cont'd ...

I apologise that this thread of mine
got so derailed.

However, enough said.

All I ask now is for us to move on.

The people who want to persist in any
further antagonism are on their own.

Foxy:"Our views aren't set in concrete."

No, they're set in a rather sticky jelly that makes them difficult to access and even more difficult to clean up. They are largely based on a view that women are "special" and that men must treat them that way. Any man who doesn't is automatically suspect. I reject that as self-serving, meaningless pap.

Foxy:"we admit when
we're wrong, and we apologise for
our mistakes. You never do!"

Not true. I am ever ready to apologise for an error of fact or of reasoning, all I ask is that it be pointed out. You lot are spectacularly bad at doing that so I rarely feel the need to do so.

Where you lot go wrong is that you expect me to apologise for your faux-offence. Grow some skin, lovey.

Now, I note you've run away from the thread as you usually do when you know you're wrong. I didn't see an apology...

Squeers, there's no misogyny here, merely a desire to tweak the dragon's tail and gawd knows there are lots of dragons here. I hate pretense and there is simply too much of that coming out of the feminist argument for me to be comfortable. Academic feminists may write books, but the ordinary women we see here are the ones who take the message they want to hear out of those books and implement it in the real world. They don't fill me with hope that a solution to "how shall we best live" will be found via their efforts, since they're focussed entirely on "what's in it for me" and by extension "what's in it for those like me". Even when a point of difference (motherhood vs childlessness) is raised, the gender group still demands a uniform response.

"Group think" is alive and well.

At the risk of stirring the pot, Nietzsche's misogynist lines spring to mind:
"woman young, a cavern decked about. Woman old, a dragon sallies out".

He also talks of the three rings of marriage: "the engagement ring, the wedding ring, and the suffering" :-)

Dear Antiseptic,

I wish that you'd get over your "them" and "me"
mindset. Nobody is against you personally, only
some of the arguments that you sometimes present,
in such an aggressive way. Well, at least, aggressive
to my way of thinking, but as Squeers points out,
obviously not yours.

I'm going into hospital this afternoon at 1.30pm,
and I don't want to leave having you think that
I think badly of you. I'm merely perplexed by
some of your reasoning. We're all individuals -
and we're all products of our education, life
experiences, culture, et cetera. Make allowances
for that please. I'll try to do the same.

We all have moments when we might say to ourselves
afterward, gee, I shouldn't have said that, or
maybe I should have said it differently. Some of
your comments to Severin were uncalled for - and if you
were honest, you'd admit you owe her an apology.
May be you should work - as I've said previously, on
your presentation - it is important to be conscious and
compassionate and act with great civility - while still
retaining your own wisdom.

Anyway, just to clear things up for you - I'm not leaving
this thread because I'm wrong - but merely because I've said
everything I've wanted to say and I don't see the point in
repeating myself. Besides which, the subject of this
thread was - "Monogamy - is it natural?" And, I think that
subject has been well and truly discussed.

Foxy:"We're all individuals -
and we're all products of our education, life
experiences, culture, et cetera. "

Of course we are. My point has always been that the life experience of modern Western women is largely one of being treated as "special" and above criticism or responsibility.

I grew up in a time when "men don't swear in front of ladies" and "gentlemen open the door/offer the chair/stand/etc, etc,etc for ladies". Middle class women were regarded as the heads of their household and mother's word was law, albeit often backed up by Dad's belt. The quid pro quo was that men had essentially an uncontested hold on the worlds of business and politics. There were also many aspects of life that were not exclusively male or female, but by and large there was a recognition that men and women have different abilities and are driven by different motivations and that social structures were as much about giving the genders a break from each other as anything else.

The important part of all that is that each gender had areas of responsibility that they could not shirk. If a woman chose to seek full-time work, she could only do so by farming out her home responsibilities to someone else. Ditto, a man had a responsibility to provide for his family and he could only choose not to work if he was independently wealthy. The obligation came first and informed the choices made. People who failed to live up to their responsibilities were vilified.

Feminism has tried to make women as a class exempt from any socially-imposed obligations or limitations, meaning that men have had to pick up the slack. Women demand free access to male activities, yet scream discrimination if a man tries to tell them the rules that apply. Within marriages, it is seen as acceptable for a woman like Elin Woods to check her husband's mobile phone, yet we have state advertising campaigns telling women that if their hubby does it to her he's being "controlling".

Feminism has made monogamy into a dying practise with little to offer men.

I made a little bet with myself. Would Anti have enough grace to allow Foxy, today of all days, to have the last word on this, her topic?

Yeah, I get the irony that I'm posting here as well.

But we hear you loud and clear Anti; you loathe feminism. You believe it is the fount of all ills.

Well nothing and no-one is perfect; meaning you must find life to be a real bitch.