I note that Cornflower hasn't deigned to respond to my request that she point out where anybody in this discussion or article had asserted that "all men are inherent abusers of women".

Why am I not surprised?

RObert

JamesH was correct and no, it wasn't specific to this thread. I think it is a general impression that could be corrected if feminists would be more precise and use 'some' as a qualifier at least.

CJ Morgan

Thursday, 2 April 2009 8:26:45 AM you echoed Robert's question.
Thursday, 2 April 2009 4:29:39 PM you said I had not 'deigned' to respond and added ominously that you weren't surprised.

Normal business hours and business comes first. Nothing odd about that.

Cornflower, I don't recall ever reading any feminist comment that I interpreted as indicating that all men are abusers. Even the radicals might find that they had put to many supporters off side with that one.

I get James's point, I share it to some extent but I think we are far better served by highlighting the problems with what is actually said than by made up claims.

R0bert

R)bert:"I think we are far better served by highlighting the problems with what is actually said than by made up claims"

It is the made up claims that get my goat. It seems that some of the people here (and the Pomeranian, when he can manage to stop humping legs) are unable to parse simple English if it contains any kind of adjectival content or if it comes from one who they believe is "anti-feminist" and hence the enemy.

The fact is that women have had it their own way for so long and have become so used to playing the victim card that it has become reflexive. Any statement or action can be interpreted only two ways - either as an attempt to victimise and if it clearly isn't, then it doesn't go far enough in acknowledging the victimhood of those who seek to make the claim.

It is this constant, dishonest, self-serving barrage from those who make their living out of being women that has lead to the "all men are abusers" comment, I suspect.

It has also lead to the situation that feminist journalists dominate the nation's mainstream media, writing and publishing polemics, whilst the comments addressed to those polemics are usually in disagreement with their premise, often coming from disaffected men who feel abused by the feminist revolution or from women who don't feel like victims. IOW, just the groups that are never acknowledged in the polemics.

What I'd really like to see is a balanced analysis of the state of gender play from a genuine researcher if such a thing exists. The social "sciences" are dominated by women who owe their position to their gender and men who know which side their bread is buttered. A genuinely dispassionate report may be impossible to either fund or have properly reviewed within the current environment.

Meanwhile, women now dominate the professions (the "nice" ones, anyway) and men are still doing the dirty, nasty jobs a long way from home, as long as those jobs exist, anyway.

RObert

A feminist quote? Which one of the dozens of unproven universal generalisations of feminism would you like me to tie it to? You know, those generalisations that fit every situation (well almost).

Heck now I'm confused, what with the profound and irreconcilable disagreements between feminists, not to mention the embarrassing outbreaks of bun fights with the greater multitude of women who are spoken for but never consulted. But hey, anything goes, as long as I stick to that patriarchy script. Feminists are informed by themselves after all and there is always the old favourite, male dominance, to fall back on.

Should it be founded on fact, reason or logic? Never, those are weapons of male dominance too.

So let's go with emotion and intuition which have already received the thumbs-up (hope that doesn't represent male domination) from an assortment of feminist philosophers (whoops, need another word there too).

No, RObert, I didn't make it up myself and it isn't a certified feminist quote either, but I suggest it neatly encapsulates what men seem to think is the essence of the feminist messages they have been getting for years ie., feminists assume that men are abusive to women. No qualification necessary of course.

Rather than argue the toss, this can be resolved in a trice if some feminists could volunteer to take up the very reasonable suggestions contained in the last two paragraphs of my response to MirandaSuzanne. It sounds rather domestic but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Which reminds me, I have to go because at my house everyone helps in their own way to get the show on the road. It is called being helpful in the family and pre-dates feminism.

So you just made it up then, Cornflower? In logical terms, I believe that's known as a "straw man" argument and is a classic fallacy.

Poor old Antiseptic's antipathy towards women seems to be growing daily. How very gallant.