Why I am not a feminist and don't believe in 'equality'.

Airyfairy12

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you say the same if he was a woman and she was a man and their son began treating the mother in the same way? For context she's Irish from a well to do family who all live close by. He isn't. Both are professionals.

If he stood up for himself you can see how easy it is to spin it as him being controlling, virtually impossible the other way round.

He could leave but they are married a long time.

I know them both very well and it isn't a case of him being passive aggressive, it's definitely a case of her way or the highway. She'd be a staunch feminist and looks down on stay at home mums. I'd basically class her as a bully. She is highly intelligent too.

To say he needs to "grow a pair" is really victim blaming, not all men (or women) have it in them to do this. It's still sh1t what she's doing.

The fact you got two thanks shows the whole thing is a sham, there are still different standards for men and women. Men still are judged by either 1950s or 2019 standards, depending which one is most advantageous to women. Women are judged by 2019 standards, which are all advantageous to them.

Did anyone say he needs to "grow a pair"? im open to correction here, maybe I missed that comment.

Giving him a yellow card for going out isnt abuse. Its a bit odd and controlling but if he's not communicating with his wife on the issue then they both need to have a look at themselves.
If it was the other way around, it still wouldnt be abuse.
Abuse is things like violence, control through aggression, manipulation, gas lighting. It basically puts the victim in a state of fear and confusion.
Your friend gets yellow cards for going out but its not stopping him from going out, his wife might behave in a way thats difficult in retaliation to him going out but thats not necessarily abuse either, id also be interested to know how often he does go out, wheter its a man or a woman, one partner going out often can put allot of strain on a relationship and parenting.
She may be a controlling person but that doesnt mean she's abusive and vice versa, its much more complex than that and to be quite honest, its statements like yours that belittle real abuse.

Potential-Monke

Sunrayshine10 wrote: »

Do some people actually believe people deserve praise or even money for staying at home to look after their own children, a choice they made of their own free will for their own self interest.

Haven't read the whole thread, but this. Why should we pay people to stay at home and look after their kids? Having a child is not something everyone should do, it should be the biggest decision of your life. Society has created this situation where people think they should get paid to have kids, and in effect already are with the child benefit, aka: money for fuking.

Why should my taxes pay for other people to raise children? I doubt the child benefit will ever be removed, too many people think they're entitled to it so the Government won't go against them. If you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't have them, end of. And no, I don't think 'getting caught' is an excuse.

And before anyone jumps on board and starts saying 'but without the child benefit your parents...' blah blah blah. That was then, it was brought in for a purpose I assume, is that purpose still needed? Are people not aware or wise enough to know all about the trappings of parenthood and all it contains, unlike when my parents were young and electricity was still being installed around the area?

I'm sick of it. I've to pay for everyone else to have kids in my taxes. I've to pay for everyone else who doesn't want to work in my taxes. My private health insurance has mandatory maternity and child cover, even though I'm male and never want kids! It's BS. But it will never change because of this self entitled attitude to having kids and thinking everyone else should pay for them or raise them.

I'd rather they get rid of child benefit full stop, and use the money instead to create orphanages to look after the kids whose idiotic parents had them but can't afford to look after them. Or allow me to have additional benefits on my health insurance that I'd use, like mental health services, better dental cover, etc.

Airyfairy12

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Did anyone say he needs to "grow a pair"? im open to correction here, maybe I missed that comment.

Giving him a yellow card for going out isnt abuse. Its a bit odd and controlling but if he's not communicating with his wife on the issue then they both need to have a look at themselves.
If it was the other way around, it still wouldnt be abuse.
Abuse is things like violence, control through aggression, manipulation, gas lighting. It basically puts the victim in a state of fear and confusion.
Your friend gets yellow cards for going out but its not stopping him from going out, his wife might behave in a way thats difficult in retaliation to him going out but thats not necessarily abuse either, id also be interested to know how often he does go out, wheter its a man or a woman, one partner going out often can put allot of strain on a relationship and parenting.
She may be a controlling person but that doesnt mean she's abusive and vice versa, its much more complex than that and to be quite honest, its statements like yours that belittle real abuse.

I used grow a pair as a summary not as a verbatim quote. That was the gist of the post. Thats definitely something that is tiring on boards "that exact expression wasn't used"

He rarely goes out. I know because I go out about once a month myself and he goes out far less.

So what do you consider abuse? Constant criticism isn't abuse? It's no wonder we have such a bulllying problem in this country when only physical violence is considered bullying.

Emotional bullying is even worse in many cases. At least with physical bullying it's over quickly and there is evidence. I guess there is so much bullying in schools that many adults are bullies by nature - people generally don't change, they just get better at hiding their true personalities.

The idea of you are bullied you deserve it. Unless you are female and bullied by a man of course. Then you are a victim of toxic masculinity. She wouldn't be told she's not communicating with her husband properly FFS. Maybe 50 years ago but thankfully not today anymore.

Airyfairy12

Deleted User wrote: »

I used grow a pair as a summary not as a verbatim quote. That was the gist of the post. Thats definitely something that is tiring on boards "that exact expression wasn't used"

I didnt get a gist of that comment at all within the post. .
You also used quaotation marks and youve just done it again for a non quote. Please educate yourself on basic punctuation.

Deleted User wrote: »

He rarely goes out. I know because I go out about once a month myself and he goes out far less.

So what do you consider abuse? Constant criticism isn't abuse? It's no wonder we have such a bulllying problem in this country when only physical violence is considered bullying.

Emotional bullying is even worse in many cases. At least with physical bullying it's over quickly and there is evidence. I guess there is so much bullying in schools that many adults are bullies by nature - people generally don't change, they just get better at hiding their true personalities.

The idea of you are bullied you deserve it. Unless you are female and bullied by a man of course. Then you are a victim of toxic masculinity. She wouldn't be told she's not communicating with her husband properly FFS. Maybe 50 years ago but thankfully not today anymore.

If youre concerned about your friend then the best thing to do would be direct him to Amen or get him to speak to his gp or another professional.
Unfortunately, rather than coming across as concerned for your friend, you seem to be fixated on women bashing, perceived double standards and reversed roles.
These are your opinions, theyre not fact and dont even sound like theyre based in reality.

Either way, if your friend is being abused, he should seek help, you can advise him to do so, you cant force him, ultimately it's is up to him to do something about his situation but supports are there for him if he chooses to avail of them.

py2006

Today's feminists are their own worst enemies.

Airyfairy12

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

I didnt get a gist of that comment at all within the post. .
You also used quaotation marks and youve just done it again for a non quote. Please educate yourself on basic punctuation.

Maybe you should educate yourself on punctuation. This is an accepted usage of quotes - every second newspaper article has "allegedly" in quotes. It indicates something someone other than the author said, not necessarily a quote from the other article. There is a facility for that on boards I am using above. And the post said
He needs to sack up on a few levels. Yep and I went there.

If youre concerned about your friend then the best thing to do would be direct him to Amen or get him to speak to his gp or another professional.
Unfortunately, rather than coming across as concerned for your friend, you seem to be fixated on women bashing, perceived double standards and reversed roles.
These are your opinions, theyre not fact and dont even sound like theyre based in reality.

Either way, if your friend is being abused, he should seek help, you can advise him to do so, you cant force him, ultimately it's is up to him to do something about his situation but supports are there for him if he chooses to avail of them.

Well aware of the supports. I have had several chats with him about it and he doesn't think he's being abused. I do.

I'm not women bashing. I have said on record that I know and am friends with some great women, including my wife and daughters. My only point is that not all women are angels, there are some real horrible ones out there who do awful things, as there are awful horrible men. Lots of the bad ones use feminism as a justification for their bad behaviour. And feminism is what this thread is about. IMO it started out very positive but lately is taken over by the sociopaths - feminism that is, not the thread.

If you think I'm down on women check out my posts on the Ana Kriegel threads.

Hedgelayer

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

I didnt get a gist of that comment at all within the post. .
You also used quaotation marks and youve just done it again for a non quote. Please educate yourself on basic punctuation.




If youre concerned about your friend then the best thing to do would be direct him to Amen or get him to speak to his gp or another professional.
Unfortunately, rather than coming across as concerned for your friend, you seem to be fixated on women bashing, perceived double standards and reversed roles.
These are your opinions, theyre not fact and dont even sound like theyre based in reality.

Either way, if your friend is being abused, he should seek help, you can advise him to do so, you cant force him, ultimately it's is up to him to do something about his situation but supports are there for him if he chooses to avail of them.

I see we have a grammar teacher here, telling someone to educate themselves on basic punctuation in an adult forum.

Oh the irony of the bully haters.

Telling grown ups They're in need of upping their written words...

There's a lot of sock puppets in this thread, it's not hard to read between the lines.

This thread absolutely stinks of hostility and resentment.

Hedgelayer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe you should educate yourself on punctuation. This is an accepted usage of quotes - every second newspaper article has "allegedly" in quotes. It indicates something someone other than the author said, not necessarily a quote from the other article. There is a facility for that on boards I am using above.





Well aware of the supports. I have had several chats with him about it and he doesn't think he's being abused. I do.

I'm not women bashing. I have said on record that I know and am friends with some great women, including my wife and daughters. My only point is that not all women are angels, there are some real horrible ones out there who do awful things, as there are awful horrible men. Lots of the bad ones use feminism as a justification for their bad behaviour. And feminism is what this thread is about. IMO it started out very positive but lately is taken over by the sociopaths - feminism that is, not the thread.

If you think I'm down on women check out my posts on the Ana Kriegel threads.

The usual response from a femminist when they have nowhere to run is behave like rats and pull out the " you hate women" card...

Then the final straw is the rise you and get you infracted because they have a femminist card...

Don't take the bait, it's like an atheist listening to a creationist....

The femminists being the creationist because they move the goalposts so much there's no more room to maneuver around the pitch...

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you say the same if he was a woman and she was a man and their son began treating the mother in the same way?

Yes and I certainly wouldn't call it abuse.

If he stood up for himself you can see how easy it is to spin it as him being controlling, virtually impossible the other way round.

He could leave but they are married a long time.

I know them both very well and it isn't a case of him being passive aggressive, it's definitely a case of her way or the highway. She'd be a staunch feminist and looks down on stay at home mums. I'd basically class her as a bully. She is highly intelligent too.

Oh I understand the difficulties regarding where he is now, but in the end of the day they went out together and he married her and in general run of Irish ways that period likely went on for a while, maybe even lived together first. This controlling stuff, if that's indeed what she's doing now didn't fall outa the blue and he ignored it.

To say he needs to "grow a pair" is really victim blaming, not all men (or women) have it in them to do this. It's still sh1t what she's doing.

TBH Soup and this isn't agin you in particular and is my personal opinion, but I have a major pain in my stones from this near constant victim and victim blaming stuff. Aimed at either gender. It has made near catechism that once you're considered a victim that's your label and you bear zero agency or responsibility for yourself. When in the end the only true responsibility you do have is towards yourself(and any young kids you may have).

Looking back in my life I've been a "victim" of various levels of poo and though the perps were either **** or morons, in nearly every case I could have mitigated the damage or avoided it entirely. In relationships? Some were good, some were bad, most were just averagely OK. Some screwed me over and at the time I blamed them, I was the victim, wah wah, but with any distance it was clear to see it wasn't 100% them. Usually a lot less. Sometimes more me. And you have to own that or you go through life endlessly blaming your circumstances on everyone and everything else, while exonerating the one factor you could change and learn from, yourself.

The fact you got two thanks shows the whole thing is a sham, there are still different standards for men and women. Men still are judged by either 1950s or 2019 standards, depending which one is most advantageous to women. Women are judged by 2019 standards, which are all advantageous to them.

Oh there are different standards Soup, most certainly in feminist thought, where it's an odd mix of going on about strong women, while painting women as perpetual victims and as delicate as a butterfly's wing under constant attack. Very Victorian, with added shagging privileges. However there always were different and shifting standards for men, women, rich, poor, black, white etc. It's the way of the world and I figure there are things that I can do eff all about and there are things I care to do eff all about and there are things that I can change, primary among them are me and my actions.

Hedgelayer

Hedgelayer wrote: »

I see we have a grammar teacher here, telling someone to educate themselves on basic punctuation in an adult forum.

Oh the irony of the bully haters.

Telling grown ups They're in need of upping their written words...

There's a lot of sock puppets in this thread, it's not hard to read between the lines.

We all know a bully when we see one. Passive aggressive BS.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes and I certainly wouldn't call it abuse.

Oh I understand the difficulties regarding where he is now, but in the end of the day they went out together and he married her and in general run of Irish ways that period likely went on for a while, maybe even lived together first. This controlling stuff, if that's indeed what she's doing now didn't fall outa the blue and he ignored it.

TBH Soup and this isn't agin you in particular and is my personal opinion, but I have a major pain in my stones from this near constant victim and victim blaming stuff. Aimed at either gender. It has made near catechism that once you're considered a victim that's your label and you bear zero agency or responsibility for yourself. When in the end the only true responsibility you do have is towards yourself(and any young kids you may have).

Looking back in my life I've been a "victim" of various levels of poo and though the perps were either **** or morons, in nearly every case I could have mitigated the damage or avoided it entirely. In relationships? Some were good, some were bad, most were just averagely OK. Some screwed me over and at the time I blamed them, I was the victim, wah wah, but with any distance it was clear to see it wasn't 100% them. Usually a lot less. Sometimes more me. And you have to own that or you go through life endlessly blaming your circumstances on everyone and everything else, while exonerating the one factor you could change and learn from, yourself.

Oh there are different standards Soup, most certainly in feminist thought, where it's an odd mix of going on about strong women, while painting women as perpetual victims and as delicate as a butterfly's wing under constant attack. Very Victorian, with added shagging privileges. However there always were different and shifting standards for men, women, rich, poor, black, white etc. It's the way of the world and I figure there are things that I can do eff all about and there are things I care to do eff all about and there are things that I can change, primary among them are me and my actions.

I actually agree with most of this, the line between victim and perpetrator is often a very blurred one. I do think it's abuse though, even though he is in large part complicit, it's still abuse. It's a case of Stockholm syndrome. Reminds me of the stereotypical abused woman saying "you don't see his good side"

Silentcorner

Candie wrote: »

This thread absolutely stinks of hostility and resentment.

People who disagree with me stink of hostility and resentment...classic narcissism!

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

People who disagree with me stink of hostility and resentment...classic narcissism!

Definitely a whiff of hostility off some posters.

My #1 beef with modern feminism is this: If you are born male you are responsible for the worlds problems. Just when I shook off the shackles of Catholic original sin, I'm landed with this one.

It's a classic bigoted doctrine.

Hedgelayer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We all know a bully when we see one. Passive aggressive BS.

Exactly there's a sting in the tail maybe they don't feel like they're bullying and it's probably not intentional.

There's a but...

But they're just unable to have a discussion without undermining someone's inability to write or try and explain their point.

Let's say you're not great at punctuation or have dyslexia, the bully or narcissist won't think that you might find typing or the written word hard...

They'll try to find a weak spot and instead of exposure of their intended victim's weaknesses,they expose their own lack of tollerence and ability to live and let live...

Hedgelayer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My #1 beef with modern feminism is this: If you are born male you are responsible for the worlds problems. Just when I shook off the shackles of Catholic original sin, I'm landed with this one.

It's a classic bigoted doctrine.

And you'll see that there's two people here who are the one, absolute classic sockpuppet.....

Two contrasting profile names,but if you read their posting you'll realise it's the same old stuff...
They thank each other too...

Wibbs

Ahh jaysus guys, going from zero to bullying is a little to much, no? That's another thing that is all too bloody prevalent these days. Someone disagrees with me? Good. If they've a half decent argument I might be in danger of learning something from them. Better. If they're being petty then my go to feeling is pretty much this.



I'm not being flippant, it really is my general feeling on such things. Especially on the internet with anon usernames. If it all gets too much*pats forehead with cold towel* I can open up another tab and watch dancing kittens, or tag team "lesbians" in HD on Youporn. In baby oil. Problem solved.

Now to be fair I'm kinda not exposed to "feminists" in life. I don't work for some big corporate with a hair trigger HR dept(nor would they employ me anyway). I don't have kids, nor bitter ex wives or anything, so in many ways it's easy for me to be meh compared to some who are in the above situations.

That said over the years I've found the vast majority of people, men and women to be grand, quite a few are very sound and a minority are twats(even there it can be contextual). My exes have all been pretty cool really. A couple of wing nuts along the way and no doubt I figure highly in the wing nut category for even more, but again that could be contextual too and the few right wagons, well in a lot of cases there were most certainly warnings I should have heeded and didn't. Mae culpa.

My main issue with modern "feminism" is down to an near allergic reaction to obvious bullshit masquerading as a fact and a philosophy and a politic. Given that most of it is written and promoted by and concerned with the narrow concerns of White middle class educated suburban women, about the most privileged adult group on planet earth and certainly in the west - which can easily be argued is more gynocentric than phallocentric in everyday life - it makes me chuckle and think ah no here, g'way outa that even more.

Gimme A Pound

Hedgelayer wrote: »

And you'll see that there's two people here who are the one, absolute classic sockpuppet.....

Two contrasting profile names,but if you read their posting you'll realise it's the same old stuff...
They thank each other too...

How on earth can you know that? Suspecting it, ok, but stating it's a fact?

Gimme A Pound

Silentcorner wrote: »

People who disagree with me stink of hostility and resentment...classic narcissism!

That line is really dishonest. It's not about disagreeing.

There is a lot of giving out about women on this thread - and countless other threads.

Women who react to it in an annoyed fashion (which of course they'll do; surely that isn't unreasonable - it's the same as men reacting to men being undermined) are not saying negative things about men though, they're just objecting to all the unpleasantness regarding women, and how women have it so brilliant, and "imagine the reverse" and various anecdotes about individuals as though these represent a huge social trend.

I know men have a lot of legitimate grounds for being pissed off - and I absolutely agree with them. Plenty of men in my life whom I care about massively. Actually there are times when women are more compassionate than men regarding these matters. It's men who tell other men to man up.

But I don't see how reams and reams of resentful posts, and just causing further division, helps.

And if anyone is a sock puppet it's the repeated re regs who keep registering to undermine women.

Silentcorner

Gimme A Pound wrote: »

That line is really dishonest. It's not about disagreeing.

There is a lot of giving out about women on this thread - and countless other threads.

Women who react to it in an annoyed fashion (which of course they'll do; surely that isn't unreasonable - it's the same as men reacting to men being undermined) are not saying negative things about men though, they're just objecting to all the unpleasantness regarding women, and how women have it so brilliant, and "imagine the reverse" and various anecdotes about individuals as though these represent a huge social trend.

I know men have a lot of legitimate grounds for being pissed off - and I absolutely agree with them. Plenty of men in my life whom I care about massively. Actually there are times when women are more compassionate than men regarding these matters. It's men who tell other men to man up.

But I don't see how reams and reams of resentful posts, and just causing further division, helps.

And if anyone is a sock puppet it's the repeated re regs who keep registering to undermine women.

This thread was started by a woman who claimed to be a non believer, read back over the thread and look at how she has been treated!

When someone is so entrenched in an ideology they cannot fathom an alternative opinion, it has been thus since the dawn of time, they can react with venom to whomever contradicts their beliefs.

It not healthy for people to wallow in a perceived victimhood, my fathers generation of young men were often beat black and blue by teachers for simple things like being left handed, you can imagine how humiliating that must have been, and way more boys were beaten than girls...but it wouldn't be healthy for young men of today to wallow in pity for the ills of previous generations, thankfully we cast the ideology behind those ills, we are now embracing a newer equally flawed ideology.

I am not going to be afraid of criticizing toxic behaviour whatever their gender...I mightn't be right, but at least I am not drinking kool aid!

MontgomeryClift

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I am not a feminist because I think the whole idea of feminism is a worship of masculinity.

I haven't read all through this thread, but the above I have always agreed with. Feminism is a misnomer. It should have been called Masculism or something like that. It's a glorification of male characteristics and male behaviour in women, and a corresponding denigration of female characteristics.

Sorry about that

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

I haven't read all through this thread, but the above I have always agreed with. Feminism is a misnomer. It should have been called Masculism or something like that. It's a glorification of male characteristics and male behaviour in women, and a corresponding denigration of female characteristics.

Maybe what we accept as masculinity is just a type of human behaviour that became unacceptable for women to exhibit.

Christian and especially Catholic doctrine tells us that God the father, son and Holy Spirit (blokes) are the main men, while the main woman, Mary (just the one, mind) is meek, obedient, and of most importance- a virgin. Also worth noting that she, unusually for a person, was born without original sin- which was what qualified her to carry the son of God, who was also God (did I mention that he's a bloke??)

This version of feminity was what was expected from women. Put up, shut up, and be ladylike.

Of course women are aggressive sometimes, just as men are passive. Who's to say what truly are male or female characteristics, when we are all conditioned from the word go, to fall into line.

Women who couldn't or wouldn't fall into line were sometimes actually institutionalised because of their "wild" behaviour, they didn't even have to commit the shameful act of getting pregnant!

I suggest some more thought into society's expectations of feminine behaviour, and the fallout for those who didn't comply, before making statements about the "glorification" of anything.

Silentcorner

Sorry about that wrote: »

Maybe what we accept as masculinity is just a type of human behaviour that became unacceptable for women to exhibit.

Christian and especially Catholic doctrine tells us that God the father, son and Holy Spirit (blokes) are the main men, while the main woman, Mary (just the one, mind) is meek, obedient, and of most importance- a virgin. Also worth noting that she, unusually for a person, was born without original sin- which was what qualified her to carry the son of God, who was also God (did I mention that he's a bloke??)

This version of feminity was what was expected from women. Put up, shut up, and be ladylike.

Of course women are aggressive sometimes, just as men are passive. Who's to say what truly are male or female characteristics, when we are all conditioned from the word go, to fall into line.

Women who couldn't or wouldn't fall into line were sometimes actually institutionalised because of their "wild" behaviour, they didn't even have to commit the shameful act of getting pregnant!

I suggest some more thought into society's expectations of feminine behaviour, and the fallout for those who didn't comply, before making statements about the "glorification" of anything.

I think everyone had to put up and shut up.

Whatever you did, you didn't challenge the prevailing narrative...for fear of being institutionalised because of wild behaviour! Remember, we locked up way more men than women.

The genders are different, social norms vary with the ages but we cannot achieve equality across every section of our society...without resorting to an authoritarian system of governance, it simply cannot happen...you either respect freedom of choice or you don't.

Men are now being systematically discriminated against in a large number of sectors, discrimination based on gender is supposedly illegal...all based on deeply misleading studies and statistics, we may very well pay a big price for that down the road. Replacing competitive capitalism with an equality agenda will have an negative economic impact...it already is!

Fourier

Just regarding male vs female differences in mathematical ability. Controlled studies reveal no differences. You'll often read that men have more geniuses and idiots at it, but even that hasn't really held up.

Current research indicates the spread of mathematical ability is identical for both genders.

Sorry about that

Silentcorner wrote: »

I think everyone had to put up and shut up.

Whatever you did, you didn't challenge the prevailing narrative...for fear of being institutionalised because of wild behaviour! Remember, we locked up way more men than women.

The genders are different, social norms vary with the ages but we cannot achieve equality across every section of our society...without resorting to an authoritarian system of governance, it simply cannot happen...you either respect freedom of choice or you don't.

Men are now being systematically discriminated against in a large number of sectors, discrimination based on gender is supposedly illegal...all based on deeply misleading studies and statistics, we may very well pay a big price for that down the road. Replacing competitive capitalism with an equality agenda will have an negative economic impact...it already is!

Ok, I'm not familiar with the studies you've mentioned, but if I were an employer with absolute control over who I'd employ, I'd probably go for the best guy.

He's not going to get pregnant, he's not going to require time off for antenatal appointments. He's not going to need a little discreet area (not a toilet) to pump breast milk for the baby when maternity leave is up.

The woman is way more trouble.
That's why women need the backup from the legislation.

I genuinely don't believe it's an anti men stance- a couple of my female friends were asked at interviews if they intended to have a child/another child!!

It's not intended to pit the sexes against each other- just to give women a better footing imo.

Gimme A Pound

Silentcorner wrote: »

This thread was started by a woman who claimed to be a non believer, read back over the thread and look at how she has been treated!

When someone is so entrenched in an ideology they cannot fathom an alternative opinion, it has been thus since the dawn of time, they can react with venom to whomever contradicts their beliefs.

It not healthy for people to wallow in a perceived victimhood, my fathers generation of young men were often beat black and blue by teachers for simple things like being left handed, you can imagine how humiliating that must have been, and way more boys were beaten than girls...but it wouldn't be healthy for young men of today to wallow in pity for the ills of previous generations, thankfully we cast the ideology behind those ills, we are now embracing a newer equally flawed ideology.

I am not going to be afraid of criticizing toxic behaviour whatever their gender...I mightn't be right, but at least I am not drinking kool aid!

Don't know what you mean by the last part - why should you feel afraid of criticising toxic behaviour whether by women or men? That's surely the ideal - instead of just focusing on women.

The criticism the OP is getting is due to her views being all over the place - incoherent and contradictory. I've criticised today's feminism numerous times here and nobody has been derogatory towards me for it.

And the OP is being completely critical of men in the thread about the protestor being apprehended. I wouldn't dream of speaking about men that way.

theological

Sorry about that wrote: »

Christian and especially Catholic doctrine tells us that God the father, son and Holy Spirit (blokes) are the main men, while the main woman, Mary (just the one, mind) is meek, obedient, and of most importance- a virgin. Also worth noting that she, unusually for a person, was born without original sin- which was what qualified her to carry the son of God, who was also God (did I mention that he's a bloke??)

This version of feminity was what was expected from women. Put up, shut up, and be ladylike.

Comparing Mary to God within a Christian worldview is obviously wrong because Mary was a human being and God is God. God isn't literally a man but has revealed Himself primarily in male terms and took on male form in Jesus. The first witnesses to the resurrection were women in a culture where the testimony of a woman was half that of a man. Women played a key role in the ministry of Jesus (many of the earliest followers of Jesus were women) and women played a key role in the early church.

A large cross section of Christians (I'm an evangelical Protestant) but not all hold to the idea that men and women are equal in status but have been made to have complementary roles within the church and within the family This position is referred to as complementarianism. The Bible recognises that men and women were created differently. That's what the passage in Genesis means when it says that God made Adam a helper fit for him (Genesis 2:20). The Bible affirms women for who and what they are. It doesn't nullify gender difference but affirms it.

The moves in recent times in secular culture have been to deny that there are any differences between men and women asserting that they can be simply interchangeable culminating in the push for same-sex marriage. The next step seems to state that gender itself is arbitrary and a matter of choice rather than a matter of fact.

Most conservative Christians don't agree on either of these fronts. I appreciate liberals may make different arguments.

Wibbs

Sorry about that wrote: »

Christian and especially Catholic doctrine tells us that God the father, son and Holy Spirit (blokes) are the main men, while the main woman, Mary (just the one, mind) is meek, obedient, and of most importance- a virgin. Also worth noting that she, unusually for a person, was born without original sin- which was what qualified her to carry the son of God, who was also God (did I mention that he's a bloke??)

Actually that's more a post catholic the church is the source of all our woes Irish view with a side order of post reformation propaganda. Fact is non Catholic Christian doctrine gives women even less of a role. Mary is barely in the original texts. Magdalen is a nebulous character and other women are little more than mothers or reformed whores. They're sideline characters and at best should cover their heads and obey their fathers and husbands.

The Roman and Greek world influenced Christianity and reimagined it for their worldview. People like saint Paul adjusted the Jewish faith to the wider classical palate. It's why Christians can eat what they like and don't lop bits of their boys willies off. Mary got a bigger role, because they needed a "goddess" to replace those like Diana etc. Catholic saints largely replaced the pantheon of lesser greek and roman gods and goddesses. It's not called the Roman Catholic Church for nothing. Later Protestant thought still had to work within that framework. Their sources are the same books the early Roman church saw fit to copy, spread and call doctrine.

This version of feminity was what was expected from women. Put up, shut up, and be ladylike.

Again pretty similar to the Roman and Greek notion of women. This idea of women and their roles is in pretty much every large organised state civilisation from the agricultural revolution onwards. It seems to be a side effect of it. Likely down to the invention of the notion of ownership of property and stuff and amassing that and passing it on. So men and women become very concerned with the purity of bloodlines, so "pure" women are more valued. Men are more put up, shut up and be a warrior/worker.

RIGOLO

looks like the OP has abandoned us and taken her ball and gone to play elsewhere..

A critique of feminism.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=110495937

Perhaps the After Hours insights werent well insightful enough , and the Philosopy forum will get to the meat of the matter.

Have to say I feel a tinge of rejection, dont know about the rest of you who invested time in this topic feel. Is there such a thing as boards snobbery, could their be a classic class/caste system in operation on boards, horror of horrors...
Twas a good topic anyways, well presented. Life goes on , the missus is doing the laundry whilst I spend 2 hours hacking thru the overgrowth in the garden in 29 degs heat, so obviously Ive learned nothing from this thread, and yes it was me who was responsible for the Colonisation by white males of The Horn of Africa.


We will have to wait for our betters in the Philosophy forum, Im sure many (2 of the three) have letters after their name, so they must be right, to get to the nub of the matter, Id suggest putting the kettle on, their sure to get a 40 year career in academia out of it, in fact many already have.

EDIT - The OPs post in PHILOSOPHY forum has gotten 5 responses in 2 days , in that time much the same topic and opening post in AFTER HOURS got 500 responses in 2 days . I think we can call this now .. AFTERHOURS has it .