Mens Rights Activists

[WhiteNachos]

You can answer my simple questions, but you're going to make new claims like, "Women's shelters weren't created because women need shelter more than men. The need for shelter and basic needs isn't sex-specific. They were created because we have more compassion for women as a society."?!

I mean... what am I supposed to do with this? It's a huge mess that hinges on your provably false assumptions, but to go down that road would be ANOTHER distraction, another set of questions you wouldn't answer.

Well, my assumption of "why" really doesn't matter or impact the reality of it existing. What matters is that there is significantly more funding going towards homeless women than homeless men despite homeless men accounting for the majority of the demographic (60-68% depending on which study you read). This means that society is more concerned for the wellbeing of females in this demographic than the males. That is social-based privilege. Especially when it's the males that account for the vast majority of victims of violence (90-93%) within the community. That likewise exposes a preference of violence against males in numbers that do not match the 60/40% gender distribution.

When I set that distraction aside for a moment and try to handle the original matter, you claim I've ignored you.

No.

Actually, you addressed the "distraction" and not the original matter.

The original matter was your claim that homeless women suffer more sexual assaults and therefore homeless men are privileged. I countered your claim with the actual numbers and tried to ask why your logic then doesn't apply for women being the privileged ones in the homeless community (where, come on, privilege is basically nonexistent anyways).

With all that we've discussed, do you really believe that a homeless man is more privileged than a homeless female? That was the claim made in this thread and supported by you.

You're getting me confused with someone else, I never made any such claim.

In fact you seem to be getting a bunch of things from a few separate arguments you're having, blended in this post. If you need to, please go back and read what I've actually said, thanks.

I see, you are quite correct. I must have thought you were thaluikhain whose post was the one I responded to. That is my mistake and I apologize for any confusion and frustration that caused.

So your specific disagreement with me is what constitutes privilege. I'll stick to that.

Privilege is anything that has been socially constructed, condoned and reinforced for a specific group. Shelters made specifically for women benefit women over men and do constitute a privilege that men do not share.

Do you disagree with that line of reasoning? It isn't saying that women's shelters are bad, but that men should also be given the same attention or even more considering how many more homeless men there are than women. As long as the concern is proportionate then we aren't looking at privilege of one group over another.

OK, cool, thanks for checking on that.

SO yes, I agree with the definition of privilege you've put forward, but I don't agree that's what is meant when people say things like, "White Male Privilege" for example. There needs to be a root inequality that has as its cause, something more than that the group in question never made the same systems or services.

So yes... it's a privilege for women, by women, but that's not a sound argument for inequality.

If we're twins, but I'm a lazy slob and you're a fit guy on your game, and I end up unhealthy and poor with you healthy and rich, is that unequal? Yes... yes it is, but so what? Two different series of choices made over time have led to different outcomes and resources. Women have focused on what they were allowed to do historically, and when (relatively recently) they got the vote and such, they naturally moved outwards from there.

Men have focused on different things historically, such as amassing political and corporate power, ensuring the exclusivity of male institutions, etc. It's all unequal, but not in the sense of politically charged language; it is not "Unequal".

Imagine two different kids, one was born to rich parents and the other to poor parents but otherwise pretty similar.

Is the rich kid privileged? According to you, not if their parents worked really really hard for their money.

And that's the situation. Men find themselves born into a system that caters to female abuse victims far more than men, and if you say they should just bootstrap their own system, they may not have the resources to do that.

Also it smacks of "if these straight people want to not let gays into their pizza place, then gay people should just build their own. This does not count as privileged".

Except that we're not talking about "separate-but-equal" here, we're talking about specific facilities made to address a specific lack... that "build your own pizza joint" analogy. Now, years later the people who told gay people to go make their own pizza realize that they have the better pizza and more of it. So, they stop telling gay people to fuck off, and start demanding a fair portion of their pizza.

Well if you think people shouldn't be discriminated against based off sexuality or gender then you'd be against both scenarios.

Why is domestic violence against women even a separate issue from domestic violence against men? It seems needlessly segregated, like "I'm going to make a hospital for people with lung cancer but only let men in, if women with lung cancer want my services they should make their own".

Remember your now-abandoned pizza metaphor? I do, and this is just another failed version of it. I will point out that arguing by metaphors that don't actually work is often a sign that someone is struggling with the underlying concept.

Ooh nice backhanded insult, great choice of passive aggressive people everywhere.

But I'll keep it simple for you, explain to me why shelters need to discriminate based on gender.

An insult dismissing my entire argument as passive-aggression, and a demand to answer a loaded question that I don't support?

I'll pass, thanks. If you decide that you want to go back a tick and actually deal with points instead of throwing up a lot of angry flak, please let me know.

And when you can tell me when I've been OK with MRAs saying that there are no womens' issues, please let me know.

 

[Dizchu]

Well, if you're not convinced in the case of, to use the same example, Afghanistan... you should look at the objective stats. Look at lifespan, earned income, etc. You can live in a terrible place and still be relatively worse off. The information is freely available and not controversial if you're like to read about it. If the existing body of information on the countries I listed doesn't convince you, then I would love to hear your reasoned and evidence-based counter-argument.

The problem here is that you seem to be implying that misogyny and the troubles men face exist separately. Misogyny is the result of ignorance and the mistreatment of men in their respective societies, as well as segregation based on gender. When men and women interact regularly with a mutual understanding, misogyny and misandry sharply decrease. It's no coincidence that countries that impose fewer restrictions based on gender also end up being the countries where sexism is less of an issue (compare Scandinavia with the Middle-East or even the United States).

In terms of life expectancy, it actually seems to favour women in Afghanistan (as it does in most of the world). Not by much, only a year or two (see the CIA World Factbook). Of course there is a gender pay gap, as many women in Middle-Eastern countries are denied access outside of their homes. They take the 50s American "working father, stay-at-home mother" thing to the absolute extreme. But they're not forced into the front lines of armed conflict either.

Beyond that, sorry, but I don't buy that the social expectation for men to be stoic isn't a universal cultural reality... it just kind of betrays where MRA's are coming from. Comparing cultural expectations with things like fighting for representation or against sexual violence, domestic violence, etc is way past apples and oranges.

The cultural expectations men are forced to adhere to causes misogyny from men in the first place. Things like representation and sexual violence are a by-product of cultural expectations, though sexual dimorphism has a degree of influence too. Like women, men have the freedom to do things within certain cultural parameters. For both genders, this results in advantages and disadvantages. MRAs and feminists feed off these cultural expectations, with MRAs constantly complaining about how women are spoilt and inconsiderate while feminists insist that rape and sexual violence from men is rampant enough to adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. I actually find parallels between the "I can't trust men because I've read all these scary stories of abusive men" feminists and the "I can't trust women because I've read scary stories about abusive women" MGTOWs. I find it absolutely appalling that people are actively trying to PERPETUATE distrust between genders.

Finally, it's a straw man to constantly argue against these supposed people with their "rose-colored glasses". You can be aware of how terrible life is for (one example) a poor Romanian boy in regards to issues like the rampant child-sex trade, and that objectively it's really no better or worse in that regard for poor Romanian girls. You would have a point, in some areas, in some places ill treatment is equal or skewed one way and then another without a clear bias.

The "rose-tinted glasses" thing was in reference to how often feminists and MRAs insist that because of reasons A, B and C, men/women must have better lives than women/men, but they continuously neglect reasons X, Y and Z that suggest otherwise. People focus on the negatives and assume that people that don't deal with the same issues they do must have it better by default. Straight women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than straight men. True. But men are more likely to be murdered than women are. I'm not saying that one issue takes precedence over another, but rather that we should stop focussing on one or the other and acknowledge both.

Also I think that we should stop talking about issues like these in terms of gender disparities being caused exclusively by people of the opposite gender. Men are more likely to sexually assault and murder, but that doesn't mean that their victims are necessarily women. People can be sexist towards people of their own gender. This is something very important that I feel often gets neglected in favour of the men vs. women "battle of the sexes" bullshit. It's not men vs. women. It's people vs. sexism.

When you stop focusing (as MRA's do) on emotionally charged anecdote, your own cultural experiences, and start to look at the measurable metrics the rest of the world does... you'll get the point.

Woah, condescending much? It's not about the statistics, but about how you look at them. You can't list a bunch of numbers and call it a day, you must consider why the statistics are the way they are. My arguments don't work contrary to the statistics, but rather they are an interpretation of them. If men are more likely to sexually assault and murder, as well as be murdered, my first concern isn't "how can we make life better for women by focussing exclusively on women", my concern is "what makes men more likely to be involved in violence?" Men are more likely to be violent, and the reason why sexual assault affects women the most is because most people that sexually assault are heterosexual men. It's easier to just consider all women potential victims rather than try to address the problems as they develop. Sexual assault and violence are symptoms of a disease, they are not the disease itself.

 

[Dizchu]

Context matters. If you're living to 61 because you've been used as a brood mare for children since you were 12, vs. dying at 48 after having choices like: study the Quran, join a warlord, farm opium, etc. Shit choices obviously, but still more than the women are getting without being terrorized for it.

I'm not interested in the whole MRA re-telling of history, so if you want to talk about the facts on the ground, back them up comprehensively please.

My "women outlive men in Afghanistan" response wasn't meant to imply that women have better lives than men do there, it was a response to your assertion that women do not outlive men. Or was your point about lifespan irrelevant? You criticised me for not putting the statistic into context yet my whole argument is about how issues relating to sexism can't be addressed in a vacuum.

Also MRA re-telling of history? What?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I actually find parallels between the "I can't trust men because I've read all these scary stories of abusive men" feminists and the "I can't trust women because I've read scary stories about abusive women" MGTOWs. I find it absolutely appalling that people are actively trying to PERPETUATE distrust between genders.

As a rule, it is not feminists who are responsible for the large amount of violence perpetuated by men against women, nor is it generally feminists that who are almost invariably blaming female victims afterwards for not taking more precautions, which boils down to not trusting men.

Now, you could argue that feminists talking about sexism has caused women to distrust men (if one were to, for some reason, assume women on the whole didn't know about sexism until someone told them it existed), but I'd not see that as something to condemn feminism for.

 

[Dizchu]

Just adding back all of the stuff you're choosing to ignore in your very VERY VERY selective response. I think with that back, there's nothing for me to add here, right?

I haven't chosen to ignore anything. I acknowledge all the things that you have pointed out. I just think there are reasons for why those things are the way they are, and those reasons are complex and require greater consideration of gender dynamics in societies that are as hostile as those in Afghanistan, for instance. You accuse me of simplifying and omitting things for convenience when I'm actually interested in looking at things from angles that are seldom acknowledged.

Now, you could argue that feminists talking about sexism has caused women to distrust men (if one were to, for some reason, assume women on the whole didn't know about sexism until someone told them it existed), but I'd not see that as something to condemn feminism for.

Good points, but to me it reminds me of people who are terrified of sharks or of flying in airplanes. Shark attacks and plane crashes are reported so often that you'd be forgiven if you believed that they happened constantly. But the reality is, very few people are attacked by sharks and air travel is often very safe. Similarly, we're constantly reminded of serial killers and rapists who stalk women and kidnap them only to slash them up later, stories of sexual assault or sexually-driven violence are common. But the reality is that while it still happens, the fear of it is far more prominent than actual instances of it.

Let's not forget, it's not strangers that commit the most rapes, yet it's usually strangers that are under the most scrutiny. Which is understandable, I expect lots of people to be very cautious around people they're unfamiliar with when it's dark and quiet outside. But it grinds my gears when that discomfort is turned into hostility. I know not all feminists are like that and I am extremely thankful for that, but it's a toxic mentality that I see far too often.

And yes I am aware that sexual assault happens more often than shark attacks and plane crashes, I was just comparing them because I think the same mentality is at play. I often hear feminists speak about how they're terrified of rejecting advances from men because they're afraid of being murdered, as if it's such a common occurrence. While it could be argued that I'm directing my frustration in the wrong direction, I do believe that this extreme paranoia contributes to sexism. Not sexism against men, not sexism against women, just "sexism" as a whole.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Good points, but to me it reminds me of people who are terrified of sharks or of flying in airplanes. Shark attacks and plane crashes are reported so often that you'd be forgiven if you believed that they happened constantly. But the reality is, very few people are attacked by sharks and air travel is often very safe. Similarly, we're constantly reminded of serial killers and rapists who stalk women and kidnap them only to slash them up later, stories of sexual assault or sexually-driven violence are common. But the reality is that while it still happens, the fear of it is far more prominent than actual instances of it.

Let's not forget, it's not strangers that commit the most rapes, yet it's usually strangers that are under the most scrutiny. Which is understandable, I expect lots of people to be very cautious around people they're unfamiliar with when it's dark and quiet outside. But it grinds my gears when that discomfort is turned into hostility. I know not all feminists are like that and I am extremely thankful for that, but it's a toxic mentality that I see far too often.

And yes I am aware that sexual assault happens more often than shark attacks and plane crashes, I was just comparing them because I think the same mentality is at play. I often hear feminists speak about how they're terrified of rejecting advances from men because they're afraid of being murdered, as if it's such a common occurrence. While it could be argued that I'm directing my frustration in the wrong direction, I do believe that this extreme paranoia contributes to sexism. Not sexism against men, not sexism against women, just "sexism" as a whole.

I think you're downplaying how common they are there. More or less everyone will know at least one woman who was a victim of male violence. I've a number as FB friends, the only person I FB chatted to today (well, yesterday now) had been raped twice by different people. These aren't people I've met on feminist or rape survivor circles or anything, just people I've happened to become acquainted with during my life.

In any case, IMHO, you seem to have overlooked an important point though, that a female victim will almost always be told that it is her fault that she didn't do more to prevent it. That is, women are supposed to be permanently frightened of men, and act on that fear. Also, that men violence against women is something we are supposed to take for granted.

 

[Dizchu]

I think you're downplaying how common they are there. More or less everyone will know at least one woman who was a victim of male violence. I've a number as FB friends, the only person I FB chatted to today (well, yesterday now) had been raped twice by different people. These aren't people I've met on feminist or rape survivor circles or anything, just people I've happened to become acquainted with during my life.

In any case, IMHO, you seem to have overlooked an important point though, that a female victim will almost always be told that it is her fault that she didn't do more to prevent it. That is, women are supposed to be permanently frightened of men, and act on that fear. Also, that men violence against women is something we are supposed to take for granted.

I'm aware that rape and abuse are common enough to be a concern, but I draw the line at women being expected to have a crippling fear of being murdered by strangers and this fear being encouraged by (some) feminists. I can understand people with past trauma being afraid of strangers, but when people refer to one or two newspaper articles about men that spontaneously murdered women as a good enough justification to consider men "guilty until proven innocent", I can't help but be annoyed. Because as I said before, it reeks of the same paranoia that MGTOW people have because they've read an article or two about how a woman divorced a man and took all of his stuff. It comes off as antagonistic, it doesn't come off as a sincere concern.

I should probably point out that MGTOW is largely built on this paranoia while feminism is not, instead it seems to be a recurring theme rather than the basis of the whole movement. That said, anything that even remotely resembles MGTOW gets under my skin so I probably pay it greater attention than is necessary.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm aware that rape and abuse are common enough to be a concern, but I draw the line at women being expected to have a crippling fear of being murdered by strangers and this fear being encouraged by (some) feminists. I can understand people with past trauma being afraid of strangers, but when people refer to one or two newspaper articles about men that spontaneously murdered women as a good enough justification to consider men "guilty until proven innocent", I can't help but be annoyed.

Er...are you jumping from "being afraid/distrustful of men" to "considering men rapists until proven not" there?

Now, if you mean how, when a rape hits the headlines, feminist tend to assume that the alleged rapist is a rapist, that's different. Though, it is very rare (not unheard of, of course), for a false rape accusation to get very far (excepting when issues of race and so on come into it), it's not an unreasonable assumption for distant people with no particular interest in that particular case. People dealing with it, such as police or jurors, they most certainly cannot take that approach, but for people arguing on the net, it shouldn't be such a concern. Better to be correct, of course, bu being wrong isn't nearly as much of a problem as when the courts do it.

 

[Dizchu]

Er...are you jumping from "being afraid/distrustful of men" to "considering men rapists until proven not" there?

Not quite, allow me to reiterate. It's not about considering men rapists or murderers until proven that they're not, that's a completely different conversation (one worth having too, I reckon). It's about considering men threats and acting as if that isn't just a personal bias and is instead something that they and other men have a responsibility to address. Meanwhile the most common victims of male violence are other men.

Curiously I find a parallel between the aforementioned suspicion of men as a whole from certain women and the suspicion of black men by people of other races (typically white). I see little difference between white guys getting nervous around black men wearing hoodies and women getting nervous around men sat with their legs apart and wearing "scary" apparel of some kind. For the same reason I find it unreasonable to think that all black men have a responsibility to look or act less "thug" to combat the pre-conceived idea that a black man that looks a certain way is more likely to commit crimes, I think that encouraging distrust and discomfort of innocent men is likely to encourage further division.

I think it's fine to be nervous around men or black people or Muslims or whatever group that has a bad reputation in someone's eyes. But it's only fine if the person recognises that it is irrational, not if they somehow try to justify that fear with anecdotes irrelevant to that situation. Because that'd be the definition of misandry, racism and Islamophobia, respectively.

Anyway I feel like this discussion may just go in circles. I appreciate the exchange, as always.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Er...are you jumping from "being afraid/distrustful of men" to "considering men rapists until proven not" there?

Not quite, allow me to reiterate. It's not about considering men rapists or murderers until proven that they're not, that's a completely different conversation (one worth having too, I reckon). It's about considering men threats and acting as if that isn't just a personal bias and is instead something that they and other men have a responsibility to address. Meanwhile the most common victims of male violence are other men.

By comparison, what do you think about "stranger danger", and people who carry concealed weapons in case they are attacked by someone, presumably who will turn out to be male?

In my mind, Schrodinger's Rapist sounds a lot like Jeff Cooper's Condition Yellow.

Curiously I find a parallel between the aforementioned suspicion of men as a whole from certain women and the suspicion of black men by people of other races (typically white).

Putting aside the fact that male violence against women is much more common than PoC against white (in the west), I've seen an excellent rebuttal to this by a black man, but I don't remember the link. The gist of it was that in the case of rape (with people of the same race), the legal system and community will tend to support the rapist. In a case of a black person attacking a white one, the legal system and community will tend to support the victim. For this reason, false rape convictions tend to be when white women accuse black men. Still very rare, but much more common than the other way around.

Women are told that they must protect themselves (as individuals) from men. White people are told that society must protect them from black people. White fear of black people gets black people locked up, shot in the back by police and so on. Women fear of men tends to do little more than hurt men's feelings.

I see little difference between white guys getting nervous around black men wearing hoodies and women getting nervous around men sat with their legs apart

That's a little unfair, "manspreading" wasn't about women being made nervous, it was about people who are annoying on public transport by taking up space and being inconsiderate, and it's more men than women that do this which is telling.

I think that encouraging distrust and discomfort of innocent men is likely to encourage further division.

I'm always a bit wary of that concern, it seems very close to saying that we should ignore the problem because it's uncomfortable to look at, whether or not that is the speaker's intent.

 

[Dizchu]

I see little difference between white guys getting nervous around black men wearing hoodies and women getting nervous around men sat with their legs apart

That's a little unfair, "manspreading" wasn't about women being made nervous, it was about people who are annoying on public transport by taking up space and being inconsiderate, and it's more men than women that do this which is telling.

While I said I would respectfully end the exchange earlier, I think I should clarify this point. There's no doubt that "manspreading" is annoying and causes inconveniences on public transport. In an thread a few months ago about the subject I asked why a viral internet campaign (which involved snapping photos of strangers without consent) was necessary instead of just asking the guy to scootch up a little to make room. The reply I got was that there is a fear that the interaction would result in violence, the man is assuming a position of dominance on the train seat and that apparently makes him intimidating. I wasn't specifically addressing the "manspreading" thing, but rather types of body language that can be interpreted as intimidating.

Also your point about authorities being more lenient on accused rapists in comparison to black men is a great one, however the police tends to be more lenient towards male criminals than female criminals too, probably as a result of the fear that is encouraged of men that you yourself pointed out. My overall point is perhaps an idealistic one (I do fall prey to idealism quite a lot), that gender equality can never be achieved if fear of one gender or another is encouraged (which is where my comparison between MGTOW and some popular feminist ideas came into play).

By comparison, what do you think about "stranger danger", and people who carry concealed weapons in case they are attacked by someone, presumably who will turn out to be male?

I find this to be a troublesome comparison, as "stranger danger" refers specifically to children who lack the initiative and discretion to make the informed judgements about strangers that the average adult can. It also tends to refer to strangers who "make the first move", so to speak. It doesn't necessarily encourage fear of all strangers, only those who approach the child when they're unattended. Unlike children, adult women are not easy to abduct in broad daylight in crowded places.

As far as concealed weapons go, I live in the UK where not even the police are armed most of the time. I'm reluctant to comment on places like the USA where guns are abundant because the playing field there is vastly different. However, I'd be against people carrying concealed weapons in the UK unless it's a repellent like mace. If someone were carrying a big knife or a pistol around in public, I think people would be more scared of them than they'd be of others. Which I guess is the point, intimidation is the most common defence of carrying weapons around in the USA, after all.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The reply I got was that there is a fear that the interaction would result in violence, the man is assuming a position of dominance on the train seat and that apparently makes him intimidating. I wasn't specifically addressing the "manspreading" thing, but rather types of body language that can be interpreted as intimidating.

Ah, ok, not heard that, I'd only seen people talking about it as an attitude problem.

My overall point is perhaps an idealistic one (I do fall prey to idealism quite a lot), that gender equality can never be achieved if fear of one gender or another is encouraged (which is where my comparison between MGTOW and some popular feminist ideas came into play).

Well, yes, that reasoning comes up a lot, but I think it has skipped a few steps. In a perfect, egalitarian world, it wouldn't exists, but its existence is in response to the world not being perfect. Targeting the response, rather than the cause, seems misguided at best. By comparison, programs aimed at alleviating racism that wouldn't exist it racism didn't.

I find this to be a troublesome comparison, as "stranger danger" refers specifically to children who lack the initiative and discretion to make the informed judgements about strangers that the average adult can. It also tends to refer to strangers who "make the first move", so to speak. It doesn't necessarily encourage fear of all strangers, only those who approach the child when they're unattended. Unlike children, adult women are not easy to abduct in broad daylight in crowded places.

True, I should have phrased that better. I meant the way people are told to be wary of strangers in general. "At night, travel near the guard's compartment marked with a blue light" is on signs on trains where I live, for example. Likewise, we had "be alert, not alarmed" some years back.

As far as concealed weapons go, I live in the UK where not even the police are armed most of the time. I'm reluctant to comment on places like the USA where guns are abundant because the playing field there is vastly different. However, I'd be against people carrying concealed weapons in the UK unless it's a repellent like mace. If someone were carrying a big knife or a pistol around in public, I think people would be more scared of them than they'd be of others. Which I guess is the point, intimidation is the most common defence of carrying weapons around in the USA, after all.

Oh sure, I don't like the idea of randoms walking round with concealed weapons, however the criticisms of this tend to be vastly different from women being afraid of men, but the concept seems very similar to me.

 

[carnex]

It is not " irrelevant" or going " sideways" and is in NO WAY a misrepresentation of how women were treated in the time period. To understand why the laws were the way they were and understand the way in which they changed and how the courts ruled, you have to understand their reasoning as was explained by numerous texts from the period. It was considered " beneath men" to do housework or raise children because it was seen as " women's work" and women were considered inferior and subordinate to men. Feminists, whether or not you wish to give them credit for their very hard earned "Bread winner" or " head of household" or " head of family" title were not considered capable of holding such title and have been denied that title throughout western history. A battle that is not yet over in broader society even if the courts now recognize women to be capable of head of household " conservatives" are still fighting to keep it from them:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/making-men-head-household-true-womens-liberation-because-it-makes-life-easier
https://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/can-women-be-heads-of-households/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/women-breadwinners

From my perspective, coming from a Maternal culture where the man takes the woman's name upon marriage, and traditionally women were the primary ones to conduct business and control the economy and control property, their arguments about " natural order" decrying why women should not be the breadwinners comes across as ridiculous, according to them matriarchal societies like the one I come from does not exist. Many numerous societies exist and have existed that have had the woman as the head of family, and this is not a role specifically reserved for " men." The struggle for women to be recognized as such even this day is not over, as many men and women still refuse to acknowledge that a woman is capable as such.


Changing written laws is far easier than having society recognize such things or even have courts rule on such things appropriately due to judges being elected by the community and the judges will be a reflection of what that community values. When you have conservative judges elected by conservative communities that still do not recognize the fact that the woman can be the head of family and breadwinner, they still will not rule accordingly because the idea that the " inferior and weak" woman could be responsible for supporting the " superior" man is so ingrained in society that they cannot grasp the concept that either the man or woman could be the breadwinner and head of family and has to be decided on a case by case basis.

Isn't it great that men can now be expected to change diapers and clean the house too?

You can thank feminists for that! At one time they actually used the idea that men should not do these things as a reason why women should not be able to work or vote. reading what anti feminist conservatives have to say about why women should not be head of household and family, not much has changed I see.

You have to decide on your stance. Either I'm giving women and feminist movement too much credit or not enough (actually I'm giving them as much credit as they earned, a lot of it).

We could discuss position of females and respective expectations for sexes in late 19th century/early 20th century British Commonwealth but that is irrelevant to my claim that feminists, through their activism, got divorce court heavily slanted to the opposite side (to the strict benefit of females). Of your views on roles in family, raising children, general interactions of individuals with the world, and their socioeconomic position, i would have to say that you need some more education. Yes, women had to have guardian, their possessions, depending on time period or circumstances would come under the administration or ownership of family (which meant husband/father in vast majority of cases) etc, but females had way more power than you suggest.

I'm really intrigued buy your statement that you come from Maternal society. I would be very interested to know a lot more about it.

But on the note that you want to change society's view, you can't. Societal view has been changed long time ago. But about the fact that many people still think in the old frame of mind. We agreed that killing is wrong at least from when we had written record, more than 7000 years but we still have a large number of murderers around. Unless you brainwash you can't have hive mind, and even if you could I would be the first to oppose anyone who attempts that. There will always be men who think women are inferior, and vice versa. We are humans, it's all a part of what we are, an individuals.

 

[Thaluikhain]

But on the note that you want to change society's view, you can't. Societal view has been changed long time ago. But about the fact that many people still think in the old frame of mind. We agreed that killing is wrong at least from when we had written record, more than 7000 years but we still have a large number of murderers around. Unless you brainwash you can't have hive mind, and even if you could I would be the first to oppose anyone who attempts that. There will always be men who think women are inferior, and vice versa. We are humans, it's all a part of what we are, an individuals.

I disagree there. People haven't agreed that killing is wrong, they've agreed that murder is wrong, but defined murder very differently. Lots of wiggle room there.

In regards to thinking men and women aren't equal, for many years Irish people weren't seen as equal to other white people. Or Catholics and Protestants. Nowdays those ones have mostly been forgotten in much of the West. I don't see why the disparity between men and women can't fade away as well.