Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Anthropology, History, Psychology, Sociology and other related areas.

Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby henriette on February 23rd, 2016, 10:25 am 

There is an obvious and welcome surge of papers in the press about feminism. In France, it's totally frenetic, every other day a most important newspaper offers a study dealing with feminism. The main point of interest here is the amount and the details of reported facts that show how much women are indeed the victims of society.

Alas so many of those studies, blogs, etc., support the dogma of men's responsibility and are indeed very sexist, joining the battle at illusory frontiers where "men" stand, making use of methods of the past, while on the contrary today's feminism offers the chance to help all of us get rid of symbolic frontiers and associated violence.

Many among the feminist blogs would be closed by law if one replaces the word "men" by "blacks" or "foreigners". Many petitions , alas including prominent scholars and elected politicians, are signed by women only, remembering so sad "white only" attitudes of the past. Some feminists are counterproductive for their own cause because they overshadow of much men are the victims of the society too.
As an example in a very recent paper about WW2 a feminist has defended the position that German women were the victims of Russian men as thousands of them were indeed raped by soldiers. The fact is correct and widely reported in the bibliography but the analyse is more than bad, it is counterproductive, because those victims were not the victims of men but of the society. It is very easy to understand this point as an extra amount of 3 millions Russian males (over women casualties) were killed during WW2, showing that both sexes were the victims.

I just can not imagine that feminist scholars are sexist but the point is that there is a too large amount of hatred versus men currently in the feminist news.
Reading Tacitus's Germany is uplifting on this point as it illustrates that, though men may be the armed force of violence, both sexes share willy nilly the same amount of responsibility in the violence on women and men :

"Tradition says that armies already wavering and giving way have been rallied by women who, with earnest entreaties and bosoms laid bare, have vividly represented the horrors of captivity, which the Germans fear with such extreme dread on behalf of their women". Chap 8
User avatar
henriette
Member
 
Posts: 364
Joined: 30 Oct 2007


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Braininvat on February 23rd, 2016, 10:41 am 

To think you are a victim is to become one. There's a great moment in "Million Dollar Baby" where the boxer is complaining to her trainer about how her opponent is younger and stronger etc. The trainer says "those things are true....the only real question is what you are going to do about it. "
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6365
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Natural ChemE liked this post


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby moranity on February 23rd, 2016, 1:26 pm 

A recent paper in archaeology was dealing with a period in human history, i think 10,000 ago in the russian steppes, they showed that very few men had reproduced with lots of woman.
they interpreted this as a Male dominated hare-em style society, but the evidence could equally point to a matriarchal society, such as described in "the golden bow", where a few males were specially chosen to reproduce and slaughtered at the end by the ruling females.
Evidence from villages in that period points to a matriarchal society also, especially if it developed into celtic societies, which had matriarchal inheritance.
So, the researchers maybe were being prejudice when judging the evidence
User avatar
moranity
Member
 
Posts: 899
Joined: 09 Feb 2011


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Jägerbombastic on March 8th, 2016, 5:58 pm 

Are we talking about Feminism as a whole? or Third wave Feminism which sounds like the sexists women you were talking about?
User avatar
Jägerbombastic
Member
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 03 Mar 2016
Location: United States
Natural ChemE liked this post


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Serpent on March 8th, 2016, 7:31 pm 

The women are [justifiably] angry and [understandably] conflicted. The men are [understandably] defensive and [irrationally] lashing back. Which sets up a point-counterpoint neverending conflict: i.e. the war of the sexes.

Those prehistoric men who mated with many women were almost certainly fighting one another for the privilege, like elk, with the women having no say in the matter, but neither do they suffer any damage. On the other hand, many early societies seem to have been egalitarian in their decision-making, domestic management and resource allocation processes, with key functions performed by the most competent, regardless of sex.

The real monster feminism needs to slay is religion - which is horribly ironic, given the reliance of churches on female support. The decline of the churches in Europe is the reason feminism is more successful there. If they can't get that sorted out in America (win over the grandmothers who vote for Cruz), they can't win.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby BadgerJelly on March 8th, 2016, 9:22 pm 

Men and women and different. The only equality possible between men and women is in respect for each other ... but then there are people born who are neither male nor female so what about them?

I remember saying in my teens that anyone who talked about racism was racist. I was naive but at the same time I do think that some discussions can have a negative effect and that means the problem lies more in how we interact that the subject at hand.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5200
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Jägerbombastic on March 9th, 2016, 1:34 pm 

Serpent » March 8th, 2016, 7:31 pm wrote:The real monster feminism needs to slay is religion - which is horribly ironic, given the reliance of churches on female support. The decline of the churches in Europe is the reason feminism is more successful there. If they can't get that sorted out in America (win over the grandmothers who vote for Cruz), they can't win.


I would have to disagree with you on this, even as a non-believer my self. there are plenty of things that contribute to sexism than just religion, like for example, from a natural stance the female has usually been considered second to males. Since we are the evolved cousins of common primates, this naturally applies to us as well.
User avatar
Jägerbombastic
Member
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 03 Mar 2016
Location: United States


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Jägerbombastic on March 9th, 2016, 1:34 pm 

Serpent » March 8th, 2016, 7:31 pm wrote:The real monster feminism needs to slay is religion - which is horribly ironic, given the reliance of churches on female support. The decline of the churches in Europe is the reason feminism is more successful there. If they can't get that sorted out in America (win over the grandmothers who vote for Cruz), they can't win.


I would have to disagree with you on this, even as a non-believer my self. there are plenty of things that contribute to sexism than just religion, like for example, from a natural stance the female has usually been considered second to males. Since we are the evolved cousins of common primates, this naturally applies to us as well.
User avatar
Jägerbombastic
Member
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 03 Mar 2016
Location: United States


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Serpent on March 9th, 2016, 7:37 pm 

Jägerbombastic » March 9th, 2016, 12:34 pm wrote:I would have to disagree with you on this, even as a non-believer my self. there are plenty of things that contribute to sexism than just religion,

Certainly. Nobody ever gives up power - especially unearned and morally unjustifiable power - willingly. The thing about religion is that it gives men an automatic superiority, from birth, that requires no merit or justification or membership fees.

like for example, from a natural stance the female has usually been considered second to males.

I wouldn't be that quick to appeal to nature. It's nowhere near as reliable or consistent as Jehovah.

Since we are the evolved cousins of common primates, this naturally applies to us as well.

Well, there are apes, and there are more evolved hominids. The more evolved ones have a wider range of choices in their social organization. Indeed, many different models have been tried. We're not stuck with a chimpanzee template forever.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Braininvat on March 10th, 2016, 10:09 am 

I just climbed the stairs 4 times this morning, due to various factors beyond my control. The least my wife can do is bring me my slippers. I'm going to thump my chest and show my teeth until I get some action on this.

Sorry, this new avatar is out of control. Some feedback on the new hair tonic would be welcomed.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6365
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Eclogite on March 10th, 2016, 11:30 am 

Serpent » Wed Mar 09, 2016 6:37 pm wrote:Well, there are apes, and there are more evolved hominids. The more evolved ones have a wider range of choices in their social organization. Indeed, many different models have been tried. We're not stuck with a chimpanzee template forever.
This may be off-topic, but I cannot leave unremarked your implication that humans are more evolved than apes. I note this thread is in the Social Sciences sub-forum - if we wish the Social Sciences to ever be accepted as a science it would behove us to use scientific terminology. Apes and humans are no more evolved than each other, or than daffodils, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Serpent on March 10th, 2016, 1:32 pm 

Eclogite » March 10th, 2016, 10:30 am wrote:This may be off-topic, but I cannot leave unremarked your implication that humans are more evolved than apes. I note this thread is in the Social Sciences sub-forum - if we wish the Social Sciences to ever be accepted as a science it would behove us to use scientific terminology. Apes and humans are no more evolved than each other, or than daffodils, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

I know this, really. Was just being lazy in responding to a reference to evolution. (Plus, I'm always irked by people harking back yo "nature" or early anthropology to justify the prerogatives of cavemen, even though they also rely on distinctly unnatural science for the perquisites of civilized men.)

How about this?
The larger and more complex brain gives rise to a greater range of interpersonal relations and a greater variety of social organizations. Furthermore, civilization and technology permit a wider, less constrained distribution of labour and resources, so that a human community need not prioritize physical strength. Therefore, you don't have to select your leaders by muscle-mass; you could choose a clever one.


(Well, you could!)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Eclogite on March 10th, 2016, 1:59 pm 

Nice response. I almost regret being pedantic.

Serpent » Thu Mar 10, 2016 12:32 pm wrote:Therefore, you don't have to select your leaders by muscle-mass; you could choose a clever one.
But only if you are clever enough. :)
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Serpent on March 10th, 2016, 5:25 pm 

Pedantry is an underrated virtue.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Paul Anthony on March 14th, 2016, 8:02 pm 

Serpent » Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:31 pm wrote:
The real monster feminism needs to slay is religion - which is horribly ironic, given the reliance of churches on female support. The decline of the churches in Europe is the reason feminism is more successful there. If they can't get that sorted out in America (win over the grandmothers who vote for Cruz), they can't win.


I agree. Here's an example: Abusive relationships.

In an abusive relationship it is usually, but not always, the male who treats the female badly. What makes a man think he can hurt a woman, and then think that she should love him? And why does she take his abuse, then excuse it because she loves him?

Of course, she also fears him! His actions may be unpredictable. She never knows what he is thinking, or when he will lash out at her. He has convinced her that he doesn’t want to hurt her, but when he does, it is because she “made him do it”. She actually believes that when bad things happen to her, it is somehow her fault! And she is very careful to make it up to him when he causes her pain!

Do you wonder how any rational human being could think that way? Well, let's see what Religions have taught us about our relationship with God.

If you were raised in a Christian faith, you have been taught that God loves you, but sometimes he causes bad things to happen – things like hurricanes and earthquakes and diseases and premature deaths. And when these unpredictable things occur, you have been taught to believe that you brought these things upon yourself. Somehow, you have not loved God enough, or you have not been obedient, and have offended God. So, rather than blame the storms on weather patterns, or your illnesses on physical causes, you assume full responsibility as a sinner and vow to treat God better in the future.

Religion has conditioned us to believe that God is as irrational and as unjust as an abusive spouse! And we have been taught that we must accept these things, just as the poor woman accepts the behavior of her abuser.

The concept of God as a loving but stern taskmaster reflects the times in which religion was created. Religion was conceived in a time in history when Kings and Lords ruled by force. Also remember that a woman was the property of her father until she married. Then she became the property of her husband.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam have their origins in a paternal society. Modern Western societies don’t think that way any more, but our primary religions keep that thinking alive.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Serpent on March 14th, 2016, 9:44 pm 

Paul Anthony » March 14th, 2016, 7:02 pm wrote:I agree. Here's an example: Abusive relationships.

In an abusive relationship it is usually, but not always, the male who treats the female badly. What makes a man think he can hurt a woman, and then think that she should love him? And why does she take his abuse, then excuse it because she loves him?

Of course, she also fears him! His actions may be unpredictable. She never knows what he is thinking, or when he will lash out at her. He has convinced her that he doesn’t want to hurt her, but when he does, it is because she “made him do it”. She actually believes that when bad things happen to her, it is somehow her fault! And she is very careful to make it up to him when he causes her pain!

Do you wonder how any rational human being could think that way? Well, let's see what Religions have taught us about our relationship with God.

This is an excellent comparison. The same thing happens with children and bad parents. The bad parent says: "It hurts me when I have to punish you! So, don't make me angry." This conditions the child to become a good Christian or Muslim or Jew: to believe in his own "free will". Everything good comes from God (say a fervent "Thank you!" when your house was destroyed by 'an act of God' but you survived); everything bad is your fault.

As if it were the child's decision to 'make' an adult angry! And the child believes it, because he doesn't know any better and he's dependent and really has no options. So, that means, parent's are supposed to be bullies - for the child's own good. It prepares them for a life of taking abuse from prefects, coaches, commanding officers, supervisors, department heads and policemen. On a larger scale, we have entire nations prepared to accept an abusive relationship with their rulers and conquerors.

But males have the consolation of bullying anybody weaker - boys and men who are for some reason designated as inferior, as well as women and children. Often - always, in orthodox religious communities - the whole structure of law and custom supports the bully and provides no protection for the weak, or even punishes expressions of hurt and fear.

This perpetuates confusing, suspicious, emotionally depleting, often hostile interpersonal relationships. Not only between men and women, but classes, age groups, ethnicities... all kinds of people.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam have their origins in a paternal society. Modern Western societies don’t think that way any more, but our primary religions keep that thinking alive.

I don't think all modern western societies have altogether stopped thinking that way. And there are always factions who oppose any break with tradition. They want their slaves back.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Feminism and some rearguard battles versus men

Postby Jägerbombastic on May 3rd, 2016, 12:29 pm 

Serpent » March 14th, 2016, 9:44 pm wrote:
Paul Anthony » March 14th, 2016, 7:02 pm wrote:I agree. Here's an example: Abusive relationships.

In an abusive relationship it is usually, but not always, the male who treats the female badly. What makes a man think he can hurt a woman, and then think that she should love him? And why does she take his abuse, then excuse it because she loves him?

Of course, she also fears him! His actions may be unpredictable. She never knows what he is thinking, or when he will lash out at her. He has convinced her that he doesn’t want to hurt her, but when he does, it is because she “made him do it”. She actually believes that when bad things happen to her, it is somehow her fault! And she is very careful to make it up to him when he causes her pain!

Do you wonder how any rational human being could think that way? Well, let's see what Religions have taught us about our relationship with God.

This is an excellent comparison. The same thing happens with children and bad parents. The bad parent says: "It hurts me when I have to punish you! So, don't make me angry." This conditions the child to become a good Christian or Muslim or Jew: to believe in his own "free will". Everything good comes from God (say a fervent "Thank you!" when your house was destroyed by 'an act of God' but you survived); everything bad is your fault.

As if it were the child's decision to 'make' an adult angry! And the child believes it, because he doesn't know any better and he's dependent and really has no options. So, that means, parent's are supposed to be bullies - for the child's own good. It prepares them for a life of taking abuse from prefects, coaches, commanding officers, supervisors, department heads and policemen. On a larger scale, we have entire nations prepared to accept an abusive relationship with their rulers and conquerors.

But males have the consolation of bullying anybody weaker - boys and men who are for some reason designated as inferior, as well as women and children. Often - always, in orthodox religious communities - the whole structure of law and custom supports the bully and provides no protection for the weak, or even punishes expressions of hurt and fear.

This perpetuates confusing, suspicious, emotionally depleting, often hostile interpersonal relationships. Not only between men and women, but classes, age groups, ethnicities... all kinds of people.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam have their origins in a paternal society. Modern Western societies don’t think that way any more, but our primary religions keep that thinking alive.

I don't think all modern western societies have altogether stopped thinking that way. And there are always factions who oppose any break with tradition. They want their slaves back.


True, that's probably another reason why many religions seem to be opposed to women having a choice to do what they want with their bodies.
User avatar
Jägerbombastic
Member
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 03 Mar 2016
Location: United States



Return to Social Sciences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 guests