Thursday, March 01, 2007

Do women need building up?

I've written about Brett before. He's the Australian liberal who not only wants to get rid of countries, but even the very concept of countries:

Personally, I would like to see the abolition of the concept of "a country".


Brett also wishes to transcend being human:

I dream of a time when medical technology allows us to transcend the notion of being human ...

I dream of a time when our basic bipedal form, replete with somatotype and genetic heritage means nothing ...


And now we can add to the list Brett's ideas about masculinity. This is a comment made by Brett about OzConservative:

One thing I find amusing is that they lament the end of "the traditional patriachy", which in my eyes was bollocks in the first place.

After all, anyone with a working sense of sight knows that the only real advantages that men ever had are that we're generally taller and stronger than our female counterparts - women have everything else, from being able to multitask to having more senses (most guys don't really do intuition or empathy) to everything else...


So according to Brett the only thing men have got going for them is height and physical strength. He thinks it's obvious that women are superior in "everything else".

Brett made this comment at a feminist site. Did any feminist readers, given their supposed commitment to gender equality, jump in to correct Brett when he asserted female superiority? Not a single one.

So Brett was left entirely unchallenged in making what appear to be self-denigrating comments. His views on men appear to be a species of self-hatred.

If Brett is, in fact, denigrating men what could be his motivation? Perhaps it represents, psychologically, a flight from masculine responsibilities (Brett has confirmed that he has no interest in marrying or having children). Perhaps it reflects a nihilistic view of life. Perhaps it reflects a denatured geekiness (he describes himself, in part, as a geek). Or maybe he thinks it makes good flattery for liberal women.

I have a hunch, though, that there's something else at play. Liberals are committed to a certain ideal of equality, one which implies that all groups are fundamentally the same in their capacities.

Lawrence Auster has already noted that when minority groups behave badly, the response of liberals is sometimes the opposite of what you might expect. Instead of criticising the minority group, they will sometimes move to "build up" the minority group relative to the majority. They might compare their [the minority's] behaviour favourably to the majority, or even blame their behaviour on their treatment by the majority.

This is how some liberals, at least, seek to preserve the appearance of group equality.

So when Brett makes such an unrealistic claim on behalf of women and against men, perhaps the same kind of psychology is at play. It may be that Brett is paying women a backhanded compliment. Perhaps a man who thinks that women need building up in an artificial and exaggerated way, doesn't really accept a natural equality of the sexes.

What seems like self-denigration or self-hatred, might just be a failure to appreciate what women naturally bring to the equation.

This is, of course, speculation on my part. I do believe, though, that men who love women are unlikely to give way in their masculinity in the casual way that Brett does. It is, after all, through our masculinity that we are brought most closely into relationship with women.

68 comments:

  1. Those of us who are comfortable being men really don't want anything to do with Brett. Women who are comforatable being women probably don't either. Brett is reduced to trolling through feminist sites, pumping out whatever bilge they want to hear, looking for any woman who might take an interest in him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So then Mark, please explain. There are 3 valid options:

    1) Men are better than women
    2) Men are equal to women
    3) Women are better than men

    Option 2 is clearly out - you've refuted that as a notion on a number of occasions with statements that are made in derisive tones, for example "are committed to a certain ideal of equality, one which implies that all groups are fundamentally the same in their capacities."

    Option 3 appears to be out as a result of this entry.

    Which leaves option 1. Could you justify this for us? Please? What are your reasons for holding this view?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brett, you've left out option 4.

    4) Men and women are equal, but differ in their capacities.

    There's also an option 5, which I'll discuss soon when I have time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Excellent, Mr. Richardson. Brett shows what Eric Voegelin in _Science, Politics, and Gnosticism_ described as a "pneumopathology", by which Brett "in [his] revolt against the world as it has been created by God, arbitrarily omits an element of reality in order to create the fantasy of a new world."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brett is not "reduced to trolling through feminist sites" - he was reading my blog, as I read his. And FYI, I'm very comfortable being a woman and choose to associate with Brett, so you're wrong on that jaz.

    You've all clearly missed the somewhat tongue-in-cheek nature of his comment, but we'll let that one pass, conservatives not being known for their sense of humour.

    And as for the claim that liberals "are committed to a certain ideal of equality, one which implies that all groups are fundamentally the same in their capacities." - that's absolute complete and utter tosh. Liberals don't believe anything of the sort.

    What we *do* believe is that people - whatever their race, gender, sexual orientation etc - should be given equal OPPORTUNITIES in life. Depending how smart you are, how hard-working you are, what abilities and talents you have - you'll fail or succeed to a greater or lesser extent. But we certainly do NOT think that everyone has the same capabilities.

    Although nor do we think that a person's capabilities are solely determined by the "group" they are part of.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr. Richardson, I beg your pardon for my Southern American (Virginia and Georgia) eruption of loathing of liberalism, I hope it doesn't bring dishonor to your excellent site. I'll leave it in your capable hands to answer the Boilerplate Propaganda from the Liberal Hive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Brett believes, not unlike many liberals, that brains is primary to brawn. He can not accept the obvious, namely, in nature brawn is the primary asset.

    So it seems that in the realm of human relations, men have taken a prominent place in our civilization due to their comparable intelligence and generally superior physical assets.

    rebekka,

    In order for someone to "be given equal OPPORTUNITIES in life," there must exist someone else that can give equal opportunities in life. Does such a person exist?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thordaddy said... "He can not accept the obvious, namely, in nature brawn is the primary asset".

    So if that's the case, Thordaddy, how come gorillas aren't the planet's dominant species? They're a lot brawnier than us.

    Just sayin'

    And it's clearly not a person who gives out the opportunities. When it comes to things like educational opportunities, it's people as a group who give out the opportunities - by doing things like providing a state education system so that all kids get to go to school, even if their parents couldn't afford school fees.

    Of course we've got a long way to go before children actually get the same opportunities, but it's a worthy goal.

    ReplyDelete
  9. rebekka,

    I did not say that brawn was the only asset, but it is certainly required to assert brains in matters of survival and production. There is also no such thing as "brains without brawn" as juxtaposed to the "all brawn and no brains" mantra. The male human being happens to have a exceptional amount of both brains and brawn as evidenced by his superior status amongst mammals. A gorilla may have superior strength and a female human being superior intelligence, but it is the combination of a far superior intelligence in relation to lack of physical strength and far superior physical capability in relation to an equal or superior intelligence that makes man the exceptional species, respectively.

    In matters between male and female human beings, the difference in general physical capability is large enough to have noticeable effects in our society. Why deny this as though it was some kind of conspiracy to denigrate women?

    Man's brawn has saved countless mothers, wives and daughters and it took very little brains to do something so manly.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rebekka, you're wrong that Brett's comments were tongue in cheek. He has expanded on his ideas at his own site, and he's deadly serious in what he says.

    He is seriously asserting the idea that women are superior to men and he's criticising me for not providing a detailed counter-argument.

    But you know this already as you left a comment at Brett's site.

    I note that in your comment you once again fail to take issue with Brett's assertion of female superiority.

    I note too that you continue to criticise me on the basis of a falsehood - that I categorised John Howard and Andrew Bolt as small l liberals.

    Rebekka, this is not the first time I've been criticised - but it is the first time someone has simply fabricated an idea about my politics and then used it as a criticism.

    This is a very odd way to conduct a political debate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am opposed to equality of opportunity. In fact, I intend to do everything in my power to give my children every advantage. I discriminate in favor of my family, friends, Christians, Americans, Southrons.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Equality of opportunity can never result in equality of outcome UNLESS we have things like affirmative action or 'positive discrimination' or quotas, or mandated 'diversity' and 'inclusion.' None of those things would exist if liberals truly believed that equal opportunity was sufficient. If we really believed in equality of opportunity, and accepted the disparities among individuals or groups of people, we would let the chips fall where they may, with the ablest, the best, the brightest succeeding by their merits. Instead, we see program after program pushed by liberals to try to even up the score, to equalize outcome. That implies a lack of faith in individual (or group) abilities to succeed on their own efforts.
    Liberals most assuredly don't stop at simply asking for equal opportunity, but insist on enforced outcomes, regardless of abilities.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rebekka wrote:

    And as for the claim that liberals "are committed to a certain ideal of equality, one which implies that all groups are fundamentally the same in their capacities." - that's absolute complete and utter tosh. Liberals don't believe anything of the sort.

    What we *do* believe is that people - whatever their race, gender, sexual orientation etc - should be given equal OPPORTUNITIES in life.


    Vanishing American has already replied most ably in his comment. I can only underline what he has already written.

    If what Rebekka claims is true, then a liberal society would be happy with differences in outcomes.

    It's not though. If there are more male than female engineers, liberals don't respond by saying "that just reflects the different interests and capacities of men and women".

    Instead, we get a whole series of measures (affirmative action) to "combat" the disparity.

    This is true of both the left and right of the mainstream parties. The left tends to call for quotas or laws to end the disparity, the right for more indirect means.

    So in reality liberals, even those who call for "equality of opportunity", really expect that equal opportunity will create equal outcomes.

    When these equal outcomes don't occur there is much consternation, and talk of "hidden barriers" and the like.

    ReplyDelete
  14. My, my... we have been busy today, haven't we. Starting in no particular order:

    Thordaddy:

    I have to say that I'm particularly disappointed with you. You showed such promise in the other thread and then you trot this lot out.

    "He can not accept the obvious, namely, in nature brawn is the primary asset."

    Leaving aside that if anyone knows what brawn is, it's me, the most obvious point in this is that we don't live in caves anymore, we don't throw stones at mammoths to catch our food. The use of brawn to assert our survival just isn't reality anymore

    And to deflect the predictable allegation of hyperbole, farmers today don't even do a portion of the manual work that they used to do - there is a whole range of mechanical implements which are used today.

    Brawn is irrelevant in the modern world and has been for hundreds of years. Not since we were charging around on the battlefields swinging axes has brute strength mattered for the majority of society. If your opponent has a gun, it doesn't matter how strong you are.

    Cars get jacked with knives, people are killed with guns, pregnant women have their babies cut out while they are dieing on the streets, and thats just what the women do! Male strength and height means nothing today.

    So it seems that in the realm of human relations, men have taken a prominent place in our civilization due to their comparable intelligence and generally superior physical assets.

    Maybe 400-500 years ago... but not any more. The physical side of things just doesn't mean squat anymore. And following on from our previous discussion, will mean even less in the future.

    And I would remind you that statistically, women live a lot longer than men in most 1st world countries. So much for superior physical assets

    Mark:

    you've left out option 4.

    4) Men and women are equal, but differ in their capacities.

    There's also an option 5, which I'll discuss soon when I have time


    I'll look forward to reading option 5, but I don't believe for a second that I'm the only one who though of Orwell in reading this comment:

    All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

    But of course, you've still not answered a single comment I've left, either here in this thread or here. You made a dandy of an error by saying in one breath that I look for equality for all and then in the next complain that I think that women are superior to men!

    And i'll repeat a question I left on my site (tho I suspect that like every other question I've left you, you won't bother to reply):

    If the shoe was on the other foot, meaning that men had traditionally been oppressed by women, do you think you would be fighting for equality*? Or do you think that in that hypothetical situation, that it would be appropriate to just cave in to the matriarchy?

    Maybe you need to think about this a little longer.

    Jaz:

    For starters, Bek and I have known each other for quite some time, so there was no trolling involved. Secondly, while Bek is a feminist, hers is not a devoted feminist site.

    I would understand you making a statement like this if I went to Feministing and for my first ever comment said the same thing, however I didn't.

    A friendly piece of advice: check your facts first.


    * Understanding that when rising from oppression, equality has to come before recognition of superiority

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jaz, your comments are most welcome. I particularly enjoyed your Voegelin quote.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Brett,

    It's interesting that you should so readily dismiss option number 4 - that men and women are equal but in different things.

    You immediately reject the idea as an attempt to mask a real inequality.

    Therefore, you tend to confirm what I wrote in a recent entry:

    "When liberals talk about equality, they usually don't have in mind the idea that people are equal but different. If you were to ask if men and women were equal, it probably wouldn't satisfy a liberal to answer "Yes, but not at the same things." A liberal is looking for an equality in kind."

    Which brings me to option 5. The things which are of most interest to conservatives about men and women aren't really comparable.

    Nor do conservatives believe that men and women have to be justified in their status through attempts to "equalise" what is really incomparable.

    So the whole argument strikes a false note: even the "equal but different" phrase, though closer to the conservative position, still seems unnecessary and beside the point.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm trying to understand the 'tongue in cheek' thing. Is Brett actually doing a Ricky Gervais type mockery of white liberals and their patronising attitudes to gender and race? Is he about to top his "women are superior because they can multitask" with "I love Orientals, they're the hardest workers"?

    ReplyDelete
  18. What's the problem Mark? Why won't you answer the question?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Er, which question Brett?

    The one in which I'm supposed to explain why men are not inferior "in everything"?

    Or the one in which I'm supposed to explain why the whole of human history is not an evil patriarchy?

    I don't think I have to "explain" such things. Any normal man living a normal life will have some sense of what is fine in his own masculine character. Having this sense, he would never think of masculinity as being inferior "in everything" to the qualities of women.

    But then, most men wouldn't make the comparison in the first place. How do you compare, say, the physical beauty and the emotional warmth of women with the more dispassionate emotional strength and reliability of men?

    How can you pronounce one to be inferior or superior to the other? What are the grounds for measuring the equality of such things?

    ReplyDelete
  20. transcend what it means to be human
    there's his problem right there...if he really believes such nonsense, he's a tad unbalanced...what does he want to be, an ant? God?
    the fact is, we are human and even science these days acknowledges the biological differences between the genders, both made to complement each other
    who is he to say that one gender is superior to another? maybe he really does have delusions of being divine

    ReplyDelete
  21. The question was right there in my last comment Mark:

    If the shoe was on the other foot, meaning that men had traditionally been oppressed by women, do you think you would be fighting for equality*? Or do you think that in that hypothetical situation, that it would be appropriate to just cave in to the matriarchy?

    Dee,

    The transcendancy was discussed here

    ReplyDelete
  22. Brett, we both know what is going to happen.

    I am going to answer your question by rejecting the premises it is based on.

    You are then going to stick with your premises and ask me for a direct yes or no answer.

    It is a useless procedure. But I'll go through the motions anyway and see if it turns out different to before.

    I don't believe that what men have done for the past 100,000 years amounts to an oppression of women.

    No doubt there are instances in which women have been treated unjustly.

    In general, though, I think men have made great efforts and great sacrifices on behalf of their families and societies.

    The man who spent most of his adult life working in a factory to earn money for his wife and children is not, in my opinion, best characterised as a patriarchal oppressor.

    Much of the effort of men has had the purpose of creating a comfortable and secure space for women to raise their children in.

    This explains much better the endeavours of men in public life, than the morose feminist doctrine that men are motivated by a will to power over women.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Brett,

    It seems yours is an exercise in futility. A man who trains others pontificating on the irrelevancy of brawn in the modern world. Is this an example of transcending one's human status.

    It seems one has 3 basic philosophies he can live by in this particular argument.

    1. All brains and No brawn.
    2. All brawn and No brains.
    3. Or, adequate brains and adequate brawn.

    I choose to live by the third notion with the understanding that one's brain power can really only be fully utilized with sufficient brawn behind it. I think it is obvious that the combination of brains and brawn has led men in general to be the seemingly dominant sex between male and female. Why get so worked up about something that has nothing to do with oppressing women?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mark,

    Thank you for answering the question. I suspect that Bek will have a lot to say on your comment, so I won't steal any of her thunder.

    Thordaddy,

    A man who trains others pontificating on the irrelevancy of brawn in the modern world

    I assume you're talking about me training others in the gym? If so, then you should be aware that it's their minds that I train - far more so than their bodies. Teaching people that it isn't the weight that's important, but the form used on the exercise, and how variety of exercise (and indeed that variety in and of itself) is what builds muscle, is the hardest thing to teach anyone in this arena.

    Particularly the first part. Take a basic compound exercise like a squat - sure, a lot of people can load it up with 300-400 or even 500 pounds, but doing reps without correct form will not achieve anything - particularly from a bodybuilding perspective. And infact, doing them with incorrect form will increase the liklihood of injury. Form, and not the weight (itself) is what I teach people.

    Ironically, the most fundemental mistake that people make in weight training is thinking that the only way to grow is via hefting around huge weights. Training them not to think this way is very, very difficult

    Yes, the end result of all of this is an increase is size and strength, but as I've said to you before, it doesn't matter how strong you are if your opponent has a gun.

    It seems one has 3 basic philosophies he can live by in this particular argument.

    1. All brains and No brawn.
    2. All brawn and No brains.
    3. Or, adequate brains and adequate brawn.


    While this might be true for you and I, how does this transpose onto someone who's a quadraplaegic? Or someone with cerebral paulsy? It doesn't.

    [...]understanding that one's brain power can really only be fully utilized with sufficient brawn behind it

    I think that Stephen Hawking would disagree with you on this. And I rather think that senior practioners in a lot of martial arts would disagree too.

    Why get so worked up about something that has nothing to do with oppressing women?

    Again, I think I will let Bek reply to this. I have no doubt she will have plenty to say about it...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Feminist thinking wants us to adopt a ’theory”. When it doesn’t ‘naturally’ work in the world (ie. Between men/women) – then they want us to change our innate natures and sexuality/responses. Usually it’s the men that try to mould themselves into anything that they ‘think’ women want. (ie. SNAGs, metrosexuals, etc)... without much success.

    Historically, the differences between the sexes were made apparent (& celebrated) in a co-operate nature that made the union of man-woman a favorable notion. They relied on each other, and therefore were much more conscious of co-operation with another person. That is, were aware of more than just ‘themsleves’. (ie. Their partner, children, community, etc)

    Not just the ‘ME’ nature of feminist principles.

    BRETT SAID:
    “Yes, the end result of all of this is an increase is size and strength, but as I've said to you before, it doesn't matter how strong you are if your opponent has a gun.”


    True, though the important point however, is that when it comes to the relations between men & women, technology doesn’t help very much. Yes, we have technology, but I doubt that a woman gets the same out of her technological relationship with her vibrator as she does with a man. Technology can make tasks (or functions) easier for people, but to equate the human condition (like love, family, etc) to an ‘execution’ is reducing the meaning of relationships. If that is what you believe, then I’m sure you like the idea of ‘arranged’ marriages of some nationalities…..no?

    Most women wouldn’t find a feminist-redefined masculinity that requires them to ‘protect’ their man (even with a gun) ‘appealing’. They expect a man to do it. It’s a masculine syntax that goes hand-in-hand with their physical one. If men & women aren’t required to ‘love’ each other – then I might agree with certain feminist thinking. But since that is the overriding drive between men/women, then I’m forced to look at the world in more realistic ‘workable’ terms.

    Parenthetically, I can’t make love to a blowup doll (no matter how ‘life-like’ it is.).
    I can’t think of technology beyond it’s (usually) singularly ‘designed’ purpose.

    Also, the bodybuilders who represent the pinnacle of the sport (men or women) can only achieve it with greater levels of testosterone. Something (naturally) found in greater supply in males.

    It seems to me that it comes down to many women being brainwashed into thinking that, the more they pretend to be men (or make laws to pass themselves off as equivalent to them) – that they will achieve ‘some’ type of male power that men are denying them. Albeit being convinced that the things that gave women their own power (motherhood, wife, birth, family, etc) is ‘insulting’ to the potential of what a woman could be if she could just prove herself to match it with the ‘fellas’.

    And once she enters male domains – she wonders ‘why’ men see little femininity in her TO be attracted to.

    To all the feminists out there. Listen up.

    Most heterosexual men don’t find a ‘masculine’ character coming from a person sexually appealing. That’s WHY men aren’t ‘threatened’ by a ‘ballsy’, ‘confident’, ‘successful’ women. It’s that there is nothing ‘there’ for them to like. Just like a man’s ‘physical’ body is meant to ‘fit’ into the opposite of a woman’s body – so too do our natures desire the ‘opposite’.

    Men & women have strengths in different areas.

    Women won the right to ‘equal opportunity’ (in a very LEGAL way) almost 40 years ago. The fact that women have not made a very big dent in the ‘male’ dominated world has more to do (in my opinion) with a woman’s nature to follow (or have drive in a certain field), than any so-called oppressiveness from men.

    Feminists simply look at men dominating a field and conclude that they’re purposefully ‘excluding’ women from it by their interest and work in that field. You don’t see many men bitching (and I mean ‘bitching’) about the lack of ‘mens’ shoes in a department store compared to women’s? We don’t care.

    Nor should we.

    It’s childish.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thordaddy said:

    "Man's brawn has saved countless mothers, wives and daughters and it took very little brains to do something so manly."

    I'd remind you that man's brawn has also seen the raping and killing of countless mothers, wives and daughters through 'masculine' endeavours such as war and tribal conflicts. And you're right - it's taken very little brains to do something so 'manly'.

    Mark, you say that men and women are equal but with different capabilities. I accept that I don't have the physical strength of some men, and I know some men don't have the nurturing instinct that I have. But the way you speak about men and women clearly demonstrates your real beliefs on equality. You say they are equal but different, but it's this difference that you take to mean 'more capable' and 'less'.

    You say that men and women are equal, but you mean in theory. Clearly, the attributes you take to be specifically 'feminine' (raising children, domesticity, supporting men emotionally) aren't ones that you prize particularly highly. Everything you say clearly indicates you believe men are better than women, more capable, more self assured - more able to fulfil the role of protector.

    I think it's sad that none of you 'masculine beasts' can acknowledge just how strong women have had to be over the last millenia in order to fight off the thuggishness of men who've sought to oppress them physically and mentally.

    bobby.n - Well done at reducing the entire issue of patriarchal oppression to whether or not men have options in a shoe store. The respect you demonstrate for women is so glaringly absent as to be laughable.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It’s only laughable to most women (such as yourself) – because any male viewpoint that doesn’t flatter your feminist fantasies is seen as misogynist, hatespeech, woman-hating, etc.

    I wish some of you women would understand that viewpoints and relationships involve TWO people. It’s NOT just the female viewpoint that must prevail.

    It’s really no wonder that in relationships where a feminist mindset prevails, that women do indeed find themselves feeling alone.

    You’re not right just because you’re a woman Audrey.

    Putting down male comments with juvenile attacks like “masculine beasts” gets a little tiring on the ears. Really - most feminist arguments seem to amount to nothing more than name calling.

    Audrey said:
    “Well done at reducing the entire issue of patriarchal oppression to whether or not men have options in a shoe store. The respect you demonstrate for women is so glaringly absent as to be laughable.”


    I was making an analogy Audrey. Perhaps I should have made an analogy concerning men’s sports vs women’s shoes – so you wouldn’t feel so bad. You skimmed everything I said and focused on a point that made you’re (strong, independent female-ness) feel bad.

    I swear, I don’t understand how you feminists expect to be taken seriously when every issue must pass through your ‘feeling’ filter.

    You don’t see a lesson – you only see a punishment. You don’t want facts – you want a story with a happy ending.

    It really is not wonder that the gulf between men & women is widening and many men have given up, when all we hear is ONE allowable viewpoint in a syntax that should include two.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mark,

    "Rebekka, you're wrong that Brett's comments were tongue in cheek. He has expanded on his ideas at his own site, and he's deadly serious in what he says."

    Ok, having just discussed this with Brett, he may have been saying women have superior *abilities* but he was not seriously arguing that women *are* superior, no matter what you may think from reading his blog. Like me, Brett believes that that people have some inherent worth just as *people*, that's separate from their abilities or achievements, and doesn't actually have any basis in gender, or race, or culture or anything else other than humanity itself.

    The difference between arguing for superior abilities rather than superiority is clearly illustrated by the fact that Brett does not believe it is any more wrong to murder a woman than to murder a man. If there was an inherent difference in worth, clearly murdering a woman would be more wrong than murdering a man. So if you want to argue with Brett that women don't have superior abilities to men, go right ahead. I'll sit that one out.

    "I note that in your comment you once again fail to take issue with Brett's assertion of female superiority."

    Yes, that's your argument if you want to have it. I was arguing with you, not with Brett.

    "I note too that you continue to criticise me on the basis of a falsehood - that I categorised John Howard and Andrew Bolt as small l liberals."

    You didn't specifically refer to small-L liberals, but you used examples of things they had said as typical of the liberal viewpoint, in the sense of the philosophy, not in the sense of Large-L Liberals, which refers to members of the Liberal Party of Australia. Whether you used the specific term or referred to them that way is not the issue. You were using things they had said as examples of liberalism, when Howard is actually the most conservative Prime Minister we've had in a very long time, and Bolt's attitudes can't possibly be classified as liberal. Not with a small L.

    As for this "I don't believe that what men have done for the past 100,000 years amounts to an oppression of women" - words fail me.

    And this "If what Rebekka claims is true, then a liberal society would be happy with differences in outcomes.

    It's not though."

    See, if we *actually* had equity of opportunity, of course we'd be satisfied with unequal outcomes. The problem is, we don't and we're a long way off it. At least Jaz was honest enough to acknowledge what the true conservative position is - "I am opposed to equality of opportunity. In fact, I intend to do everything in my power to give my children every advantage. I discriminate in favor of my family, friends, Christians, Americans, Southrons".

    It's always been about clinging to priviledge and resisting everyone else having the same opportunities that you and your clan do - but seldom does one find a conservative willing to admit it. Refreshing.

    The problem is, if you and I are coming from places so different that you think women have equal opportunities to men, and that Bolt and Howard are liberals, there's just no point having a discussion because we utterly reject each other's premises - there's no way to reach a common understanding. So I'm going to stop wasting my time.

    ReplyDelete
  29. According to Audrey I don't really view men and women as equal because:

    "Clearly, the attributes you take to be specifically 'feminine' (raising children, domesticity, supporting men emotionally) aren't ones that you prize particularly highly. Everything you say clearly indicates you believe men are better than women, more capable, more self assured - more able to fulfil the role of protector."

    Audrey, what this comment of yours implies is that you yourself see the male protector role as superior to the feminine role. Therefore, unless I view women as protectors, I am treating the feminine role as inferior.

    If this is what you do mean, then you are putting women in a terrible position. You are saying that unless women prove themselves in a traditionally masculine role, that they are condemned to inferiority.

    This would confirm a point made by Bobby in an earlier comment:

    It seems to me that it comes down to many women being brainwashed into thinking that, the more they pretend to be men (or make laws to pass themselves off as equivalent to them) – that they will achieve ‘some’ type of male power that men are denying them. Albeit being convinced that the things that gave women their own power (motherhood, wife, birth, family, etc) is ‘insulting’ to the potential of what a woman could be if she could just prove herself to match it with the ‘fellas’.

    I notice that Bobby was criticised at Bek's blog for making this comment, but you are apparently confirming Bobby's observations.

    Audrey, the feminine role is basic to society, and it is also at the centre of our intimate personal lives.

    The whole point of men having a protector role is to create a space in which the feminine role can flourish.

    Why would men bother to take on a protector role, if they didn't see the feminine role as being important enough to be worth defending?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Audrey, I addressed this question a few years ago (see here).

    Let me quote the conclusion I drew back then:

    "Think of it this way. When a man's instincts are strongest, he is likely to perceive the love, beauty, grace, tenderness and charity embodied in a woman as being at "the heart of things" - as being core human values.

    He will also, though, perceive these feminine qualities of women to be soft and vulnerable. He will want to use his harder, tougher masculine qualities to defend what he believes to be at the core of human life: to create a protected space in which the more fragile feminine qualities can survive and be made manifest.

    This basic task of men, however, creates its own significant values, such as the courage and loyalty demanded of men in the physical defence of their communities, or the wisdom and impartiality required in the formal, public governance of a community.

    Furthermore, it seems to be given especially to men to love and appreciate what is best in the feminine nature of women.

    Who then is better? Women who embody core human values, or men who are made to love and protect these values, and who create their own masculine values in doing so?

    The answer surely is that it makes no sense to declare either to be superior. Neither would exist without the other. And anyway, the healthy attitude is to be so engrossed in our own masculine or feminine identity that we wouldn't want to exchange what is best in our manhood or womanhood.

    For this reason alone, the attempt to place either sex in rank cannot serve a useful purpose."

    ReplyDelete
  31. Audrey, you wrote also in your comment that:

    I think it's sad that none of you 'masculine beasts' can acknowledge just how strong women have had to be over the last millenia in order to fight off the thuggishness of men who've sought to oppress them physically and mentally.

    Again, I wonder about the implications of what you are claiming.

    You are setting men and women apart here. Men, in your view, haven't spent centuries working to support women, but have thuggishly oppressed women.

    Meanwhile, women have shown their virtue by resisting men.

    Obviously, I don't think the picture you are presenting is an accurate one.

    What's worse, though, is that it's a destructive belief. No society can survive when women take such an extreme view.

    A society requires that men and women work together for a common purpose. This can't be achieved if women view men as their historic enemy.

    I find it interesting, Audrey, that you should so casually advance beliefs which can only be disruptive and demoralising to your society, and then at the same time stake a woman's claim to equality on the basis that they too can fill the protector role.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mark,

    He will want to use his harder, tougher masculine qualities to defend

    And thus, we come back to my original statement. Men are the brutes who use our limited traits -size and strength.

    In your own statement, you've listed at least 5 abilities for women, compared to the 2-3 for men. In terms of women, this is not an exhaustive list, as I would include their much greater sensory perception, multitasking, intuition etc as other abilities that are either more abundant in women than in men, or don't exist at all in men.

    As Bek said (referenceing my statments), in terms of abilities, women come out on top.

    Q.E.D. Thus it is so.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Audrey, what this comment of yours implies is that you yourself see the male protector role as superior to the feminine role. Therefore, unless I view women as protectors, I am treating the feminine role as inferior."

    It doesn't imply anything of the sort. It implies that i think YOU firstly hold the role of protector to be of paramount importance and that you secondly ascribe this role to the domain of men.

    Further, I don't work against men. I have lots of men in my life that i love and respect - they don't hold antiquated beliefs like yours though which ascribe to women fiddle faddle attributes like delicacy, vulnerability and fragility. The women I know are not only strong, opinionated and intelligent, but they aren't some kind of Hollywood version of femininity - when they cry, they go red and snot streams down their faces. When they yell, they spit, when they laugh they sometimes guffaw. Your idea of womanhood and femininity is not only ridiculous, but you assert that any woman who DOESN'T claim to have or want these attributes is somehow a rabid feminist that's damaging the natural world order.

    What rot.


    Further, your statement:

    "This basic task of men, however, creates its own significant values, such as the courage and loyalty demanded of men in the physical defence of their communities, or the wisdom and impartiality required in the formal, public governance of a community."

    seems to imply that you believe it is men that should hold positions of public power - tell me Mark (and forgive me if I'm wrong), but do you hold that ancient view that the man must be in charge because there can only be one captain of the ship, man is great, man is wise, man is able to protect etc etc etc blah blah rot?

    The problem, Mark, isn't that feminists are destroying the world - you have a very particular idea of what a feminist is, and it's quite clearly rooted in the more radical streams of second wave feminism. Feminists are all different, and third wave feminists have entirely different priorities to the women that have gone before them. Perhaps the reason that women don't want to marry in their 20s isn't because they're busy spreading it around while they're young, but because they've yet to find a partner that a) intellectually stimulates them; b) actually wants to commit to a marriage; or c) doesn't actually have any interest in traditional paths for women ie marriage, children, housework, death.

    I'd also suggest to Bobby.N that perhaps the reason no women ever wanted to commit to him when he was in his 20s was because he inherently sees them as live in maids and bedfellows.

    ReplyDelete
  34. AUDREY SAID:
    “I'd also suggest to Bobby.N that perhaps the reason no women ever wanted to commit to him when he was in his 20s was because he inherently sees them as live in maids and bedfellows.”


    This is what I mean about feminists. Rather than putting forth a reasoned argument based on the topics being discussed, they revert to character assassination. I’ve heard it all before Audrey. Is Bobby Gay? Was Bobby abused as a child? Why does Bobby hate women?

    It’s evasive of the topic. It’s defensive because feminism is indefensible.

    It’s also predictably boring to observe that it is automatically I who was not commited TO in my previous relationships. You need not know the personal details of my private life Audrey (though I know gossip is like heroin to feminists) – but I will say that I have been engaged twice in my life, and in both cases it was the females who ‘wanted’ to commit to me in marriage, but their characters weren’t worthy of being wive’s (well not to me anyway) – let alone the ‘mother of my future children’. So it was I who didn’t commit to THEM Audrey.

    They wanted me more than I wanted them. Unless of course they lied.

    AUDREY SAID:
    “I have lots of men in my life that i love and respect - they don't hold antiquated beliefs like yours though which ascribe to women fiddle faddle attributes like delicacy, vulnerability and fragility.”


    Good for you - you ‘undelicate’ thing you.
    Friends are one thing, though I think Mark was talking about the personal relationship in marriage. Have all the friends you want Audrey. Old fashioned guys like us would rather have one special fermale to devote ourselves to exclusively, rather than “lots (men/women) … in my life that I love & respect”.

    What I see around me (and is confirmed by the declining marriage rate) is people with ‘lots of friends’ (and short-term relationships), because they want to remain independent. The whole point of marriage is that you’re NOT independent.

    If feminists like you want to have all these friends, lovers, etc – in their pepetually independent lives – then FINE. Just stop blaming men for you’re choices. If you disagree with the antiquated notions (like old-fashioned marriage) – then stop trying to convince us that you feminists are ‘worth’ that sacred pact. Because your not. It’s not that men don’t get it – it’s that we don’t buy it.

    Have your independence ladies.

    You’ll have it when you’re 70 too… Enjoy.

    AUDREY SAID:
    “Perhaps the reason that women don't want to marry in their 20s isn't because they're busy spreading it around while they're young, but because they've yet to find a partner that a) intellectually stimulates them; b) actually wants to commit to a marriage; or c) doesn't actually have any interest in traditional paths for women ie marriage, children, housework, death.”


    Do you seriously believe that Audrey? Do you believe that women in their 20s (when most fertile & attractive) can afford to wait until they’re less-fertile and less-attractive?

    More likely, women ‘settle’ for men in their 30s+ because ‘time’s running out’. Let me re-itterate something I’ve said before:

    For a feminist in her 30s+ who: Refuses the traditional role (cooking, cleaning), Her looks fading, Fertility fading/gone….. then why would ANY sensible man choose her above a younger women?

    If she offers little (or nothing much at all) – then why wouldn’t he remain single or choose a younger, prettier, more fertile girl with a less-feminist inclined disposition? ESPECIALLY when at the age of 30-40, his interest in sex isn’t as important as it was as when he was in his 20s. Women aren’t as important (romantically or sexually) to men then anymore – LET ALONE a beligerrant feminist. They can whine (and pass laws all they want) – but no man’s going to freely CHOOSE them. Feminists can advertise all the Viagra to older men to ‘artificially’ make us ‘excited’ over you – but it’s a pretty unbecoming affair for the elderly to reduce themselves to ‘sex’.

    Is that all that feminism has reduced men & women to?

    Feminsits sold you on the idea that a JOB (renamed ‘career’ to fool you) was the road to happiness. Women used to stay at home (& without a child), could get the housework done in a few hours and spend the rest of the day on anything they chose. Now you women have to get up earlier for work (because women need longer to get ready), travel to work, work an 8+ hour day, travel home, THEN do the housework. EVEN if the man does half of it.

    All feminism has done to women is made their lives HARDER.

    And just add ‘children’ into that equation, and you’ll have even more work. Think about it.

    Stop blaming men for your choices. You feminists think that men went to work and watched money grow on trees? Exactly WHAT kind of power/fun do you think we got out of a JOB?

    We WORKED for our families at home.

    Now you girls have to do more work than ever. You’ve ‘oppressed’ yourselves.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Usually it’s the men that try to mould themselves into anything that they ‘think’ women want. (ie. SNAGs, metrosexuals, etc)... without much success."

    What ahistorical nonsense. "Usually"? How usually? When? At what period in history (snags, metrosexuals etc are largely media inventions of the last few years). What about the thousands and thousands of years before that.

    "Feminsits (sic) sold you on the idea that a JOB (renamed ‘career’ to fool you) was the road to happiness. Women used to stay at home (& without a child), could get the housework done in a few hours and spend the rest of the day on anything they chose. Now you women have to get up earlier for work (because women need longer to get ready), travel to work, work an 8+ hour day, travel home, THEN do the housework. EVEN if the man does half of it."

    Middle class fantasy. Women have always worked. It was a real treat for the girls back in the late 19th century working in those factories.

    For other women, well, it only took a couple of hours to look after ten kids, wash by hand, cook, clean, possibly have other involvements in the community or the church.

    God, you boys are sad and uninformed.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I SAID:
    “Now you women have to get up earlier for work (because women need longer to get ready), travel to work, work an 8+ hour day, travel home, THEN do the housework. EVEN if the man does half of it."


    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    “Middle class fantasy. Women have always worked. It was a real treat for the girls back in the late 19th century working in those factories.”


    In what numbers though? Men FAR outnumbered women workers in that era. By argument of feminists, women were ‘oppressed’ at home…. So which is it?

    Or is the argument, that women are oppressed whenever they have to 'lift a finger'?

    Is that it?

    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    "Usually"? How usually? When? At what period in history (snags, metrosexuals etc are largely media inventions of the last few years). What about the thousands and thousands of years before that.


    For Pete’s sake.
    I was talking about the more ‘recent’ period. I was pointing out that since Feminism has come into full-swing (more-so legally since the 60s/70s) that men do try and mould themselves around that which women ‘say they want’ men to be.

    As I said….without much success.

    Even in these times, when men are portrayed as over-sexed buffoons – it’s interesting to note that men STILL aren’t telling women to ‘change’ or ‘whining’ about what women aren’t.

    That seems to be all we hear from the female side of the population. Women won all their desired ‘rights' decades ago, and things are getting progressively worse for them. Why? How can it still be men’s fault?

    Pointing to ‘glass-ceilings’ is a copout. Women have (supposedly) “made it”. There are ‘laws’ to ensure that women DO make it. But very few of you (in a true sense of fulfillment) do. And your reason for this still resides in an invisible historical (and theoretical in my opinion) oppression that you’ve already overcome decades ago.

    It reminds me of insecure females who cry “He doesn’t love me enough” or “It’s his fault” – no matter what the guy does/doesn’t do. You want something ladies… then work for it. Otherwise stop pointing fingers at men for your willful choices that have gone wrong.

    You can’t hate men into loving you.

    Be what you want to be – but don’t expect everyone to like it.

    You’ve got your rights. You’ve got your precious careers. You have everything you’ve asked for…. only as time goes on, your less & less happy.

    You figure it out. We can’t. We are (apparently) – the problem.

    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    God, you boys are sad and uninformed.


    Nice try, but doesn’t work anymore thesedays.
    (Allow me to return the favor)

    Putting men down, to supposedly make us acquiesce to you – doesn’t work any longer, now that you ‘broads’ can (supposedly) match it with the boys.

    “Boys”?, “Sad”? – why are we sad? Because we have antiquated notions of relationships? If so, you have nothing to worry about. There are a majority of feminist men out there who think exactly as you do.

    You’ll do fine sweetheart.
    Don’t worry your pretty little head about it.

    Bobby.N


    PS: In case that went over your confident, intelligent feminist heads – The last part returned your favor.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Bobby,

    I'm stunned. I can't believe I just read all of that. I'm speechless....

    Oh, wait. No I'm not.

    ReplyDelete
  38. ANONYMOUS SAID...
    “Like, you know, whatever.
    Bobby N, if that's your real name, go get f**ked. I mean really honey, you need it.”


    And there you go.
    Nothing I could say could ever embarrass a dull mind as much as their own ineptness. And we let women like you vote?

    PS: And BobbyN IS my name….. ‘anonymous’. Thanks for the laugh though. Perhaps you should have written the word ‘like’ before ‘whatever’ you rocket-scientist, you..


    And to BRETT:

    If an antiquated opinion of male-female relations coming from a man ‘stuns’ you Brett, I’d suggest that you don’t read a minority viewpoint such as mine. In fact, don’t read any literature pre-dating the feminist boom.

    As I said – almost all the other media you’ll encounter will flatter your feminist sensibilities. So, don’t concern yourself with any viewpoints that render you ‘speechless’.

    As for your Blog entitled ‘Hate’, I’d say it’s misplaced. I never said I ‘hated’ anybody. YOU don’t like my opinions of how I (as a matter of individual preference) see the relations between the sexes as working/not working.

    I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again.

    You feminists (far from being about ‘diversity’) – will NOT tolerate any viewpoint unless it flatters feminist ideals. Whose more liberal here? (in fairness)... you or I?

    And your whole (so called) ‘dismantling’ of my arguments on marriage don’t work.

    Women are the one’s who dream about marriage. Women are the ones who buy all the ‘bride’ magazines, Women are the one’s who (most often) have to get a guy to commit. The notion of ‘snaring’ a man (ie. “He’s a catch”) – is a phrase women use, because (maybe) he’s trying to get away.

    Women are the ones (on the whole) obsessed with marriage.

    If you’re argument is that even marriage is outdated, then women should stop pushing for it. Don’t you think?

    Either women are willfully stupid in desiring something that is (in your eyes) outdated…. Or they don’t need it, in which case they should stop trying to ‘catch’ men.

    YOU SAID…
    “Sure - women are built to concieve and give birth to sprogs, but there is more to life (ha! There's the pun :P) than just that. Why shouldn't people (men and women) be able to get out and about and experience the world?”


    People can do what they like, but if you do it for too long, and biology catches up to women (and they find it hard to get men to like them as they did when they were ‘experiencing’ the world) – then one cannot blame men for their lack of interest in an older women as opposed to a younger one.

    It’s about ‘choice’ – remember ladies.
    Mine too – NOT just yours.

    YOU SAID…
    “And as for that last statement, I would happily choose an older woman who was more mature, knew more about herself and the world than someone who knew nothing about either, and I would do it in a second. Feminist or otherwise. “


    You give many anecdotes/scenarios in your post, and try and prove some kind of ‘truth’ by stating what YOU like, and what I (supposedly) like. To you that would seem like ‘dismantling’ an argument – to me it’s seems more like subjectivity.

    Ie. What YOU like & I like has little to do with it.

    Why can’t you feminists contribute ‘objectively’ – without focusing on the poster’s character or subjective likes/dislikes. Just because you have a set of ethics, doesn’t mean others have those same ethics.

    The only reason you’re ‘amased’ or ‘shoked’ at my ideas, is that you’re unwilling to see any viewpoint other than your own. If that’s the case, I’d really appreciate feminists being honest about their lack of diversity.

    Instead, you’re ‘hurt’ by anything that makes you ‘feel’ bad. Even if what is said was not directed to you (the individual), but to a “topic” of gender, race, etc.

    You can’t see beyond your own narcissism. The more I hear feminists insisting that I’m wrong because… well, just because they don’t like my thoughts on a TOPIC - the more I wonder why some men tolerate you at all.

    Thesedays, women aren’t looking for love, reason, or honesty anymore.
    They’re looking for mirrors.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  39. I deleted the last comment by anonymous. I'm happy to have robust debate, but no crude language please.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I does make one wonder why feminists get so 'shocked' at non-feminist ideas, though find no problem indulging in language that would better be suited in prison, or a truck-stop... all the while wanting to be taken seriously?

    What is & isn't shocking in their standards is truly amasing.


    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Instead, you’re ‘hurt’ by anything that makes you ‘feel’ bad. Even if what is said was not directed to you (the individual), but to a “topic” of gender, race, etc."

    Noooo. We're 'angry' by things that 'offend' us. There's a big difference. Even the language you use demonstrates a general patronising viewpoint of women and their ability to intellectualise and express ugly emotions like anger and hate. Consider the following two modes of femininity that are played in movies:

    a)Women don't really cry, they sniffle - they certainly don't sob and get snotty and red faced
    b)Women are 'cute' when they're angry, negating their entire right to be angry humans at all

    Can you understand why real women might be angry about these kinds of representations? Often, traditional images like these (which have been perpetuated throughout this thread in the form of ideas like women only wanting to get married and have babies, women being vulnerable, women having a delicate sort of humanity etc) are so decidedly unnatural that they place women on a pedestal reserved for porcelain dolls.

    The reality is that women aren't porcelain dolls, and they experience exactly the same kinds of emotions and reactions that men do. Yet, when we've expressed anger about certain viewpoints, Bobby has simply patronised us as a collective attempting to cope with our 'hurt feelings'.

    Further, I'm unsure as to why you've contradicted yourself Bobby. You claim that women are desperate to lead the single life and have men conform to the way they want life to be, yet you turn around and declare they are the ones who are desperate to 'catch' the men and get married. Which is it? Is it that they're desperate when they're 30 because they've been too busy having fun in their 20s?

    I disagree.

    Women aren't interested in settling down in their 20s because the whole of society has experienced a shift in responsibility. Generally, PEOPLE in their 20s are less responsible these days than they were even 30 years ago. People live longer, they have more options when it comes to work and family, the country has opened up to tourism and travel outside and people are beginning to realise that their lives are far more malleable than they've been in the past. THis isn't the fault (if it's a fault at all, which I don't believE) of feminism - it's a societal change that has occurred as a result of the complex intertwining of the Depression, the baby boomer generation, education and advancing fields of technology and globalisation. To claim that feminists have therefore destroyed the 'options' of younger women is simply wrong, even if you DO take the stance that marriage and babies are ideal.

    You claim that feminists reduce arguments to name calling Bobby. This may sometimes be true, but you have resorted to name calling throughout this entire thread - name calling, and gross generalisations. You speak of women as if they were one large army, yet you contradict yourself by ascribing differing beliefs here and there. Personally, I consider the accusation of wanting to 'catch a man and get married' to be very offensive 'name calling'.

    Brett is perfectly correct in calling you out on relationships versus marriage - it has been proven that just because people are no longer getting married, doesn't mean they aren't co-habiting for years and creating families together.

    You claim that older feminists are ruining it for the young women out there by filling their heads with ideas that will only hurt them in the long run. AS a young feminist, I can tell you these two facts:

    1. Almost half the women of my acquaintance have no interest in having children, ever, so for them your argument is moot.
    2. Many young women distance themselves from feminism these days because of negative connotations perpetuated by both hardcore radical feminists and the media who seeks to wilfully misrepresent them in favour of a sex positive attitude. However, I guarantee you that if you suggested to any of these young, non feminist identifying women that they take up the old tools for cooking and cleaning in the home, they'd administer a swift kick up the jaxie before you could even utter, 'he deserved it'.

    And that, my friend, is the truth of the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "I does make one wonder why feminists get so 'shocked' at non-feminist ideas, though find no problem indulging in language that would better be suited in prison, or a truck-stop... all the while wanting to be taken seriously?

    What is & isn't shocking in their standards is truly amasing."

    Again with the gross generalisations! Neither Bekk, Brett nor myself have resorted to swearing at all - how can you therefore sweepingly talk about 'feminists' the way that you do?

    It's simply bad logic and poor argumentative skills Bobby.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I see bitterness and anger in the feminists. It's understandable: women really pay a heavy price for the sexual revolution. Irresponsible men are the beneficiaries (short term).

    The feminists, however, compound the problem with their solutions, which are still based in Enlightenment Liberal thinking, which thinking led to the sexual revolution to start with. It's Liberal Enlightenment thinking that needs debunking.

    ReplyDelete
  44. ------------------------
    AUDREY SAID:
    “We're 'angry' by things that 'offend' us. There's a big difference. Even the language you use demonstrates a general patronising viewpoint of women and their ability to intellectualise and express ugly emotions like anger and hate.”

    ------------------------

    Your just proving my point Audrey. Even though Im talking about ‘women’ (in general, & NOT you personally), you won’t hear any opinion other than one that is flattering to you ‘personally’. If I’m trying to explore ideas (and not individuals) why would I care about how you ‘feel’? Im not talking about you.

    Understand?

    Feminist (and I’ll be charitable with the term here) reasoning, seems to require ideas to have to pass through a subjective ‘feeling’ filter before it’s an acceptable topic of conversation.

    ------------------------
    AUDREY SAID:
    The reality is that women aren't porcelain dolls, and they experience exactly the same kinds of emotions and reactions that men do. Yet, when we've expressed anger about certain viewpoints, Bobby has simply patronised us as a collective attempting to cope with our 'hurt feelings'.

    ------------------------

    ‘…exactly the same kinds of emotions and reactions that men do” – Are you serious? Let me give you just a few basic constructs where men & women differ substantially:

    1. Love/Romance
    2. Children
    3. Sex
    4. Hobbies/Recreational time

    There are almost infinitely more… but you get the idea. You can’t tell me both men & women ‘feel’ the same about these.

    ------------------------
    AUDREY SAID:
    Further, I'm unsure as to why you've contradicted yourself Bobby. You claim that women are desperate to lead the single life and have men conform to the way they want life to be, yet you turn around and declare they are the ones who are desperate to 'catch' the men and get married. Which is it?

    ------------------------

    I never did Audrey. ‘Read’ my post properly. I said feminists are desperate to lead a single life, while ‘at the same time’ wanting men also. It’s the modern ‘Have-it-all’ mentality that women seem to think is possible. Your point is ‘perfectly made’ – TO WOMEN. Which.Is.It? My point is they have to choose. They can’t have it all. Which was my point about older feminists finding it harder to have children or get married. They didn’t choose correctly IF children were important to them. You can’t have it all.

    Well put Audrey…. Which.Is.It ladies?

    Actually, you ended your paragraph well with…

    “Is it that they're desperate when they're 30 because they've been too busy having fun in their 20s?”

    Observably (and statistically- not to mention biologically) true. Individual personalities may not be desperate, but they will find it much harder.
    ------------------------
    AUDREY SAID:
    Women aren't interested in settling down in their 20s because the whole of society has experienced a shift in responsibility. Generally, PEOPLE in their 20s are less responsible these days than they were even 30 years ago. People live longer, they have more options when it comes to work and family, the country has opened up to tourism and travel outside and people are beginning to realise that their lives are far more malleable than they've been in the past.

    ------------------------

    Like I said before… fine. Have fun – but feminists need to stop whining and blaming others for their decisions to ‘have fun’ at their ‘fertile’ times in their younger years, and then point the finger at men when they are unsuitable because of their infertility. (ie. If men want to marry and have children, then those women are irrelevant as marriage material.) If it’s just about companionship – then people can choose and be with whoever they wish. I have no issues with that at all.

    Put simply: Your insecure about non-personally directed topics.

    ------------------------
    AUDREY SAID:
    You claim that feminists reduce arguments to name calling Bobby. This may sometimes be true, but you have resorted to name calling throughout this entire thread - name calling, and gross generalisations.”

    ------------------------

    Name one instance where I attacked an individual with name-calling? I made comments on groups, genders and concepts. If YOU get sensitive (and ‘define’) name calling as me making a comment on a group (and because YOU identify with that group) you ‘feel’ offended, then that says more about you’re lack of objectivity in discussing concepts that should be important to you (because you identify with it) – than any ‘general’ comment I make on that group.

    Are you saying that I am only permitted to discuss your interests on ‘your’ terms, and with your feminist approved language? Next you’ll be telling me that you’re offended by my disgust at coffee simply because YOU love it! Even though ‘your’ not the coffee.

    Furthermore – since the topics of Gender/Relations are much more important that coffee, we should be able to discuss them openly. Even agree to disagree if you don’t like a stance. But people labeling my ideas as ‘hate’ – because I disagree with theirs, is childish & reflective of a Dictatorship. (eg: “Think/Do what I want, or your banished.” – seems to be your motto.)

    Like I said. So much for ‘diverse’ feminists.

    ------------------------
    AUDREY SAID:
    You speak of women as if they were one large army,

    ------------------------

    Not army – ‘Gender’.

    ------------------------
    AUDREY SAID:
    Brett is perfectly correct in calling you out on relationships versus marriage - it has been proven that just because people are no longer getting married, doesn't mean they aren't co-habiting for years and creating families together.

    ------------------------

    Firstly, Brett didn’t ‘call’ me on anything. His responses were based (like you) on how my ideas make him uncomfortable. And then he proceeded to describe how ‘shocked’ he was about it.

    Secondly, (As I said) – people can do what they want. I’m not making ‘rules’. Your choices to get married/not get married – are your own. What I am arguing is what seems to work. Historically (and statistically with marriages today) – the old-fashioned way worked better for marriage. If people are fulfilled in their lives NOT having ‘old-fashioned’ marriages, then good luck to them. But Stop.Complaining.About.Your.Choices.

    I’m not ‘telling’ you what to do.

    Understand?

    ------------------------
    AUDREY SAID:
    “AS a young feminist, I can tell you these two facts:

    1. Almost half the women of my acquaintance have no interest in having children, ever, so for them your argument is moot.
    2. Many young women distance themselves from feminism these days because of negative connotations perpetuated by both hardcore radical feminists and the media who seeks to wilfully misrepresent them in favour of a sex positive attitude. However, I guarantee you that if you suggested to any of these young, non feminist identifying women that they take up the old tools for cooking and cleaning in the home, they'd administer a swift kick up the jaxie before you could even utter, 'he deserved it'.

    And that, my friend, is the truth of the matter.”

    ------------------------

    There’s the ‘me’ factor again.

    I can tell you these two facts

    Do you realize how you sound Audrey? You claim ‘facts’ because of what ‘you’ believe’. Try again.

    Feminist don’t ‘identify’ with feminism for two main reasons anymore.

    (1) All feminist’s main ‘rights’ we passed through law. (Abortion, Affirmative Action, Ect,) (2) Men don’t tend to like dating feminists.

    While most women paint feminism as illusory, and don’t identify with it – it’s interesting that most women these days allow feminism (and it’s laws) to speak for them in social circumstances & relations. It seems to me rather disingenuous to NOT identify with a legal socio-political doctrine that gives women concessions and the so-called power they have now.

    ------------------------
    AUDREY SAID:
    Again with the gross generalisations! Neither Bekk, Brett nor myself have resorted to swearing at all - how can you therefore sweepingly talk about 'feminists' the way that you do?

    ------------------------

    *Sigh*
    Ok, I’ll say it slowly this time.

    ‘Anonymous’ swore at me. She’s a feminist. Most feminists resort to character assassination. If I resort to assassinating the character of feminism, its nothing about YOU personally. Understand? Why is it always about precious ‘you’?

    What my comment was demonstrating, was that my ‘ideas’ (while not directed personally) seem to offend you feminists – while ‘anonymous’s’ swearing is not offensive to your team at all.

    An interesting point that went completely over your heads. As usual, it’s always about how ‘you’ (personally) feel about any topic that isn’t directed at ‘you’ personally.

    ------------------------
    AUDREY SAID:
    It's simply bad logic and poor argumentative skills Bobby.

    ------------------------

    Just because you say so Audrey, doesn’t make it so. It’s similar to you feminists calling me a ‘woman’ hater because I don’t agree with feminism. Because I don’t flatter you. Because all I care about is what tends to work better for a society. You can argue all you want about how feminism works for ‘you’ personally – but your missing the larger societal points. The future thinking. The proven past.

    I’m not thinking about myself purely on these issues.

    I have no interest in marriage – though can see what tends to work in marriages (based on proven history, family experiences, literature, biology & morality - as opposed to the current mess). I have no children – but can think outside my own interests to see whats better for children. I’m content in my life. I have no self-interest what-so-ever in wanting women ‘to change’ for my ‘personal’ sake. I don’t care what women do (in my self-interest) because I no longer care about them romantically.

    Unlike you – I’m trying to think about larger working concepts.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  45. Correction to my point above where I said:

    "Not army – ‘Gender’."

    I should have said:

    Not army - 'group'

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Your just proving my point Audrey. Even though Im talking about ‘women’ (in general, & NOT you personally), you won’t hear any opinion other than one that is flattering to you ‘personally’. If I’m trying to explore ideas (and not individuals) why would I care about how you ‘feel’? Im not talking about you."

    This is rubbish. It's like saying "Black people are criminals" and then not understanding why a black person is upset, and saying to them "Why are you upset? I wasn't saying you personally are a criminal, I was talking in general terms".

    When you say "Most feminists resort to character assassination", you're making an assertion with absolutely no proof - something which ironically you've just accused Audrey of ("Just because you say so Audrey, doesn’t make it so")- passing off your personal opinion as though it's a fact.

    Just because you said so, Bobby, doesn't make it so.

    Of course we as feminists get angry when someone attacks our hard-won rights. It's nothing to do with being bitter, as jaz laughably suggested - we're not bitter, we're HAPPY we have rights and choices, and we're HAPPY that the men in our lives are utterly unlike all of you. What's to be bitter about??

    Of course no matter what we say, you're going to keep believing that we're all old, dried up husks of women who blame men for not being attracted to us because we wasted our 20s not popping out sprogs (rather ironic, since Auds *is* in her 20s and I'm happily in love with my partner), who can't argue logically and don't think about larger concepts, and that we're trying to turn men into "snags" or "mirrors". That's fine, all I can say is thank goodness you're in the minority.

    And now I really *am* going to stop commenting, because the bad spelling, lack of logical argument and debating of straw feminists is really annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  47. This is rubbish. It's like saying "Black people are criminals" and then not understanding why a black person is upset, and saying to them "Why are you upset? I wasn't saying you personally are a criminal, I was talking in general terms".

    This is an invalid comparison.

    Feminism is a school of thought, not a condition of birth. It can be changed. Race can't.

    You could cease to be a feminist just by thinking differently. A black person will always be black.

    now I really *am* going to stop commenting, because the bad spelling, lack of logical argument

    Just admit it. You are losing and are abandoning the field.

    ReplyDelete
  48. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REBEKKA SAID:
    “This is rubbish. It's like saying "Black people are criminals" and then not understanding why a black person is upset, and saying to them "Why are you upset? I wasn't saying you personally are a criminal, I was talking in general terms".

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Aside from Maximus’ observation about race, I’d add that you’re comment, Rebekka, is just exaggerating for effect.

    If I DID say ‘black people are criminals’ I'd be implying that the majority of them are, which I don't believe at all. In that case you’d have a point. I never suggested a ludicrous notion such as ‘feminists are criminals’ either. If I were to say that ‘black people (in the US) were good at basketball’ I think that could (as a whole) be ascribed as a relatively correct statement, since a great majority of them are because of the sports immersion in their culture. It doesn't mean that 'all' of them are. The same goes for my description of feminists. When I say 'feminists', I'm describing the majority. The personal attacks that 'most' seem to indulge in when addressing me, is indicative of their inability to address the difference of opinion 'rationally'. So they resort to the only thing they really know..... 'emotion'.

    Of course each.and.every person who is a feminist has different characteristics – but ON THE WHOLE, feminists tend to have the same ‘overall’ beliefs and ideals, that it's a relatively true statement to describe them under one umbrella.

    Similarly, I could say that “Guys like cars”, or “Guys are sexually motivated”. Whether I am like the ‘majority’ of men bears little on the fact that MOST ARE like the stereotype.

    Like I’ve already stated – I have the ability (unlike feminists) to objectively think about a topic without ‘feeling’ it first.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REBEKKA SAID:
    “When you say "Most feminists resort to character assassination", you're making an assertion with absolutely no proof - something which ironically you've just accused Audrey of ("Just because you say so Audrey, doesn’t make it so")- passing off your personal opinion as though it's a fact.

    Just because you said so, Bobby, doesn't make it so”.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Stop ‘looking’ for a ‘win’ – and start reading my words. I said most. Again, read my previous point about describing ‘groups’.

    Do you girls ever take the mirror away?

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    REBEKKA SAID:
    “…you're going to keep believing that we're all old, dried up husks of women who blame men for not being attracted to us because we wasted our 20s not popping out sprogs (rather ironic, since Auds *is* in her 20s and I'm happily in love with my partner)”

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Again - I couldn’t care less about you. I don’t care whether you’ve found comfort in you personal lives. I’m not talking about me either. I’m talking about the declining marriage rate. The media & women continually complaining about the ‘lack of men’ or the lack of ‘chivalry’. The complaints of infertile women in their 30s, 40s and beyond that are alone.

    I’m addressing ‘society-wide’ concepts. The 'majority' of concerns we hear from women, families, etc.

    What you like, or have, doesn’t ‘prove’ anything about solutions for cultural as a whole.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  49. rebekka says, "It's always been about clinging to priviledge and resisting everyone else having the same opportunities that you and your clan do - but seldom does one find a conservative willing to admit it. Refreshing."

    The Soulless Equality Machines of Liberalism are shocked that I prefer my own children over others.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jaz, don't be daft - of course you prefer your children to anyone else's. But I imagine you also expect them to enjoy the same opportunities as everyone else, which was precisely Bekk's point.

    If indeed you do only care that your children have opportunities and everyone else be damned, I think that's extremely sad.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Jaz,

    What you're describing is commonly referred to as cronyism and is commonly understood to be one of the reasons for the asian economic crash in the late 90's.

    One of the major problems with cronysim is that it's fine for your friends, but it's no good when someone who isn't your friend holds all the power. Then, those in favour of cronyism tend to complain about things like favourism, lack of transparent processes, and generally things being unfair.

    Cronyism is a problem - not a solution.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Actually I would favor my children first, then friends, fellow churchmen, neighbors, townspeople, countrymen. In expanding concentric circles, my concern decreases the farther away they get. For example: regarding opportunities for Iraqis, I don't give a flip. They shouldn't have any in my country.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Actually I would favor my children first, then friends, fellow churchmen, neighbors, townspeople, countrymen. In expanding concentric circles, my concern decreases the farther away they get

    Yep - that's cronyism all right.

    For example: regarding opportunities for Iraqis, I don't give a flip. They shouldn't have any in my country.

    Yep - that's racism all right.

    ReplyDelete
  54. brett can't stand the fact that someone somewhere might discriminate against someone for any reason. That I favor my family: that's cronyism. That I favor my fellow Americans: that's racism. brett in fact advocates a totalitarianism of equality, labelling my natural behaviors as some kind of moral disorder. I resist sending my family to die for the Tibetans, or Palestinians, or Darfurians, or Zimbabweans, or whomever the liberals are wailing and gnashing their teeth over? _I_ have the moral problem! I guess I don't have the moral capacity to bleed over every human's problems, and to drain my resources, denying my family, to help them. Pray for me!!

    ReplyDelete
  55. No Jaz, there's no need to get defensive. You're entitled to your opinions, but you need to be willing to wear the ramifications of those opinions, and be willing to have others apply them the same way to you.

    If your child gets beat up at school by another kid because that kid doesn't like the race of yours, then you'll need to wear that. And if you're denied a promotion at work because the boss decides to give it to their kid instead, then you have no ability to complain about it.

    If you're happy with that, then there's no problems with you holding your opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "I resist sending my family to die for the Tibetans, or Palestinians, or Darfurians, or Zimbabweans, or whomever the liberals are wailing and gnashing their teeth over?"

    Do you agree with the war in Iraq jaz? I'm just curious because you say there shouldn't be any Iraqis in your country. I'm unclear on this - why not? The Iraqi people haven't done anything against America. Remember that America went into Iraq first on the basis of finding WMDs and then on the trumped up excuse of 'liberating' its people. Either way, there was no mandate to invade based on the Iraqi people's behaviour towards America. So I'm just curious as to why you don't want any of them in your country.

    Which, by the way, is racist. You can paint it any way you want - you have the right to view your family, friends, countrymen etc any way you want. But blindly disliking a race of people based on assumptions is nothing but ignorance and is also, might I add, highly unChristian. I doubt God would be very impressed by you.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I do happen to be agin' the war in Iraq, it's a war of aggression. I have no problem with company owners hiring whomever they want for whatever reasons they have. If it's a badly run company I'll go elsewhere.

    Iraqis don't belong here, they're not American citizens, and they're from a completely alien culture and religion. Islam is an enemy of the West. I don't want those Fifth Columnists in my country.

    I'm wondering why, on Mr. Richardson's fine site, where he gets 1 or 3 comments per post, you liberals have decided to come in here and try to scrub our minds? Enlightenment Liberalism is the thoroughly dominant ideology of the West, what's a few fringe reactionary traditionalist radicals to you?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Audrey,

    You wrote:

    of course you prefer your children to anyone else's. But I imagine you also expect them to enjoy the same opportunities as everyone else

    It's meaningless to talk about opportunities in this way.

    Opportunities to do what? To live within an intact national tradition? To fulfil their manhood or womanhood?

    If we want our children to have such opportunities, we have to take care to uphold the larger social entities and the forms of culture on which such opportunities depend.

    But this requires us to discriminate, where necessary, in favour of particular social entities and forms of culture.

    Cronyism isn't a necessary form of discrimination. You don't have to have cronyism, as a method of selection for public office, to uphold the larger social entities.

    As for not caring about others, it's a bit much to ask Jaz that he acts to uphold both his own country and culture, and those he isn't so closely connected to.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I think it is telling that brett makes the "racism" and "cronyism" charges. I will do him credit and assume he is not being casual or careless about it. But having enumerated some typical duties and responsibilities of a man, he finds them to be racist and cronyist. This is telling.

    In lieu of our natural and God-given affections and duties (which are in my soul), brett might lay out for us a more correct way of arranging our lives, one in which we must treat everyone absolutely equally. This is why I created the tag, Soulless Liberal Equality Machine. I think early in this discussion I was right in quoting Voegelin on pneumopathology.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I think it's also telling, that the current feminist mess of supposed 'equality' between men & women has dislocated the bond & reciprocal co-operation that the sexes once had.

    The amount of discussion (& hostility) that encompasses these gender topics today is indicative of the mess we're in. Why are feminists still angry when they've won everything?

    On one hand feminists/liberals are saying that we're on the right path (but "there's a long way to go"), but on the other hand the dislocation between men & women is getting worse.

    "A long way to go"?..... yeah, maybe back in the opposite direction.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  61. One thing that I have noticed is how astute the "progressives" are to the defining qualities of conservatives and traditionalists while holding a parallel understanding of liberals and feminists effused with ambivalence and ambiguousness.

    Throwing off traditional notions, these "progressive" necessarily ASSERT their "truth" while being mired in an ideological and moral uncertainty.

    We are to accept their reality while they have doubt as to what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  62. You say that men and women are equal, but you mean in theory. Clearly, the attributes you take to be specifically 'feminine' (raising children, domesticity, supporting men emotionally) aren't ones that you prize particularly highly. Everything you say clearly indicates you believe men are better than women, more capable, more self assured - more able to fulfil the role of protector.

    Priceless! Let's suppose Audrey is right and men do not value feminine characteristics as highly as masculine ones.

    The question is, why should we care?

    I look after my 4 kids and homeschool. Lots of men look down on me for that. These days, lots of women look down on me too. But the fact is, I choose not to give a shit.

    Why do we need men (or anyone) to be forever "affirming us in our ok-ness"?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Lyl, well said, although I find it hard to disentangle Audrey's statement.

    The fact is that I do prize feminine qualities in women highly. The only evidence Audrey offers that I don't is that I think men should fulfil their traditional role of protectors.

    To me this implies that Audrey herself thinks the protector role is somehow superior to the feminine role. But she denies that she holds to this belief.

    So I'm at a loss to explain Audrey's statement.

    ReplyDelete
  64. We are to accept their reality while they have doubt as to what it is.

    Thordaddy, this is an interesting thought. Progressives when challenged about negative developments in society do often adopt the defence that they are all over the place and therefore can't be held responsible for what has happened politically.

    But you're right that a weakness of this defence is that it undermines their own credibility as agents of "reform".

    ReplyDelete
  65. "The only evidence Audrey offers that I don't is that I think men should fulfil their traditional role of protectors."

    As I already explained Mark, I don't believe men should fulfil the role of protector. I was suggesting that this is what you beleive and that you prize being a masculine 'protector' above the feminine qualities YOU claim that women possess.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Hopefully I can restrain myself from just out-and-out nailing everyone (need some survivors to tell the tale).

    As many of you may (not) know, I joke about "calling out" and "nailing" people, but this one is true. All you Feminazi fools out there have been called out. Got that? Second, the nailing has pretty much been done by yourselves, so my role here is fairly limited (still itching for a fight though).

    Anywhoo, I don't see gender. I've moved beyond that. I don't see age, race, or gender, aka ARG. For me, there's no reason to limit ourselves as "men and women", "white and black", "old and young" unless we've an absolutely need to. Instances include restrooms (because no one really wants that...), senior citizen discounts (no young people should get half-price meals), and Kanye West (what song hasn't he used such self-depreciating lyrics in?).

    As there is no gender or race (from the Architecturalist's point of view (Architecturalism is my home-grown religion. Eat it Christofascists!)), this entire discussion doesn't exist to me. But, I'll play along because I've got 12 hours to kill here.

    Women (if they exist. I wouldn't know, since everyone refers to me as "sir" and my wife as "Chris"), should decide between two things before they embark on their "life journey of fun and adventure" (the "Splendiferous Zeppelin Escapades of someone who isn't Filliam H. Muffman"?).

    They must either decide to have children, be a feminazi entirely, and stop feeling sad whenever society tells them they should have at least tried to do something that didn't solely benefit themselves. The other option is to be a decent, hard-working, traditionalist who accepts the Truth that as you get older, your sex appeal pretty much dies, and that you shouldn't try to change this basic Fact and re-write human instinct (someone who has gone that long without a long-term relationship (ie never been married or even engaged) probably has something terribly wrong with them, so of course 99.99999999% of normal people will ignore them/shove them out of the way for someone not insane).

    I feel (because thinking means you value facts above anything else) that feminism was once a good idea, but that you shouldn't have turned it into a religion. It was all good and well when it was about saving poor old Sally Shut-in who wanted to get out of the house and gather some sense of self. However, it all went downhill whenever Sally decided that being "me" meant promiscuous sex, irresponsibility in relationships/life, hating men, despising the idea of a long-term relationship (the feminazi idea of a "long-term relationship" is one that lasts past a the initial "shock and awe" of having met someone new. They all believe that men (should they exist. Just because I'm called "sir" doesn't make me a man. I might just be very ugly) are disposable and not worth much of anything), and generally being the biggest secular progressive you can be.

    In all reality, that's all most feminazis are, secular progressives who don't realize that they're harming the group dynamic that is humanity. They don't realize that we're all in this together, and that I'm pulling for you (all). All they see is "what about me? Me, me, me!" (especially if you're named Marcia). They refuse to grow up and accept that there are approximately 6 billion other people in the world who live here. 6 billion people who think that their perverted view of the "world" applies only to people who ultimately are only children.

    Now, realize that feminists != femninazis. However, feminazis = feminists.

    Feminists seem to be the better of the two. They whole-heartedly look for the betterment of society by furthering the equality between the genders (if they existed). They don't care who's better, they just want us to be equal in capacity, though not necessarily in ability. Let's face it, most women (again, not sure if they exist) couldn't lift bulky items like men (should they exist) can. Further, most men (should they exist) couldn't understand what the climactic end of a romantic movie really means (some women (were they to exist) couldn't).

    So, really, the ideas you're all furthering here are insane. It's like saying a scientist and an artist must have equal skill and precision in both crafts. Someone who is devoted to a structured, organized world cannot function on par to someone who is devoted to an abstract concept. Sure, there are scientists who paint, and sculpters who study geology, but most don't. When people choose to operate according to their best abilities (rather than on attempts to improve their worst abilities), we all benefit. What good is it for everyone to be a physicist? What of a painter? We all can't be the same, so stop trying to make us the same.

    Equal opportunity is a good idea, but like others have said, the liberal elite force equal results, not equal opportunities. All this Federal aid goes towards improving conditions for minorities, in the hopes that they will be on par with those who naturally had advantages. All good and well until we start punishing those with the natural advantages, labeling them as "elitist" and "unfair".

    Like I said, feminism was better when it was an idea, not a religion. So was the Democrat Party (Republicans too, but to a lesser extent. We're at least unified in our ideas and have been like this since inception).

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.