours that have caused so much harm and which gave rise to the feminist movement in the first place. That isn't progress; it only perpetuates problems rather than contributing to solving them.

I hope you give at least as much time to reading information from other sources. Here is a fair range of articles from many authors that addresses a lot of mens issues:

http://www.xyonline.net/articles.shtml

http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/Politics_of_Father_-WAV.doc