Battle of the Sexists

[H2O Man]

Every so often, there are a cluster of threads on the Democratic Underground that highlight the tensions between the sexes in our society. In the past 72 hours, General Discussion has had quite a few of these, ranging from serious attempts to discuss important aspects of the current culture, to rather shallow efforts to insult the "opposition." Even among the more sincere efforts at rational conversation, we have seen emotions replace reason.

For sake of conversation, if we want to engage in meaningful discussions on this topic, I would suggest we take note of one of the rules that applies to our legal system. This alone will not insure a productive group didscussion, but it is likely a good starting point. In court, most witnesses are not allowed to testify as to their "opinion" ......with the exception being those with the proper background to allow them to be considered an "expert." The simple reason for this is that an actual opinion requires one to have background information, that allows them to examine the facts of the case, and then provide their interpretation.

Without that background knowledge, a person cannot actually have an "opinion," in the legal sense, but rather, they have a bias. In other words, they reach a conclusion that does not have va factual foundation. Hence, we hear people say, "I feel that ....," as opposed to, "I think that ..." It is not a coincidence that some topics -- including religion and the battle of the sexes -- tend to involves feelings, or passions, as opposed to a logical foundation in fact.

Hence, most of the DU:GD discussions on patriarchal versus matriarchal societies have the potential to be meaningful, but are frequently derailed by the misinformation that produces bias. A common example of this involves claims regarding the frequency of "war" among both patriarchal and matriarchal societies. In fact, "war" and "warfare" are specific terms, that can accurately be applied to cultures that have reached a specific level of social order. In the history of human experience on earth, only a tiny minority of nations have had that ability; far more have been at the level that allows for violence to be limited to feuding and battles. Thus, one cannot actually have an opinion on "warfare" in matriarchal societies; at very best, one can speculate on the possibilities.

Religion, as a social construct, has long played a significant role in the levels of both internal and external violence in human culture. Hence, there is value to be found in examining the differences between patriarchal and matriarchal religious belief systems. This is true, even within the cluster of religious belief systems known as "Christianity." It is fascinating to examine the influences of "male versus female" dynamics found within Christianity, from its early days up until the present. Indeed, this is an outstanding example of when a person's feelings are, at very least, as important as their intellect and educational background: for in the most literal sense, it sheds light upon that individual's level of being. And that, far more than a diploma or sex organ, defines one's potential for violence -- morganized or disorganized.

Both patriarchal and matriarchal concepts have to do with general characteristics found in the sexes. They can be best understood -- hence, applied -- when we recognize that human potential is not rigid. For example, in our current culture, there are good and bad fathers, and good and bad mothers. More, even among the very best fathers and mothers, individuals make mistakes -- for parenting is difficult, and we can only attempt to do our best.

Now, let's consider one of the basic differences found between "mothers" and "fathers," and then apply it to a societial potential. Mothers tend to love all of their children the same; they may recognize that one has a unique skill, or another a specific weakness, but each one is of value, with the same right to love and care as his/her siblings. Fathers, on the other hand, tend to have a rating system, in which that child that best meets his highest expectations is his favorite. (A "good" father will favor the child most like himself, while a bad father dislikes the child who most reminds him of himself.)

Thus, the good potential found in matriarchal societies is a sense of affirmation of life, and equality among the group that promotes individuality. The good potential of patriarchal society is reason, discipline, conscience, and individualism.

The negative aspects of matriarchal society include being bound to nature, to blood and soil, and thus blocked from developing the individuality that results from reasoning. The negatives associated with patriarchal society include hierachy, oppression, inequality, exploitation, and submission. (For the best detailed analysis, see Ericch Fromm's classic, "The Sane Society.&quot

Thus, in matriarchal societies, while "warfare" in the literal sense has never been found, the dynamic known as "blood feuds" is not uncommon. And in our current society, domestic violence is not exclusive to men. Even among highly trained professionals, there are flaws in perception, perpetuated by things such as the Duluth Model, which is easily exposed as unable to address much of the domestic violence spectrum. Yet, this in no way invalidates the unacceptable reality of male violence in our culture.

The sad truth is that we are an extremely violent nation. That violence is found in families, in churches, schools, and in Washington, DC. And I say that, without even beginning to touch upon the genius of Gandhi's saying that "poverty is the worst form of violence."

The truth is that we we do not have a prayer of reducing that level of violence in any meaningful way when we allow our energies to become trapped in a male versus female construct. There will, of course, always be some degree of tension between the sexes. That isn't a bad thing, in and of itself. But it surely can be, as we see in our society today -- even on this internet site. No one benefits from the combination of ignorance and hatred that we see.

We can keep going down that path, or we can change directions. That changing of directions begins at the individual level.

Peace,
H2O Man

[Octafish]

1. The Tao

10

Carrying body and soul and embracing the one,
Can you avoid separation?
Attending fully and becoming supple,
Can you be as a newborn babe?
Washing and cleansing the primal vision,
Can you be without stain?
Loving all men and ruling the country,
Can you be without cleverness?
Opening and closing the gates of heaven,
Can you play the role of woman?
Understanding and being open to all things,
Are you able to do nothing?
Giving birth and nourishing,
Bearing yet not possessing,
Working yet not taking credit,
Leading yet not dominating,
This is the Primal Virtue.

-- Translated by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English

You've long grokked this all, H2O Man.

[panader0]

2. Another well thought out and well written thread. K and R

[stevenleser]

3. I fear this will not go well

[arely staircase]

4. are you kidding?

an appeal to reason always settles things down around here. Nothing but reason, Socratic method and a veritable French Salon completely devoid of logical phalacy from here on out.

[stevenleser]

5. Exactly!

Frankly, there are things in the OP that could be taken quite offensively from a gender equality point of view. Rather than concentrate on the OPs intent, which I think is positive, I am quite certain that folks will soon arrive who look for something not to like and attack him/her on that.

[arely staircase]

6. nothing like digging through a diamond heap

in search of dung. Dung to fling.

[arely staircase]

9. and the land speed record goes to

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4231163

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. Sorry, but the entire OP is nonsense.

Why is it nonsense? Because it presents discussion of gender issues as "patriarchy vs matriarchy". The idea that matriarchy is the goal of feminism, or that feminist criticisms of "patriarchal" social norms are inherently "sexist", is reactionary and based on a fundamentally distorted presentation of the issues. It is the very definition of a straw man argument.

[ancianita]

32. Totally agree. There are no existing matriarchies. Pre-historic matriarchies are spoken of as myth.

[stevenleser]

34. Oh I disagree with somewhere between 80%-95% of the ideas as well. The thing is the OP had no

malice at all in his or her post and instead hoped to foster better more healthy dialogue between those who disagree on these topics. At least that is how I read it.

Of course that is not possible right now on DU.

[Spider Jerusalem]

53. Except the way to foster healthy dialogue isn't to totally misrepresent one side of an argument

pointing out inherent flaws in something isn't malicious, either.

[stevenleser]

54. Yeah, but that wasn't his intent. People could have explained that without

jumping down his throat.

I mean, S. J., read his thing again, do you sense any malice in his OP at all? He just didn't know what he was posting was wrong. I encounter people who are wrong all the time. I don't usually react like several folks reacted to him.

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. Whether there's malice or not is neither here nor there.

It's disingenuous at best, and acting in bad faith, at worst, to so wilfully misrepresent the issue at hand as being a question of "patriarchy vs matriatrchy". Pointing out that the entire OP is built around premises that have nothing to do with the issues they're referencing is not jumping down anyone's throat. What would you say if someone posted an apparently thoughtful OP that conflated a desire for the reform of our current capitalist system with communism? Or of racial equality with the subjugation of whites? Because it's the same thing.

[stevenleser]

57. I disagree 100%. The tone and intent should change the way people respond.

But hey, everyone has to be who they are. I guess some folks are the kind whose preferred response is to attack people.

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. I invite you to point out anything I said that constitutes an attack, please.

(Good luck with that, because nothing I said is an attack. I'm addressing the argument made.)

[stevenleser]

59. I didn't say it was you doing so. nt

[sabrina 1]

173. Which side of the argument is misrepresented? And what are the 'sides'?

[Spider Jerusalem]

175. I already answered that in my other posts in this thread

if you've read the thread and the other threads on this subject, you should have some idea of what's being misrepresented. If you don't, then I can't help you.

[sabrina 1]

190. I see an opinion, politely and intelligently presented by the OP. Then I see what amount to attacks

on the OP for having an opinion that is not shared by a few here.

And then what happens is, people tune out those whose method of discussion is 'I'm right, you're wrong'.

[Spider Jerusalem]

192. Disagreement isn't an attack.

And what was presented was a commentary on an argument no-one is actually making.

[sabrina 1]

206. Here's one example of what you call 'disagreement':

Gravitycollapse This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide

195. Women can't discuss feminism on DU because it's infested with pigs.

They even have their own group.

A Jury voted 6-0 to hide this post on Thu Dec 26, 2013, 08:21 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

[Spider Jerusalem]

210. Except I'm talking specifically about myself and my responses on this thread.

Which don't constitute an attack in any way, shape or form. I'm not responsible for what other people may say. (And...timestamps? That was posted after my last reply.)

[seabeyond]

194. disagreement. not attack. and more than a few. lol. words matter. nt

[sabrina 1]

207. One example of 'disagreeent':

Gravitycollapse This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide

195. Women can't discuss feminism on DU because it's infested with pigs.
They even have their own group.

A Jury voted 6-0 to hide this post on Thu Dec 26, 2013, 08:21 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

[seabeyond]

208. ya. you go tell that man where he is all wrong... get him.

how long did it take you to find ONE, lol

[sabrina 1]

226. Since it was a response to one of my posts, pretty quickly, since you asked.

[Number23]

233. I agree and actually had my head in my hands while reading this

Sounds like it was written by someone stuck in 1950's "femi Nazi" terror land.

[PassingFair]

232. You have become more discerning with age!

What actually happened is that people did not come around to "attack" the OP,
people came around to attack anyone who also felt that there was much in
the post that could be taken "quite offensively".

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. Freudian slip:

"logical phalacy"

[arely staircase]

48. bwahahahaha! great catch! nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. No-one has suggested a "matriarchal society"; this is a straw man.

You're presenting an argument no-one has actually made in order to make some sort of point that has nothing to do with any of the recent discussions around gender issues. What I've seen of the arguments around the issue has centred on corrosive and ingrained societal attitudes toward male/female interaction in public spaces, the idea that women in public spaces invite unwanted masculine attention and unsought interaction by their presence and femininity, that the idea of some heterosexual males that women are there as objects for their visual enjoyment is normative and acceptable, and the idea that it's somehow wrong and insulting for women to characterise such unwanted male attention as creepy and threatening. That has been what all of this has been about; there are larger issues behind this, but none of them have anything to do with "matriarchy".

[boston bean]

18. Exactly. Who said anything about wanting a matriarchal society...

Well, maybe those who try to fling poo and say that's what feminists want. In order to deflect what the real conversation was truly about.

However, that is not what is wanted, obviously, so we get thread after thread discussing tangential issues that have been twisted to confuse and rile people up.

Wish someone would write a 500 word post about how a video about sexual harassment of Indian women on the streets and subways of India turned into this conversation.
Jesus Christ, I thought we were liberals on this website, where most would agree that that type of treatment of women should be frowned upon.

But nope, instead we get the defense of these actions of the creepy asses that do it. And make no mistake the OP (not H2Oman himself, but his written OP) here helps to further this idiocy.

[Sheldon Cooper]

19. Yep.

Exactly right. The OP spent a lot of time thinking and writing to address an issue that doesn't exist.

[redqueen]

23. +1

False balance, it's super popular.

Thank you for continually reminding people of the actual issue which caused people to have nuclear meltdowns in the first place.

It really isn't a controversial topic. Well, that is, until dedicated shit-stirrers decide to get involved.

[tkmorris]

50. H2Oman as shit-stirrer. That's just... strange

It's like casting James Earl Jones as the lead in a slapstick comedy. It just doesn't work.

[redqueen]

51. Anyone who works that hard at missing what's going on here

does not appear, to me, to be acting in good faith.

Whatever his reputation, that's my perspective. He's bristled at feminist issues before. I'm not exactly stunned by this decision to focus on one OP which apparently obliquely (?) mentioned a matriarchal society in order to push the false balance narrative. It's a very popular angle. Along with the "war on men" / "men are being attacked" angle.

It's all bullshit intended to derail what started out as a discussion of feminist issues. It is far from new, and completely transparent to anyone paying attention.

[Waiting For Everyman]

95. So now this is about H2O Man's character and not

the point he was trying to make in his OP. Got it.

By the way, in questioning H2O Man's "good faith", is he derailing your conversation or are you derailing his? Seems to me, yours is in another thread, just for starters. So rather than question your own good faith, I'll just question how it's even possible for him to derail yours from way over here in his own thread? That's a nifty trick, if it can be done.

Yes, some of us pay attention, and yes it is transparent. Same old tactics, over and over.

[H2O Man]

68. There have been

two other issues where a group of DUers (including several I both like and respect) have disagreed with me strongly -- not unlike here.

The first was during the 2008 democratic primary season. I would have been happy with either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. However, in February, I endorsed Obama. I did so because I thought he had a better chance at winning the general election, and that if elected, had a greater potential to make meaningful change in the system.

The second involves the issue of domestic violence. I believe that it is essential to examine all forms of domestic violence, as they impact each member of a family. I do not subscribe to theories that limit the working definition to a single domestic relationship, or that identify one group as being entirely responsible or entirely victimized by violence.

Some issues are as complicated, as they are important. I could post things that are aimed entirely at getting positive responses, but that isn't my goal. I try to take an honest look at those issues, and to discuss them from my own point of view. In the OP, of course, I do cite Fromm's work in this area; it's a giggle that some folks here want to deny or dismiss what anyone who has undertaken a serious look at that specific area knows is accurate.

In doing so, I know that some people will react harshly. When people disagree, and raise different opinions, I'm glad to respond to them. But I don't take the "shit-stirrer" nonsense serious enough to invest energy in responding.

[Waiting For Everyman]

70. It's possible the OP was making his own, different point.

That may be why he chose to post a new OP, rather than commenting in the existing threads. Dunno, and don't mean to speak for him, but that possibility did occur to me.

Just because a discussion is framed a particular way in one thread, that doesn't mean that all discussions about that topic have to use the same frame... otherwise we would have one long thread on a given topic. And yes, before we go there, it's "cricket" to refer to another thread, and then go on and make a further or different point about it.

But I don't think that's news to anybody. However it IS useful to ignore it, in order to attempt having the SAME discussion in EVERY thread -- which is what we see a lot of.

[Spider Jerusalem]

72. Nope, sorry.

Direct quote:

most of the DU:GD discussions on patriarchal versus matriarchal societies

There ARE no discussions on "patriarchal vs matriarchal societies". None. At all. Feminist viewpoints aren't advocating for "matriarchy".

[Waiting For Everyman]

74. Oh cool! We're going to play the slice and dice words game now.

I'll pass. I've seen it all, too many times before, going round and round the same tree to the same missing point. Carry on without me, I'm sure you will.

[Spider Jerusalem]

78. Sorry...

it isn't helpful to argue that "well maybe this person meant something else!" when they say exactly what they mean.

[sabrina 1]

176. All you've done so far is to express your own opinion. If those who

seem to cause controversy over this issue, which is why so few DU women participate in these discussions, would just accept that a majority of DUers DO see these discussions in those terms, Patriarchy and Matriarchy maybe they could acknowledge that it is not everyone else who is wrong, that it is either they are not communicating very well or they are communicating what they want to, and the majority is correct.

But the reality is that if so many people are 'misrepresenting you', maybe the problem is you???

[Spider Jerusalem]

177. I never claimed I was the one being misrepresented.

And if a majority of DUers think "feminism" = "Matriarchy" then this site doesn't deserve the label "progressive".

[seabeyond]

183. excellent point. and, point on. nt

[sabrina 1]

186. No, a majority doesn't think that, they think that those who tend to dominate these discussions

certainly create that impression, which either means they DO, or they are very bad communicators.

[H2O Man]

76. Right.

The OP/thread that I participated on was specifically about matriarchal versus patriarchal societies. Despite one DUers' insisting that OP/thread did not exist, it did. My interest in it in no way is to suggest that I agreed with the person who posted it. While its author claimed to cite historic examples, it was way, way wrong.

Likewise, the claim that "no one" favors the influence of matriarchal structures in society is way wrong. If one is opposed to the negative features of patriarchal society -- and I assume that all thinking people do -- then the obvious dynamic to create a level and just society would be matriarchal influences.

This obviously meets with some resistance here. For example, one person stated that no such society has ever existed. This, of course, ignores Haudenosaunee society. And that's a shame, for Haudenosaunne thought influenced this nation's Founding Fathers, and their social-political structure sparked the concept of the League of Nations. More, the Iroquois concepts on family structure were a major influence on Engels' classic, "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State." I think that had potential, but I'm confident that some others here could counter that belief -- especially those who are totally unfamiliar with it.

About half of my life has been spent in that context. And it has influenced my thinking and actions in the other half -- no where more so than as the father of two sons and two daughters. They would find the negative comments on this thread amusing.

In the past year, I've conducted an epidemiological study of a small town in upstate New York. If there is one group that has been hit the hardest by the rates of disease associated with gross environmental destruction, care of industrial toxic waste dumps, it would be the female population, ages 50 to 69. More, they are the most well-informed. They also have another curious status: they have had almost zero representation in the town's political life for the past 200 years. So I am working, slowly but steadily, to introduce Haudenosaunee thought thought in that community.

[Spider Jerusalem]

90. Wrong.

I presume you meant this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024225886

It says nothing at all about "matriarchal societies".

[redqueen]

113. No confirmation, no denial.

Guess you'll just have to guess at whatever nonsense prompted this one

[Waiting For Everyman]

99. You'd think

this would be the topic of intense interest, that feminists would want to talk to you further about:

So I am working, slowly but steadily, to introduce Haudenosaunee thought thought in that community.

[H2O Man]

100. Right.

But some of those participating on this thread really can't now ......they've already passed judgment. And that topic doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

[boston bean]

101. It wasn't missed. It wasn't irrelevant to your premise and not really what feminists want.

We do not want a matriarchal society. We would like an equal one.

[Waiting For Everyman]

127. Wow, dismiss much?

How would that equal society be achieved, I wonder, if not by introducing a balance of thought into the community, by including WOMEN who are now excluded? If H2O Man's method of inclusion is being rejected so blithely, I can only surmise a method more along the lines of "A Clockwork Orange" being used.

We see that figuratively here on DU now, could it be only a foreshadowing of the literal version some day in the future? If that seems absurd, so is the idea of creating an equal society without inclusion.

[seabeyond]

128. wouldnt be a concern with some voices in diversity. the only time they participate in womens issues

as they call themselves feminists is when it comes to protecting men while insutling feminists. the women that are actually addressing women and feminist issues.

[Waiting For Everyman]

140. That would be a "no" for inclusion, then. nt

[seabeyond]

144. reading comprehension. you read it wrong. no concerm.

i would have no concern with the feminist voice being included that only paticipates when it is to defend the anti feminist men in attacking feminists and our issues. they do not participate in any feminist issues. so, i would have no concern there being inclusion. they simply would not show when it cane to talking about womens issues.

[Waiting For Everyman]

146. Really? You know all that about the women in his community?

Oh, you didn't bother to follow what we're talking about, did you? Hint: it's NOT about people here.

[seabeyond]

148. ya. i get that. you had absolutely no tie in what so ever, lol

[boston bean]

129. Do you believe the patriarchy exists?

If so, why do you think a matriarchy would make things equal.

And his OP was a complete miss on what the issues are here on DU. Like:

Denying the patriarchy
Denying women are not equal
Blaming feminists for mens issues

[Waiting For Everyman]

145. I believe

that when a society is too much "A", adding some "B" to it could quite possibly lead to a more AB society. Working to include women who are now excluded in a community would seem to be something that feminists should applaud anyway, and just might lead to a more equal community. Call me crazy, but that sounds like an interesting experiment on the issue, to say the least. But maybe you should be taking this opportunity to ask H2O Man more about it -- he's the one who is actually DOING something to change things.

Yep, he left your agenda out of his OP. Shocking. What an outrageously thoughtless thing to do.

[boston bean]

147. ok i take that as a no, you do not

Believe the patriarchy exists?

[Waiting For Everyman]

150. Yes it exists.

It exists as a feminist construct. It is an idea, in similar fashion as "the powers that be" or "the right wing". No, I don't think there is some creature called a patriarchy which got passed down the chain of evolution, like the rest of us actual beings.

Do I believe that women have real issues that need to be addressed? Oh, hell yes! But I prefer to view that in practical, actual terms rather than through an ideological construct. I don't need an "ism" to know what women's issues and challenges are. Being one myself.

[boston bean]

151. so its a made up theory?

[Waiting For Everyman]

154. Does inclusion of women matter?

[boston bean]

155. I see

Thanks!

[Waiting For Everyman]

158. I answered your question.

You failed to answer mine. Speaks volumes.

[boston bean]

159. yes you did.

I don't think a matriarchy is the way to go.. thought I did answer this above.

[Waiting For Everyman]

165. So you didn't read the post referred to either?

I really doubt that H2O is anticipating setting up a matriarchy. Here's the paragraph that my quoted sentence came from. I intended my quote only to be a marker to show which thought I was referring to in the post, so that people would go back to it and read the paragraph it came from, but apparently that was too much effort, or not necessary to launch into a string of off-topic comments, or something. Here's the paragraph that feminists are dismissing and arguing so much about:

In the past year, I've conducted an epidemiological study of a small town in upstate New York. If there is one group that has been hit the hardest by the rates of disease associated with gross environmental destruction, care of industrial toxic waste dumps, it would be the female population, ages 50 to 69. More, they are the most well-informed. They also have another curious status: they have had almost zero representation in the town's political life for the past 200 years. So I am working, slowly but steadily, to introduce Haudenosaunee thought thought in that community.

Clearly these ideas are a vehicle toward achieving the meaningful inclusion of these women, for the first time in 200 years. That's nothing a feminist should be interested in, no of course not. What was I thinking?

[boston bean]

167. of course i agree with that, why wouldnt I?

I rejected his premise of what the issues were that were being hotly debated.

Most people on du say that women should be represented more fully on gov't.

Where the problem exists is when we discuss the reasons they aren't. That is where the friction arises.

[Waiting For Everyman]

168. Why wouldn't you (agree with that) is what I wondered too.

Glad we straightened that much out. Following the point could have saved a lot of time though.

[sabrina 1]

179. I am not surprised at all about the reaction of some in this thread. They believe only they are

RIGHT and will anyone who dares to have a different opinion. Which is why discussing Feminism on DU is not possible.

Great post by H2OMan btw, a great basis for an intelligent discussion.

[seabeyond]

181. or maybe we simply have a differing opinion than you, saw a problem with the OP and discussed it.

could it be so simple? then wouldnt you being doing the same you accuse others of? and if i am the one accepting of the differing views and expressions, wouldnt i be what you THINK you are being. even in disagreement. without the need to insult.

ah ha.

[sabrina 1]

184. The insults began before I got here. I merely commented on them.

Maybe if they had simply stayed out of the thread most of us could have had a real discussion on a higher level, considering the tone set by the OP.

It is possible, well maybe not for some, to disagree with people without launching attacks on them.

The tone of the OP was civil. Was there some reason to respond to it in an uncivil way? And that is what is wrong with any discussion of feminism on DU, it simply isn't possible. Everywhere else, yes, but not here on DU. Why do you think there has been so very much anger emanating from those discussions?

[seabeyond]

185. no. we had differing views. we expressed. re read.

[Waiting For Everyman]

197. At this point, I'd settle for

them actually bothering to read the posts. That would be a big step forward.

[westerebus]

161. I too responded to that OP.

It appeared to be an attempt to provide the reasoning as to why a matriarchal based society was superior to a patriarchal society, that's how I read it.

While the exact words * matriarchal and *patriarchal did not appear, my take is that both the poster of the OP and those who supported his position classified a female dominated society as one that is enlightened, nurturing, and non aggressive; while the male dominated society is aggression based due to the violent composition of men themselves.

I concur with your summation of that OP.

This is the reason I asked the poster why he/she may have thought that that was true, given the enthusiastic support by feminists for women taking on combat roles in the US armed forces?

He/she did not reply. An other poster replied that opportunities were limited for those excluded from combat roles.

To which I posted "So it is acceptable to for women to embrace the warfare culture from a feminist point of view?

There was no reply.

The contradiction makes itself evident in our most recent history.

curious and curiouser said Alice

[BainsBane]

193. Well said

Your response is thoughtful and on-point, an accurate assessment of the debate. I have observed that you bring a level of intelligence and reason to every thread you participate in, regardless of subject matter. I thank you for that.

[malthaussen]

8. I tend to avoid all these "sexist" discussions.

... since I fear little wisdom can be found in them.

But between you and me, I've often thought that the problem lies in the way the dominant culture defines "strength." So long as it is defined as "the ability to impose your will upon another," conflict is unavoidable. The difficulty, of course, is that this may be a necessary definition, the world being as it is.

But there is more: I've been floating the idea recently that there are two definitions of "strength," one "masculine," if you will, and one "feminine." The former being identical to the definition above, and the latter defined as "the power to endure." After all, women themselves frequently brag about how men "couldn't take" the pain of childbirth and the monthly annoyance of menstruation. One of the interesting things about this model is that members of a given sex who display the strength of the other sex tend to be looked down on by both sexes. Although we pay lip service to admiration of "strong women," and although great examples of male endurance have been celebrated, I get the impression that such admiration is grudging, at best, and really an overlay to disguise contempt. At least among people who display what might be called "stereotypical" sexist attitudes, the member of one's own sex who displays the "strength" of the other may be subject more to ridicule than otherwise.

We know that certain warrior cultures torture prisoners, not because they are rotten and sadistic bastards, but because they want to give the prisoner a chance to demonstrate his courage. Now, surely holding out against torture is "the strength to endure," but I wonder if a) that strength is not/was not less-respected than the other sort of strength, and b) contrarily, if that is not an example of a culture reflecting a matriarchal, or at least not patriarchal, culture. But since the dominant culture (around here, anyway), is not derived from such roots, it's kind of a moot point anyway.

Warrior societies excel at individual courage and conflict, but paradoxically are just terrible at war. Successful warmaking requires that most combatants submerge their individuality for the good of the whole. Conflict is not so much an expression of individual prowess, as a means to achieve some larger end (usually benefiting the leader class more than the masses, but let's not digress too much), to compel the chosen enemy to submit to the demands of one's own group. What I find curious is that self-sacrifice and submergence of individuality are highly prized in the task of imposing our group's will on another group, but not so-highly prized within the group, and towards other members of the group. Whereas in smaller, warrior-centered groups, compassion and obligation to one's fellows is prized, but the group as a whole (usually) is not interested in dreams of conquest and subjugation of others. Whether or not these attitudes represent a "patriarchal" or "matriarchal" viewpoint is a fraught question, but I do find a greater respect for females in warrior societies than war-making societies. Then again, I may well be looking for just that.

-- Mal

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. In the computer world, programmers abstract ideas using "layers".

One could use an analagous abstraction about social policy and where it comes from using a similar paradigm.

Psychology (the lowest level) ----> elected representation ----> lawmaking -----> enforcement and application (highest)

What I see this conversation doing is glossing over and refusing to evaluate all the higher layers, jumping straight to psychology. Why? Because evaluating the ways that patriarchy manifests in this society forces us to reevaluate what "patriarchy" really means.

If the psychology of patriarchy is about control, conquest, exploitation and suppression of women, then we should be able to see how that manifests through the other layers, right?

[malthaussen]

31. The problem there is this:

Patriarchy need not (usually is not) enforced by statute. Your model has legislation and enforcement of same as the highest levels.

Where does cultural conditioning, matricies of expectations, and peer pressure enter?

-- Mal

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. The layers I described are the ones which form public social policy.

There could very well be another "layer cake" which visualizes how psychology affects our daily interpersonal interactions, but my post (on this political discussion board) was about conscious democratic social policy.

Personally I think that patriarchy mostly IS enforced by statute and selective enforcement.

[malthaussen]

42. I tend to look more for the dung under the rosebush.

But I agree that statute plays a role in suppression of women. If the GOP had its way, it would play a greater role.

Thing is, statute can be changed, but the deeper-rooted cultural definitions are going to keep throwing up the same crap, and they are harder to change. But I've also started to come to the conclusion that the "war of the sexes" may be irreducible, in which case the best that can be hoped for is statutory protections.

-- Mal

[Dash87]

10. The only place people seem to have a "war of the sexes" is the internet.

I've never seen somebody actually care about this crap in real life. This "war" is contrived garbage that seems to constantly out do itself in the ridiculousness.

Half of it is boredom, imo. There are some good points, but it's mostly childish nonsense.

[Vox Moi]

30. There's a lot of truth to that. The medium itself leads to disagreement.

Forums like this are low-bandwidth arenas. It's the nature of the beast.
It is difficult to understand what a person means, even if they write well.
Emoticons help but they also point out that the written word does not include gestures, body language and other vital means of human communication. We are talking blind and so it is easy to disagree.
It's also easy to disagree when I know you can't punch me and you can't make me sleep on the couch.
It's easy to disagree when someone is making a rhetorical inquiry: adopting a position for the purposes of exploring a line of reasoning, which happens here on DU a lot.
If we were all in the same room I think that the discussions would be a lot more congenial.

[redqueen]

39. You've never known a woman to complain about sexual harassment?

About being leered at as she's just going about her day? Really?

[Dash87]

55. That couldn't be further from what I'm saying.

I have no problem with talking about gender issues. I do it all of the time. On the other hand, I don't like the pointless us vs. them bickering. The GD gender threads always go the same way - cliche battles of absolutes with little discussion. It scares others away from discussion b/c they just see a flame war.

Have you ever seen people doing this crap in real life? I haven't. The men and women in my life are good people. Maybe it's because I have an eye for douchebags, but most GD arguments, especially the "boys vs. girls" ones, are extremely childish and stupid.

Men and women are more or less the same - all people. You would think that would be obvious to anyone who has spent an hour in the real world, but w/e.

[redqueen]

60. It started because I posted a PSA about street harassment.

That's what got all the "us vs. them" shit stirring started.

And yeah, most people aren't shit stirrers in real life. If a woman complained about being harassed on the street, very few women would say she was attacking men. Very few men would men would lay into her about how she's criminalizing male sexuality, or ask her if men should ask her permission before "admiring" her.

What I would think is that anyone who reads this forum would notice what is going on when this kind of derailment happens. And it happens every time feminist issues (the ones that still aren't appreciated by many on this site, anyway) are discussed. It used to happen when we tried to talk about rape culture. Then a few high profile cases actually got the conversation about rape culture going, and now fewer people will start this game during those discussions.

Street harassment is still one that people are brave enough to use as shit stirring opportunities.

Men and women are people, but misogyny is woven into the fabric of our culture. That is what is not obvious to most people, and many people really don't like facing it. Many others simply like it the way it is, and so they try to muddy the waters so that the signal to noise ratio becomes such that most people just tune out.

It's sad, but that's what's happening.

You may not know this, but journalists and bloggers have been talking about the avalanche of hate they get for supporting feminist issues. For years. It is a backlash against the recent advancements women have made, and it is currently still growing.

[ProfessorGAC]

65. Great Points, All

Very well said, redqueen. This whole last few days have been one silly overreaction after another. If it weren't for overreacting, the discourse would have been far more civil.
GAC

[redqueen]

66. Thanks for noticing. It is so disgusting that simply noticing the way this shit plays out

over and over and over, well apparently that's just too much to ask.

So what if women are second-class. That's just the way it's always been. And besides, we can vote! And we get paid almost as much! And in some places, we can even control our own reproductive systems, mostly!

[MrScorpio]

152. You get a Damn Skippy for that. nt

[polly7]

61. Well said!

Last edited Thu Dec 26, 2013, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)

I cringe every time a gender issue is brought up here anymore because it's always the same outrage, bullying, twisting the words and intent of others to suit an agenda. 'Educating' with a stick, by some who believe googling makes them professors in gender studies and can't help themselves berating anyone, male or female, for disagreeing or offering up an opinion.

[pacalo]

75. For me, it all began with the changeover to DU3 -- the new transparency & the ability to post

about whatever is bothering us in the Meta forum. I didn't notice the hardcore nature of the feminists at all on DU2, but the most vocal ones set an abrasive tone like I'd never seen before on DU when Meta began.

In a nutshell, it's not the issues that turn people off: It's the abrasiveness, the poorly skilled communication/leadership styles, the us vs. them offensive attitude toward the men on DU (& the women who cringe openly) that serve only to divide rather than persuade.

And one other thing, it wasn't the fake-innocent claim of "we just posted a PSA on street harassment before we were unfairly attacked" that began the latest surge of ridiculousness. It goes back to the reasons stated in my second paragraph. The hardcore feminists will never get anywhere unless they learn how to communicate in a more civilized way by scrapping the accusatory, abrasive attitudes, twisting of others' words, etc.

[Sheldon Cooper]

77. lol

[Waiting For Everyman]

80. You're exactly right. But it won't change...

they have a RIGHT to their rudeness donchaknow. Everybody else has to be perfectly civil in every nuance to them, but they can be rude as they please in return. They told us that too, very clearly and explicitly, in the Meta battles. (Fortunately, as juries show, most DUers aren't buying that, but still they persist in that entitled view.)

I think it was a mistake to scuttle the archives of that forum. But even so, there are still plenty of us participants around who remember it well.

[pacalo]

82. No, they won't change because they don't get it.

They're a different breed of women that I've known in real life who were just as unsuccessful as a "people person" as what we're witnessing here. Cluelessness & lack of self-perspective is their downfall & baiting/arguing is normalcy for them.

I think it was a mistake to get rid of the archives, too. Re-writing history is the hardcore feminists' specialty.

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. Personally, I don't think that this quite gets to the heart of the issue.

"Making nice" is overrated.

What I hate is hypocrisy and dishonesty; e.g. "What? All I did was post a fourth thread about this PSA advising Uzbekistani men to stop being pederasts, rapists and assholes. Naive though I am, I guess I didn't realize that *some people* would take such strong offense, because I didn't realize how prevalent rapists, assholishness and pederasty are on DU. DU obviously has a BIG PROBLEM in that regard, because only rape apologists would ever object to being continually bludgeoned, err 'having their consciousness raised" with this stuff! The poster probably even reads the posts in the men's group, watches porn and reads Warren Farrell!"

[JTFrog]

85. That you, or anyone, feels they are being "continually bludgeoned" over a couple

threads on an anti-rape PSA is interesting.

Poor bludgeoned souls.

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. "Interesting"

Yes! Just like that! Hypocrisy, ad hominem, dishonesty and passive aggression, all rolled into one succinct post!

[JTFrog]

87. I'm sorry I took your post at face value. n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

89. True. The non-stop gaslighting IS worse

but entitlement to that too is included along with it.

I really think that most of this is to goad people they don't like into getting themselves insto trouble. That, and sheer attention-seeking.

[JTFrog]

81. Funny, I've never seen the tone argument used on DU before.

[pacalo]

83. Oooookay.

[PassingFair]

231. Yes. If only they weren't so shrill.

It's so tedious.

[Vashta Nerada]

11. I'm sure a lot of those threads started about gender issues are started

with an intent to divide the forum. If those threads were started to promote discussion, they would be started in a non - confrontational manner.

[Scuba]

12. Your generalization about mothers, fathers and favorite children is bullshit.

[kdmorris]

17. My thoughts exactly...

I was trying to think about how to say that in a reasonable, discussion-promoting way, but I'm tired, so it came right back down to "that's bullshit".

It's just insulting and a broad brush, sweeping generalization...but it's not the kind of father my husband is or my father is, for that matter. It threw the rest of the post into a somewhat less "appealing to reason" sort of light.

[zeemike]

27. It can be said that all generalization is bullshit.

And if so then such topics like
Republicans are corporatist
Democrats are liberals
Are all bullshit sense we know that all are not.
But if you limit conversation to specific situation then larger concepts cannot ever be expressed.
Generalizations are often necessary for discussion larger issues.

[Number23]

234. Precisely. That's the bit that did it for me too. Really tone deaf and dumb.

[zeemike]

13. "No one benefits from the combination of ignorance and hatred "

And that is so true for us as a society.
But for those that wish to control us with disruption and division it is a tool often used.

K&R for once again, a brilliant piece of work Mr Waterman.

[libodem]

21. What you said!

Yeah, baby! That's the ticket.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

14. That is a really long post!

I haven't read all the way through it but it looks like food for thought.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. I think this is a good discussion. Nevertheless, I have a criticism.

1) you say that we should adopt a quasi-legal standard of expertise before offering commentary. I think every man and every woman has the necessary expertise required to offer an opinion on a discussion board about their personal experience of sex and gender. Opinions of the experience of men in this society is not exclusively the province of college men's studies graduates.

As if.

2) you seem to acknowledge the above point in the rest of your post. I think that boiling down social policy to motherhood and fatherhood is reductionist and kind of a leap.

3) you're right about the Duluth model. It attempts to treat a cycle of violence by assuming that all IPV is nonreciprocal man-on-women violence, a situation that represents only about 15% of all IPV.

[ismnotwasm]

20. Before I trash this thread along with the other 15,000

I do want to point out that outside of a very few instances; there were not, any significant "matriarctical societies" in numbers adequate to sample. Lineage may follow the matriartical line, but that doesn't make it a matiartical society. There have been interesting examples of what been called "Matrix societies"--systems with less gender bias. But no, or few true matriarchies--and yeah I've read about when fertility goddesses ruled there was more human sacrifice, when we switched to city-states and dominant male Gods it was more about warfare-- etc. etc. -- a simplistic view.

Social evolution is different than biological evolution in that people CAN direct it and become effective change agents. The questions are who will, who wants to and who gets to pick the direction. In our capitalistic world, currently we are distracted by the false hope of materialism, and hampered by hertronormativity

I enjoyed your OP, although there is a point or two I would definetly argue, and I hope you get some reasonable discussion out of it


Now I think I'll go read "The Epic of Giglimesh"

[RainDog]

24. This post poses a few problems for me.

What matriarchal cultures are you referring to? Anthropologists, generally, do not have any evidence of any matriarchal society.

There are examples of matrilineal cultures - in those, uncles, rather than fathers, are the male through which a child traces his male relatives, for the most part. Some of these still exist. The "golden age of matriarchy" however, never existed, with an edenic culture based upon romantic notions of gender characteristics.

There are examples of societies with shared work that are more egalitarian and examples of cultures with divisions of labor based upon gender with more egalitarian social structures.

I think that the claim that males rank their children is offensive, as is the claim that being a female means someone doesn't do this. Patrilineage, as practiced by anglo society, did assign the eldest male certain privilege in order to maintain property, however.

While I think the intent of this post is meant to be inclusive, I don't think the premise is valid based upon historical examples of female warriors that have led societies, either - Celtic, Egyptian, etc.

Unfortunately, I think this post falls victim to the same bias that has been part of cultures since the advent of property itself - assigning moral and personal characteristics to entire genders rather than persons, when the characteristics were the designation assigned by culture, not nature.

[cinnabonbon]

37. +1 n/t

[laundry_queen]

88. That's how I see the post as well. I agree with your assessment. nt

[hfojvt]

25. "a combination of ignorance and hatred"

two bad tastes that go badly together.

Many people here do not seem to have the spirit of teachers, although there is also a certain authoritarianism in teaching the young.

These battles though are not so much between the sexes as they are between various orthodoxies and adherents to various orthodoxies. The fiery adherent to the orthodoxy often does not have much interest in education those who doubt or especially those who actively disbelieve that orthodoxy.

Rather the game, such as it is, is to "call people out" on their "hateful ignorance". After all, those who disbelieve the orthodoxy are certainly ignorant, and often their "wilful ignorance" makes them evil and/or hateful.

Of course, the trouble with adults is that they have "learned" or accepted a world view and are not going to reject what they "know" without a titanic struggle. Hence, the battles here between colliding world views and different perspectives.

[Hekate]

26. Well-done, H2O Man, and good luck.

I don't know what's going on here anymore, what with the belligerence and bellicosity on this board, but I always look forward to reading you.

Peace back atcha, now and in the New Year.

Hekate

[H2O Man]

29. Well, thank you!

DU is a curious place these days.

My sides ache from laughing so hard at some of the angry responses on this thread. Some of them come care of some of the oddest characters on the forum -- not "bad" people, but just confused souls who would disagree with my saying the weather is nice on a sunny, summer's day. For example, without picking on any one person -- let's use a code name, Chicagocockroah, a person responds with gleeful hostility: "no one is advocating matriarchal society." Yet, in fact, one of the OP/threads I participated on yesterday was 100% about advocacy of a matriarchal society.

As I quoted on that one: "I've seen the penis and the damage done, a little part of it in everyone." -- Neal Jung

Happy New Year to you & yours!

[boston bean]

33. nice... You've really done something here to make it all better. nt

[H2O Man]

36. No need.

There's nothing I think can or should be made better about the OP.

[boston bean]

41. That was a tangential thread, and also a quite sexist one as well.

If you read the responses, it wasn't feminists wanting a matriarchy. The poster got flamed. There was actualy unanimity in that thread.

Why you think that was a discussion of what the REAL issues here are, is beyond me, except to say it's simplistic and leaving a hell of a lot out.

Continue on, I suppose and ignore the huge elephant in the room and think you've added something of substance. When in fact, you haven't done anything but muddy up the waters further.

[redqueen]

43. The effort some go to in order to push an illusion of false balance is unreal. nt

[H2O Man]

45. I wasn't praising

that OP -- or any of the responses to it. There certainly may have been intelligent responses posted later, but I didn't see them.

What you identify as important, when compared to what I think is important, may indeed be different. That's the nature of a discussion forum. Thus, while my OP is definitely significant in the context of my world-view, it clearly doesn't fit well with your own. From my point of view, it both clarifies and provides a foundation for further discussion of the battle between the sexes, including social structures ranging from the family to religious institutions. While I do not view it as muddying the water in any way, I will happily take you for your word that it somehow does in your view. I feel no need to attack you, or insult your beliefs, which is another difference between us on this topic.

[boston bean]

46. If you are trying to tell people that they can't use common life experience in discussion

and that is the root of all the strife you see between people here on DU, again, I submit you are completely missing the larger picture.

[H2O Man]

47. Please.

You know better. Find a single example of my doing that -- in this OP/thread, or any other thing I've contributed on DU -- that in any way supports your saying that.

Appeals to emotions by way of rhetorical debater's points is an actual way to muddy the water. If you want to have a serious discussion, I'd be glad to. But that requires a degree of honesty.

[boston bean]

52. An appeal to emotion? That is what you are calling it.

See here is where you miss a bunch of things, let me clue you in on some of the reasons for these hotly disputed threads.

I apologize, but I thought I was on a democratic web site, but these are the type of notions and ideas that pass for being liberal around here. And if you haven't seen it yourself, well then, go make yourself more aware, but I'll do what I can here to help bring you up to speed. It has nothing to do with women wanting a matriarchy.


Being told women should wear burqa's, so they aren't street harassed and leered at.

That women like to be harassed on the street. It's complimentiary.

Believing that women do NOT earn 77 cents to the dollar that men earn.

Believing that biology dictates our gender roles, therefore women really don't have the autonomy to be anything different.

Every frickin discussion about the culture women find themselves in, turns into you hate men and men have it just as bad.

That feminists here are creating a WAR on MEN.

That there is no rape culture and if you say there is, you are man bashing.

Those are just a few off the top of my head, that seem like they should be challenged here, no? So, no it's not an appeal to emotion. When things like the above are said, it deserves a response, a good response, and if met with indignation, a harsher response. I thought on a liberal/progressive/democratic discussion board, those feminist/womens issues wouldn't be so danged controversial.

However, they are that controversial. If you think it's because we need some government rules to have these conversations and not appeal to the better part of people when making the case just how fucking sick the above is, I'm not sure what to say. Examine it yourself and see which side you come out on.

However, you will note that not one has to do with feminists wanting a matriarchal society.

[kdmorris]

96. Well, sorry, but links are going to be needed to believe

that any of those things were said IN GOOD FAITH and not just in a sarcastic attempt to piss you off.

"That feminists"... again I ask that you not speak for me. I am a feminist, but I disagree with most of how you perceive this board. Stop saying things like that as if you speak for all of us.

[boston bean]

98. If you don't agree with me, obviously I am not speaking for you. I speak for myself

and other feminists who agree with me. That is common sense.

Second, you don't deny the comments, but they are all just sarcastic to piss me off... And this is somehow my fault... And that is perfectly acceptable discourse?

LOL

[kdmorris]

102. NO, I did not say it was your fault they were trying to piss you off

BUT I do say it's your fault when you try to use those attempts to piss you off as a bona fide view point of anyone here.

[boston bean]

103. You and I see the world and what is happening on DU differently.

I will speak up as a feminist and because you don't agree with me does not mean I don't get to call myself one or speak as a feminist.

Secondly, I'm sorry but pissing of feminists just to piss of feminists, of which I am one, and many here who agree with me are, is probably something that doesn't belong on a democratic message board.

[kdmorris]

116. That is true. We have drastically different world views

And I fully support your right to say whatever you want, even to say it "as a feminist". I fully support your right to call yourself a feminist. It's a shame that I don't get the same courtesy, but whatever. I can live with it.

What I do not support is you speaking for me as a feminist and saying things like "telling feminists...", "feminists feel..." as if you are the ONLY feminist point of view. You want to say "some feminists" or even, I don't know "I", more power to you, Boston Bean.

Like this sentence: "pissing of feminists just to piss of feminists", I'm going to call you on it each time (which luckily for you just isn't going to be much. My time is pretty limited). They don't do it to piss off feminists. They do it to piss off YOU (not "feminists&quot or a couple of others who seem to like to fight.

Just about every other person I've seen that engages you does so in good faith and you burn them to the ground without even trying to engage in conversation (unless, of course, they agree with you 100%). That is YOU not "feminists".

[boston bean]

126. What courtesy am I not providing you.

I have never questioned you and said you don't speak for me.

When I am speaking of feminist issues, I'm not going to allow you to tell me how I should frame my speech. I will speak how I like and you can too. We don't agree and I'm not telling you how to frame how you feel.

I'm sorry, but that is what you said. You want to say it's something personal about me. I don't particularly think it is. It's the issues, and they might not like how I feel about issues, but that's just too bad. I have a right to speak as well. If they don't like me personally well they can go pound sand.

I don't burn anyone to the ground. You certainly are free with these type of personal attacks, how about you and me stick to the issues. We can agree to disagree on those, but stop your critique of my DU persona, ok?

[seabeyond]

107. where did anyone say everyone. no one said everyone. never said everyone. the only saying everyone

is those people attacking feminists saying they say everyone. though not ONE feminist has yet said it is EVERYONE.

how about that.

does that work?

now you know from here to always, no feminist thinks it is EVERYONE. so you do not have to buy into the mens argument that uses that dismissal toward feminists.

woooosh, glad we cleared that one up

[kdmorris]

117. "do not have to buy into the mens argument"

How utterly fucking sexist... now who is telling ME (not "feminists&quot that I can't think for myself?

[seabeyond]

121. why do you not address making the statement we say EVERYONE. i would think you were relieved to know

NO feminist EVER said EVERYONE. but nope, right over the head creating a straw man

since only the men attacking us state we say everyone, why would i not assume that is where youa re getting it from? or, .... did you come up with accusing feminists that we say EVERYONE, when nothing of the like has ever happened, all by yourself.

well, if you want to take credit for fabricating a story to give to feminists on this board, so be it.

i apologiz i assumed you got EVERYONE from the men. since that is where i hear the accusation. and i am sorry i did not challenge YOUR fabrication toward the feminists.

so, do tell me where ANY feminist, at ANY time, stated it was EVERYONE.

since you are in the know.

and before accusing me of offending you, you might want to rethink accusing feminists on du of such an absurdity to include EVERYONE in any argument.

[kdmorris]

130. "the feminists"

"did you come up with accusing feminists that we say EVERYONE"

"you want to take credit for fabricating a story to give to feminists on this board"

"and i am sorry i did not challenge YOUR fabrication toward the feminists."

"you might want to rethink accusing feminists on du of such an absurdity to include EVERYONE in any argument."

You are still doing it, seabeyond. The way that you state things makes it seem like you ARE talking about all feminists. Since I am a feminist, I would not be making statements toward feminists, now would I? But, by using that description that way... yeah, sorry, that's exactly what you are making it look like. That's using LOGIC.

[seabeyond]

131. yes. i am. and still you did not address the point in like your third post, accusing feminists of

saying EVERYONE.

[kdmorris]

135. I believe I DID just address that issue

maybe I should say it slower -

When....you....say...."the....feminists"...as....if....there....is....only....one....group....and....one....thought....you....ACT....as....if....you....are.... speaking.... for.... everyone.

And you are still doing it "accusing feminists" as if I am not one.

[boston bean]

136. That is complete nonsense.

You do not get to tell feminists that they can't use the word feminists.

[kdmorris]

143. I am not saying that... thanks for putting words in my mouth

But I'm not going to sit here and let seabeyond say that I've been brainwashing by "men" because I feel that by doing that you are making it look like you are the only feminists.

Saying that I do "not get to tell feminists that they"... etc means that you exclude me from that group.

You can use the terminology all you want. And expect me to come along behind you if I see it and say "Not all feminists".

After all, YOU don't get to tell feminists that we can't use the term either.

[boston bean]

149. I do not make any exclusion.

You may be a feminist who disagrees with something I say or believe. We can disagree on issues and be feminists.

What do you want, feminists who you disagree with on du, to call themselves feminists who kdmorris disagrees with.. or when you say say something specify you are a feminist who Boston bean disagrees with?

[kdmorris]

156. You are being ridiculous

I said what I wanted in my first post, which you took exception to and told me wasn't going to happen. So, I'm not starting a game of
There's a Hole in the Bucket with you.

I'll just start using "the feminists" when I speak. "The feminists on DU are treated well by the men on DU". "The feminists on DU are smart and well-educated and can have a discussion about gender issues without losing their minds".

My statements will be more true than yours, so at least that's something.

[boston bean]

157. great!

That's how it should be and I will let you know when I disagree as a feminist and why. It won't be a bunch of personal bs either, like you deserve the rude responses. It will be of substance.

[kdmorris]

160. Awesome!

I will eagerly look forward to your posts of substance.

[boston bean]

163. they usually are if you read them, imho.

If we disagree on an issue, I'm more than happy to provide my opinion.

[kcr]

141. Speaking slower does not make you right

Seabyond is absolutely right. Feminists on DU (sorry, not going to qualify that for you, there's nothing wrong with referring to groups by name) are often treated the way Sea says on DU.

[boston bean]

132. Hey, you don't have the right to frame how we speak for ourselves.

We are feminists and we will not qualify or bend to appease a feminist who disagrees, and neither would we request that a feminist that is in disagreement to do that.

[Waiting For Everyman]

137. Pure comedy gold!

Or maybe you missed seabeyond's rant right here, having a stroke-out over the word "everyone".

(Btw, I don't see anywhere that kdmorris used that word, but maybe I'm missing something. If so, it must be well hidden, because I've looked three times.)

[Spider Jerusalem]

63. There's a difference between disagreement and hostility.

If you don't understand that difference then perhaps you'd be better off not presenting things people may disagree with. (And I kindly invite you to point to any serious participant in any of the discussions over gender issues in the past few days who has seriously advocated for a "matriarchal" society; I haven't seen anyone doing so.)

[intaglio]

35. Sorry H2Oman but, no...

Firstly "Matriarchal societies," are not documented even if they existed. A lot of the discussion about such societies was exemplified Robert Graves' "The White Goddess" which is actually just a use of free imagination on insufficient evidence. "The White Goddess" is a wonderful book, beautifully written but owes more to poetry than reality.

Your comment about mothers being more nurturing confuses necessity with actuality because there are and have always been very many mothers who have been far from nurturing and, confusingly, seems to be trap the mind in a male versus female construct.

Sorry but no

[H2O Man]

40. Respectfully disagree.

My sons published a book on Haudenosaunee history two years ago. It was matriarchal. Of course, it was stagnate: it had gone through various phases, with patriarchal and matriarchal influences on social structure over the centuries. Hence, although as the OP accurately notes, this was uncommon, it certainly did exist. And, to a small but extremely important extent, it still exists.

[intaglio]

44. Hadn't known about that one, will have to check n/t

[RainDog]

153. What's the title?

I'd be interested in reading it because, long ago, I did do some related readings in anthropology.

Although I have a couple of friends in anthropology, one is a primatologist and the other an ethnomusicologist, and both of them work from Africa, but I know my ethnomusicologist friend would be interested in such work since she also directs theses for people doing field work beyond music.

As I noted, above, no one that I know of has found evidence of a matriarchal society, so this would, I assume, be big news.

[grahamhgreen]

209. I understood the Mosuo to be matriarchal

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/introduction_tolinks.html

[RainDog]

229. It's my understanding they're classified as matrilineal

But they offer a great example of a non-western culture that has totally different expectations based upon gender roles.

[Kingofalldems]

49. Kick and Rec

[Egalitarian Thug]

62. False equivalence is one of the driving factors in this argument,

So I'm thinking that using it to dismiss more than half the participants is not likely to be helpful at all.

But please, do carry on.

[hootinholler]

64. Thank you for this!

Someone with knowledge and experience in conflict weighing in is rare these days.

I hope you are improving and your libdiningbrary is doing well.

[TroglodyteScholar]

67. Why do you hate women so much?

Discussion is worthless when some just want a fight.

And here on DU, the most vocal of the feminist crowd would rather just dictate to you what is a proper view on gender and sexuality.

I believe in equality. I do not believe in being bullied by irrational loudmouths who are not open to actual discussion. And I see way too much of the latter on DU these days. I quit participating because no matter how sensitive and understanding a man tries to be here, someone will find a way to take offense and shame him.

It's pathetic and really regrettable. Take "yes" for an answer, ladies!

[boston bean]

73. wow. your post is so sensitive and understanding!

LOL

[TroglodyteScholar]

104. Got anything to contribute?

At least I made points. You, like many others, clearly just want to shame someone, even if they agree with you on gender issues. Sad.

[boston bean]

105. I've been quite active all over this thread. See those postings. Should add plenty. nt

[TroglodyteScholar]

110. Nope, don't see anything worth reading.

Last edited Thu Dec 26, 2013, 08:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Posting a lot isn't the same thing as posting thoughtfully.

[seabeyond]

112. arent you the man. wow...

dissing and being ugly is thought provoked. being factual is a waste of others time.

bah hhahaha

[TroglodyteScholar]

124. Was anyone addressing you?

Or are you just still trying to settle a score from weeks ago?

Don't bother answering. I know the answer. BACK to the ignore list for you. Shame though, because I really thought you weren't stalking me any more.

[seabeyond]

125. discussion board? dont flatter yourself, i do not remember any issue with you period, let alone

weeeeeeeks ago. lmao

[Matariki]

79. "irrational loudmouths"

great way to demonstrate your remarkable "sensitivity and understanding"! LOL

I think you forgot to include the word 'uppity'

[TroglodyteScholar]

106. Both sexes have loudmouths.

To acknowledge such makes me a good target for your judgment?

Your implied position, that it's insensitive to call out irrational people when they happen to be female, is deeply sexist.

Here's a secret for you...women have buttholes, too, and they smell just as bad as men's.

[Matariki]

108. You chose your user name with considerable awareness

[TroglodyteScholar]

111. Well, I guess that was easier than responding to my post's contents

Let me know when you have something that isn't yet another ad hominem attack.

Right now you are not representing your position very well at all.

[Matariki]

115. If I believed for a moment that your post's content wasn't utterly disingenuous

I might think it was worth the time to respond. I did find it good for a chuckle though. Tossing about terms like "the feminist crowd", "irrational loudmouths", and "take "yes" for an answer, ladies" - I just have to assume you are from the past or something.

[TroglodyteScholar]

120. Your idea of equality clearly requires special treatment for women over men.

And you DID take the time to reply twice, addressing my position precisely zero times.

Sad that, with what I'm sure are the best of intentions, you willingly turn yourself into what you despise. You are the enemy.

Equality isn't selective. If you want the benefits of equality, you should accept the reality that you will be addressed as an equal without coddling.

What you want obviously isn't equality. You want an entire gender to defer to your whims as payback for wrongs done throughout history and the present. It's a dead end, it's nonsensical, and it makes actual bigots feel justified in their hatred of feminists.

If this is how you treat your allies, how do you ever expect to change the minds of your adversaries?

I am quite genuine, and far from ashamed of my views. So your attempts at shaming me can stop now. I'm right, as evidenced by the fact that you can only come back with ugliness and emoticons.

[Matariki]

134. LOL

you're cracking me up

[TroglodyteScholar]

138. I'm glad you think the topic is to be taken lightly.

As a liberal, I'm certain that we still have more progress to make. You keep it up with your vacuous LOLs while the rest of us figure it out.

PS. Why bother replying when you literally have nothing to say?

[Matariki]

139. I think you misunderstand what I'm taking lightly

cheers

[HangOnKids]

189. LOL! Perfect!

Thanks for your posts.

[TroglodyteScholar]

202. I think you mistake dismissiveness for debating prowess

I'll spare you the emoticon that you seem to use as an indication of your superior intellect and mocking tone.

[H2O Man]

93. One of the wisest

things that Rubin Carter told me was that bitterness contaminates the vessel which contains it. And he knew that from personal experience, for the Hurricane was a bitter man for many years. I was able to look past that bitterness, and to focus on the very good man himself.

Likewise, a few of the DUers who are channeling their inner bitterness on this thread are good people. But that very bitterness not only makes it difficult to see past their programmed response to anything that doesn't fit their ideology snuggly, but it makes their attempts to communicate what is accurate in their postings unsuccessful. A few examples: while I noted that paternal attributes are general, we read one person say, "my father wasn't like that." No kidding. Or another person expresses her belief that all of the conversations are in response to one of her postings. That degree of self-centeredness can be cute in 4-year olds, but prevents adults from participating in objective discussions. Or, saddest yet, one person makes something up of of thin air, and attempts to attribute it to me. So, while I expect more out of that person, I remind myself that even intelligent, good people are not always rational.

There are, of course, other contributions of nonsense from people who do not know better. But that's okay, too.

[boston bean]

97. Who was "bitter" to you on this thread?

Also, do you not, can you NOT, see that you have just validated the MOST bitter post your thread has garnered?

[TroglodyteScholar]

204. If you're referring to my post as bitter, you prove my point

But go on pissing in every sympathetic ear you find. That'll make this the world you want to live in.

[TroglodyteScholar]

109. Thanks for the interesting response.

Reading your posts is always a pleasure because you generally say what I would if I were more eloquent and more patient....

[H2O Man]

114. Thank you.

It's kind of sad to see someone that I had respect for mistaken adding a lot of posts, including some they know are not true, for being "quite active." For activity alone is neither good or bad. I prefer activity that attempts to promote a just society, as opposed to simply attempt to derail another person's efforts to promote discussion. Strange, that.

[TroglodyteScholar]

123. Agree n/t

[Vashta Nerada]

162. This:

And here on DU, the most vocal of the feminist crowd would rather just dictate to you what is a proper view on gender and sexuality.

[Gravitycollapse]

174. I can tell you with 100% confidence that DU feminists...

Are accepting of men with the intelligence necessary to understand the subject. That most men don't understand is not an indictment of DU feminists or feminists in general.

[TroglodyteScholar]

201. I largely agree with your statement

Note that I was referring to a small, loud, and misguided group here who really love to dominate what can no longer be called a conversation once they've entered into it.

[Beringia]

69. I wanted to quote poet Peter Blue Cloud's "How Coyote Got His Penis Back"

But I lost the book Elderberry Flute Song. I will have to order another one.

[Hekate]

71. Ha! Sounds familiar. It might be in....

"Women Who Run with the Wolves" by Clarissa Pinkola Estes, or American Indian Myths and Legends by Richard Erdoes and Alfonso Ortiz.

[malaise]

91. Nice OP Waterman

Happy Holidays

[Zorra]

92. Due to the fact that the institutions and mores of this society/culture

are wholly based in and on at least 2000 years of extreme continuous Judeo-Christian religion derived patriarchy, it is almost impossible for men to recognize the nuances of entitled superiority that are sometimes expressed by even the most enlightened, egalitarian men.

Women, particularly thoughtful intuitive women, as recipients of chronic, intentional and unintentional insults that result from a score or more centuries of enculturated, institutinalized male authority, dominance, and abuse, are naturally a great deal more sensitive to the numerous nuanced insults of our centuries of violently enforced submission which we have had to endure.

We have every good and valid reason to speak out for equality, and the fact that far too much of what we try to get across about nuanced, and sometimes blatant, manifestations of oppressive institutionalized patriarchy is dismissed by men rendered clueless about sexism as a result of centuries of unchallenged male dominion over females (ie - "because that's the way it is, and the way it has always , so I don't understand what in heck you women are complaining about") has a tendency to sometimes make us resentful.

Especially combined with the sad fact that until fairly recently on the historical scale, women were considered the legal property of their husbands, and less than 100 years ago men did not permit us to vote. This patriarchal mindset of the absolute inferiority of women did not disappear on the day we got the right to vote, and it will probably not disappear altogether for another century of hard core work by women trying to make the concept of essential gender equality understood and made an institutionalized reality.

"If you want to change the world, change yourself". Fine. I've changed myself into St. Zorra, pure hearted archangel of equality. What does that do for me, and other women, as far as the genuine end of patriarchy and the resulting genuine essential equality of women is concerned? If I/we don't open our mouths, we are never going to eat. Social change generally does not occur unless the oppressed speak out and take action to force the issue.

I know that I have a certain small lingering resentment toward men, exacerbated by occasional minor or major manifestations by men of their assumed entitled superiority and my imposed and unjustly designated inferiority that still lingers in in this waning patriarchy.

But this resentment is not hatred; I like both men and women, and try relate to each as individuals to the best of my ability, and I try to recognize the place that men come from. I do not live there, but I believe that I understand that, because men have historically been the culturally dominant gender, it is difficult for them to fully empathize with women in order to feel and understand how we really experience the manifested and non-manifested ramifications of past and present male dominance and entitlement. And, of course, there are still far too many ignorant men out there who believe that a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, (and not driving cars!) listening to them condescendingly read to us from their "rightful place" as men at the head of the dining table, in their well practiced authoritarian style, the dour and silly ancient passages of their Poisonwood Bibles and Korans, which prove to them beyond doubt the superiority of men, and proves once and for all that women are dimwitted inferior creatures not to be taken seriously in their man's world.

Because their unseen great all knowing bearded patriarch god in the sky has decreed that it is so, and this decree has been made obvious, and is manifested by all that has been created.

Or not.



Please try to understand, we women are still dealing with that type of ignorant shit on a mass scale, and it's not going to magically go away overnight.

So...I will continue to speak out and strive for an end to patriarchy, in the hope that someday, a balance between patriarchy and matriarchy will be achieved, where women will be equal, in all aspects of reality, to men, and hope that my efforts are not perceived as hatred by good men, and that these men will see my efforts not as gender warfare in a male vs. female construct, but as a sincere effort to attain genuine gender equality, and more understanding and equality for everyone.

Peace.

[H2O Man]

94. Well said.

I appreciate your response.

Until the patriarchal interpretation of "God" is countered by a higher level of understanding, our culture will not advance in the equality of human beings, because it cannot. We see this in the "we're Dad-God's favorite people" foolishness, not just in the USA, but around the globe. And that will only change, when individuals change.

[redqueen]

118. Does India have a "Dad God"?

No. What's the situation like there, with respect to the war between the sexes?


It's not because your ideas don't "fit on bumper stickers" that this OP got the response it did. It's because most who are well versed on these issues recognize the flaws in it.

In order to correct an imbalance, one must first recognize the imbalance.

Our current reality isn't a situation where equal numbers of women and men are oppressing each other. And right now, many don't even see the reality for what it is. It is more comfortable (for reasons which should be obvious) to focus on messages which portray an image of false balance - even if that message wasn't intentionally included.

[laundry_queen]

164. Excellent post. nt

[Union Scribe]

119. Sad to see the bomb squadron has

done the usual to your attempt to get DU past man v. woman thinking. Apparently too many really want to just continue that paradigm. Rec for another thoughtful post from you anyway. Happy Holidays, H2O.

[H2O Man]

122. Thanks.

I'm okay with "the bomb squadron" attacking me on this OP/thread. I like a couple of them, and take no offense. It is a shame to see anyone reduced to being dishonest, as one has, but I don't think any intelligent person will be confused by the OP.

Happy holidays to you & yours!

[spanone]

133. k&r...

[K.O. Stradivarius]

142. Nigel Tufnel: Well, so what? What's wrong with bein' sexy?

Ian Faith: Sex-IST!

David St. Hubbins: IST!

[scarletwoman]

166. I am a human being first, and a woman second.

There is no way that I would recount, on DU, the experience that precipitated that soul-deep perception - all I will say is that I was stripped down to my essential self and found, to my great surprise and amazement, that my self had no gender whatsoever. I am simply a human being wearing a female body this time around on the wheel.

I avoid the gender discussions here, because I can't figure out what to say that might make any difference whatsoever. I am not my vagina or uterus, I am simply a human being who aspires to be good at human beingness.

This is not to say that I do not thoroughly enjoy my femaleness. In this life I have always been delighted in that aspect of my self. There are certain powers and perquisites that obtain from it, and I have been happy to indulge in them. And within the over-arching aspiration to be a good human being, I have - hopefully - done my best to do no harm to other human beings while doing so.

We human beings are always hungry for attention, for validation, for affection, for love. Unfortunately, this hunger gets twisted into the desire to dominate, to control, to put others down in order to raise ourselves up. To be a good human being requires letting go of such desires and cultivating kindness, compassion, and equanimity. These traits are not exclusive to one gender or another.

I am not at war with those human beings who manifest as males. Nor do I feel that I am being especially warred upon by them due to having a female body. People are nasty to each other in all kinds of ways - the so-called "war between the sexes" is just one aspect of that.

Patriarchy, Matriarchy - how about just Humanarchy? To behave as an impeccable human being in all aspects of life, including one's relations with the opposite sex.

(edited for misspelled word)

[polly7]

169. Well said.

I agree with every word, and 'Humanarchy' is the perfect term.

[scarletwoman]

171. Thank you. I appreciate your kind words.

[Waiting For Everyman]

172. Couldn't agree more.

Excellent thought, and so well said!

[scarletwoman]

223. Thank you.

I simply wanted to offer my own 2 cents...

[seabeyond]

180. love your post scarletwoman and having a bit of the same discussion

in hof. especially the first part. it is all very interesting. thanks for sharing.

[scarletwoman]

218. Thank you, seabeyond.

I appreciate your appreciation.

[sabrina 1]

182. Beautiful post, thank you. Maybe you might make it an OP. I feel exactly as you described

regarding being a human being first. But you have said it so perfectly.

Thank you.

[scarletwoman]

219. Thank you, sabrina.

It doesn't surprise me that you understand what I was trying to say.

[redqueen]

187. "Humanarchy" / humanism is the 'I don't see color' of discussions of sexism and misogyny.

There is currently a pandemic of male violence against women. We are seeing our rights to control our own bodies chipped away in state after state. Things are even worse in many places around the world.

It'd sure be nice to live in a world where we could pretend we're all equal, and all that was needed to make the world better is be nice to each other.

Unfortunately, the fact that we almost all have internalized a patriarchal value system to one degree or another (just as we have almost all internalized many racist beliefs) means that we have to undo a lot of indoctrination and we can't do that by ignoring it or wishing it wasn't there

[scarletwoman]

215. Isn't misogyny at its core a failure/refusal to recognize women as fully human?

It'd sure be nice to live in a world where we could pretend we're all equal, and all that was needed to make the world better is be nice to each other.

My intention was to point out that we are all equally human beings, not that we are "equal". And being a good human being consists of cultivating kindness, compassion, and equanimity; regardless of whether we are female or male.

A "patriarchal value system" is based on dominance and control. It seems to me that cultivating a "good human being" value system based on kindness and compassion would serve as a powerful counter to the patriarchal paradigm - a paradigm that leads to violence toward, and violation of, those human beings who are judged to be less worthy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

205. Don't always agree with you... but that was seriously profound.

[scarletwoman]

220. Thanks, jeff.

I think that if we were ever to meet in person, we'd have a great time. I will stand the first round.

[Bonobo]

213. This is why I love Scarletwoman's post. They go to eleven! nt

[scarletwoman]

221. LOL! I could not ask for a higher compliment! (nt)

[H2O Man]

214. Beautiful.

Thank you.

[scarletwoman]

222. I always appreciate your posts, waterman.

You always challenge my little grey cells.

[H2O Man]

224. Thanks!

I just posted another OP, closely related to yesterday's. Your post here influenced it, as you'll see. I hope that you enjoy it.

[hootinholler]

216. Can I have your babies?

That was awesome!

[scarletwoman]

217. LOL

Thanks.

[Gravitycollapse]

170. Women are from Mars and men are from Venus, amiright?

What utter hogwash. This OP boils down to an antiquated argument that women are emotional creatures and men are the root of reason and discipline. Bullshit. The whole essential nature argument is so ridiculous.

[sabrina 1]

188. What hogwash, did you even read the OP or just scan it looking for something to complain about?

It is an excellent OP, whether one agrees with it or not. And if someone disagrees, then simply present their own opinion in a rationaal way. But no, that seems to be impossible as this thread demonstrates again, the knee jerk reaction, the flinging of insults from those who claim to represent feminism on DU. Which is why most DU women do not discuss women's issues on DU.

[polly7]

196. What a horrible thing to say. nt.

[Gravitycollapse]

199. However horrible it may seem, it is the truth.

[polly7]

200. No, it's not.

It's a nasty, lazy, ignorant way to paint fellow human beings who don't fall in line with the HOF doctrine. I've read their posts on DU for years, and would personally trust they do more in real life to advance the cause of equality for every human being than many people here.

What pig group do the rest of us who don't follow along belong to?

[Bonobo]

211. Thank you . Real person here.

Oh, and I am not Anti-Feminist, nor am I MRA.

I am anti-asshole.

[opiate69]

236. +10000000000000000000000000

[Bonobo]

212. Apparently you are now a "cohort"

or a "gender traitor" according to HOF.

Join the line of other women who they have thrown into that category.

In my book, it is as bad as men that use the phrase "mangina", etc.

[sabrina 1]

225. Lol, a 'cohort'? Since I only speak for myself I'm wondering who my imaginary cohorts are?

[Waiting For Everyman]

228. "one of the eager female cohorts"?

Went to have a look-see what's going on.

This seems to be it, from a HoF thread called "The Tone Argument is sure being flung around a lot here lately" ... reiterating once again as we saw in Meta their right to be rude. Maybe the hide on the post in reply to you was their idea of a "tone argument" by the jury?

Another thread lists numerous comments that if made by their critics, are a tell that they must be MRA. (Seems to have originated from an exchange with me, above in this thread.) It's a long list, bottom line of it is, any disagreement with their "line" means that you're MRA. As the other thread informs us, if the disagee-er is female, then she is "one of the eager female cohort" as well. So I guess now we know what we're officially allowed to be called... MRA and the EFC. (Nine more of us cohorts and we have a legion, lol.)

Apparently, there is a "let's run back to the secret clubhouse and talk shit about people" party going on. Perhaps this thread didn't go quite as they expected?

I'm thinking after seeing that, some people can only relate in terms of gangs... to disagree with one gang, one must be in the rival gang. Those of us who won't join gangs, are a bewilderment and won't compute on the radar.

(I'm assuming it's ok to post links here because this thread is being discussed there.)

[sabrina 1]

235. So what I'm getting, having skimmed those linked threads, is that if a woman has an opinion

that they do not approve of, it MUST have been put there by one of their male cohorts?? Women are not capable of 'thinking' for themselves! Without a man! How sad that after all the years and work of women who fought so hard, they still view independent thinking women that way.

How odd for such a sentiment to come from supposed 'feminists'. I can assure them, and the men in my life who actually know me, would laugh at the very notion that they could 'put' any ideas into my head that I had not already put there.

This is why they lose credibiity among women. It is an insult to women to make that claim. They apparently haven't accepted the realisty that not just men, but free, independent women can and will disagree with them.

I notice they have so many labels for everyone also, little categories all placed in neat boxes with labels on them. I've always been suspicious of 'labeling'. It tends to come from the Corporate World which does not view people as individuals.

And as if that is even possible.

And so many insults against those who have different opinions.

I never joined the women's groups on DU. When I first found the site I did look at the forum and all I saw was fighting and arguing and it turned me off frankly.

So we have nearly a dozen or so 'cohorts' so far. News to me, but I suppose it's always good to have 'cohorts', after all they do??

Lol, thanks for the response. I couldn't imagine who my cohorts might be, and to be honest, I'm still not clear. But whoever they are, I'm glad to have them.

[Deep13]

178. In talking about gender differences...

Last edited Fri Dec 27, 2013, 12:07 AM - Edit history (1)

...one should be mindful that gender is a social construct. So saying mothers do A while fathers do B may be valid as a generality for one society, but not for all of them.

[joshcryer]

191. Rec for Ericch Fromm's The Sane Society.

[arely staircase]

198. what's wrong with being sexy

Ian Faith: They're not gonna release the album... because they have decided that the cover is sexist.
 Nigel Tufnel: Well, so what? What's wrong with bein' sexy? I mean there's no... 
Ian Faith: Sex-IST! 
David St
Hubbins: IST

[Orrex]

203. I'm bringing sexy back.

Be warned.

[uppityperson]

227. You were doing ok until you got to this paragraph, which is way too much stereotyping for me to be

able to rec your OP.

Now, let's consider one of the basic differences found between "mothers" and "fathers," and then apply it to a societial potential. Mothers tend to love all of their children the same; they may recognize that one has a unique skill, or another a specific weakness, but each one is of value, with the same right to love and care as his/her siblings. Fathers, on the other hand, tend to have a rating system, in which that child that best meets his highest expectations is his favorite. (A "good" father will favor the child most like himself, while a bad father dislikes the child who most reminds him of himself.)

[bettyellen]

230. How many threads were there promoting matriarchy? Seems I missed them.

It would have been great to see links at all this recent interest in promoting matriarchy as a culture. Anyone?

Also, the entire paragraph of stereotypes of women vs men? Oh, hell no. Maybe in your day people went along with that nonsense, but it doesn't describe the people I know well. Not at all.