comments_imageCOMMENTS: 69

Behind Sweden's Gender Lines

Since one of Sweden's best-known feminists pronounced that 'men are animals' in May, the country has struggled to redefine gender equity.
August 30, 2005  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
A new graffiti has appeared on the streets of Stockholm, Sweden. "Men are animals," it says.

The slogan has become a symbol of a heated debate in this country over why full gender equality has not been achieved despite decades of legislation promoting it.

"There is an anger," says Hanne Kjoller, a columnist for the newspaper Dagens Nyheter. "The things we have achieved, we achieved them years ago."

The "'men are animals' controversy," as its known here, exploded onto the front pages of newspapers in May, after Ireen von Wachenfeldt, a government official who is one of Sweden's best-known feminists, was featured in the Swedish Television documentary, "The Gender War."

At the time, von Wachenfeldt was head of ROKS, the national network of shelters for abused women, which is a government institution. A reporter on the program noted that the organization had printed excerpts of the "SCUM Manifesto."

The "SCUM Manifesto" was published in 1983 by Valerie Solanas, a radical U.S. feminist previously known for attempting to assassinate Andy Warhol in 1968. In the book's title, SCUM stands for the Society for Cutting Up Men. Within its covers, Solanas calls on women to "destroy the male sex," arguing that medical science made it possible to give birth only to females and without the aid of males.

The Swedish TV reporter, Evin Rubar, asked von Wachenfeldt about the statement from the manifesto: "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."

"Is that your standpoint?" Rubar asked. "Yes, it's my standpoint," the director said. "That man is an animal?" the reporter said. "Man is an animal," von Wachenfeldt said. "Don't you think so?"

The documentary sparked fierce reactions across the country. Some women's shelters have left the national network in protest, and von Wachenfeldt resigned in the midst of the controversy. But her remarks opened a national discussion on the topic of women's equality.

A Model of Equality

The assertion that "Man is an animal" might seem out of place in Sweden--a country that has been a model of sexual equality--where society sees it as an integral part of the egalitarian ethic of its welfare state.

After the women's liberation movement took off in the 1970s, the Swedish government passed laws mandating equality in every aspect of public life and even some aspects of private live. The government prohibited violence against women, required salary parity for men and women in similar jobs and gave men and women the right to equal parental leave. In the 1990s, Sweden's government became the first in the world where half the ministers were women. Earlier this year, Sweden was ranked the most gender-equal country by the World Economic Forum.

But being first in the rankings is not enough, say feminists. Women still earn on average only 71 percent of what men earn, and some studies--though these are disputed in feminist circles--suggest that domestic violence is a larger problem than widely believed.

"There has been a strong women's movement here that has achieved a lot," said Lotten Sunna, Stockholm-based spokesperson for Feminist Initiative, a new empowerment movement that is focused on putting feminism even higher on the political agenda. "But that has also led to a false belief that we have reached equality, that we are there, and as a result of that things are starting to back up again."

Women Not Prioritized
Sunna argues that the current Swedish political establishment does not prioritize women's issues. That's the case, she says, even though Prime Minister Goran Persson has labeled himself a feminist, 45 percent of Swedish parliament members are women and most national political parties have made feminism part of their political platforms.

"It's the politically correct thing to say, that I'm a feminist," Sunna said.

In its gender-gap ranking, the World Economic Forum praised Sweden's liberal society and welfare provisions. It said that because of them, Swedish women "have access to a wider spectrum of educational, political and work opportunities and enjoy a higher standard of living than women in other parts of the world."

Nevertheless, Feminist Initiative's platform describes Sweden as a country that is dominated by a "patriarchical power structure." It says women are discriminated against, subjected to violence, exploited in the labor market, under-prioritized in health care and receive a smaller proportion of welfare benefits.

"We grew up believing that we would actually be equal to men," said Sunna, who was a teen in the 1970s. "Swedish women get very angry when you discover that that is not the case."

In a recent survey directed by Eva Lundgren, a sociologist at Uppsala University in Sweden, 46 percent of women say they've been victims of some form of gender violence in their lifetimes. Lundgren's methodology has been criticized, however, for having too broad a definition of gender violence. Government data puts the number at around 12 percent.

Still, Sweden's leaders have long made efforts to achieve equality, at least on paper. Back in 1974, the government officially renamed "maternity leave" as "parental leave," and gave both parents the "right" to share in a government benefit that now guarantees 13 months of paid leave. Since 1975, abortion has been legal, and quotas striving for equal representation in local and national government and public institutions have been around since the 1980s.

Men Have Changed

What can hardly be disputed is that Swedish men have changed. Men now take on average 17 percent of the government-guaranteed parental leave, according to the national statistics bureau. In 1974, men took zero percent. Nowadays, it's not at all unusual to see men pushing baby strollers along the sidewalks and playing with their children in the playground during working hours.

Stephan Mendel-Enk is author of a book on masculinity, With an Obvious Sense of Style, that has been praised by feminists. He says Swedish men take parental leave because the government has made it economically feasible. Societal prejudices remain, he says.

Still, the question remains why full equality remains so hard to achieve in a country like Sweden, particularly in the workplace. Rebecka Edgren, who writes for Stockholm-based Mama Magazine, says most Swedish feminists--like their counterparts in other countries--have long put the burden of empowerment on women themselves. But several years ago, things changed. "When the feminists started to look at men instead of women . . . a lot of men got upset," she said.

Edgren says many men feel particularly threatened because the demands now being made by feminists, such as requiring parents to take equal amounts of parental leave, will force them to make even more drastic changes to their lifestyle and career.

Comments out of Context

After the "Gender War" documentary, von Wachenfeldt denied the assertion in the show that the government agencies dealing with women's issues are dominated by radical feminists, and accused Rubar of taking her comments out of context. But other feminists questioned her and the domestic violence numbers put forward by Lundgren, who was also interviewed in the program.

Hanne Kjoller wrote in one of her columns that "the group of feminists that Lundgren belongs to have an ideological and economic interest in portraying abuse of women as normal male behavior."

Author Mendel-Enk says the result of the documentary was to reinforce notions that Swedish government agencies dealing with women's and equality issues are led by people with extremist ideas. "Many men had this idea all the time, but now they got some supposed proof for it," he said.

One man who didn't feel that way is Michael Ericsson, who on a recent Sunday was biking along the Gota canal in rural Sweden with his teen-age son. When asked about the "men are animals" controversy, he said it doesn't affect his happiness with the "50-50" arrangement he and his wife have regarding cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the kids.

"It's not my problem," he said, then mounted his bike and continued on the 30-mile trip that he and his son take every weekend.
Jerome Socolovsky is a journalist based in Madrid.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email


Comments are closed-

davy
Posted by: davy on Aug 30, 2005 12:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is interesting to hear of a woman who has met every single man in the world.

Or as they say in the jargon of our times, "maybe she is not making informed choices."

Or can you imagine if a male goverment official said that about women?

Sheeeesh

Davy Jones Scotland

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Humans are part of the animal kingdom.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Aug 30, 2005 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I am horrified by *her* meaning, which seems to be male inferiority. Guys, that's not feminism. That's just evil under an excuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Sexist Feminism (Sweden)
Posted by: toblo on Aug 30, 2005 3:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, I've been worrying about this for a few years now, and it seems my fears are becoming reality; that the arrogance and sexism of the mainstream (swedish) feminist movement might be creating a backlash against feminism in Sweden.

-If men in sweden lose their sympathetic view on feminism; if the feminists cry wolf a few times to often, and alienate the men by constant insults.. what will happen then? Feminism and female equality in sweden will take a great step backwards, thats what.

It Is upsetting to get blamed for everything any other man does (which will happen to a man pretty soon if he chances to speak to a regular swedish feminist); it also seems extremely sexist to me. But I guess this is the way of things - regarding such an inherently emotional subject, the most extreme and irresponsible people have an advantage in climbing to the top and getting their message of hate out; and accepted as the norm.

(Thank you for an interesting on-line magazine, BTW!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» an inherently emotional subject Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

An American Feminist`
Posted by: michele0726 on Aug 30, 2005 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting article. It once again brings the subject to the fore. One of the most important points, from my perspective, is that this is not an easy issue. There are few human concerns that have easy answers and that can be solved quickly. Of course it is a complex issue that needs to be addressed again and again. Just like any issue that I deal with as a person, it takes work and time. Equality is complex, just as being a person is complex. I was active in the feminist movement in the 1980's. I served on the board of the local chapter of NOW as the political liaison. I found that, as with most groups, there was diversity. I helped to escort women into clinics, looked at the voting records of those wishing to have our support, attended debates, and marched. I did not agree with anyone about everything, but I did support the struggle to understand. What I got most from it was that I needed to understand my own stand on feminism. I needed to connect with that part of me that is feminist. I continue to find what is most important for me as a feminist is to be open and honest. Blaming others is never the answer. Looking at the facts, without looking for a scapegoat, is very important. Empowering others to be comfortable with my power is also important. I find that when I am most comfortable with my power, others are as well. The point I am trying to make is that some of what I have discovered as a result of looking within myself I have discovered what I need to be comfortable with myself. Then others can choose to be comfortable with me or not, it does not change who I am.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Heh, irony
Posted by: bettsoff on Aug 30, 2005 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men do not have a monopoly on assholic behavior. Von Whatshername illustrates that well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

whatever4
Posted by: whatever on Aug 30, 2005 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It's not my problem,"

The last sentence of the article. Says it all. Issues of equality for women hurt men in an uncountable number of ways, but yet, though they are by vast numbers the predators, and females of all ages the victims...it's not his problem.

Until he (they all) realize it's just as much their problem...their male culture...nothing will change. Women are the victims, and so, we can hardly be blamed for the actions of so many men. We can hardly do much of anything, but be born into this culture. This culture. Any culture? Are there any that don't have this problem?

Pervasive

IF the victimization cannot be stopped in a civilized society...it is not civilized.

And women should abandon it.

We need a place to go, to be healthy and safe. Where cooperation and civility are realities, and not all face time, lip-service, fair-weather-friends who think it's "not their fault" and so it's "not their problem"

It's not your problem. But it is ours.

And in that, all your faces look the same...when you stand together...as a group believing our concerns to be "silly", the numbers we quote untrue, the stories, no matter how horrible, to be "isolated"...wishing we'd just all shut up.

Some of you enjoy making us shutup. Too many of you. YOU. Not us.

Not OUR problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: whatever4 Posted by: RudiTuzla
» RE: whatever4 Posted by: toblo
» I'm sick of radical feminism Posted by: chomsky

Comments are closed-

Bad logic
Posted by: melissa999 on Aug 30, 2005 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I like the idea of women becoming more empowered, the logic behind "men are animals" is ridiculous.

Basically, it's like saying, child abuse is common. Therefore, parents are animals.

It seems that violence against women is a horrible consequence of living in a patriarchy. More drastic measures need to be taken against perpetrators, and there needs be a better understanding of why violence occurs, so that we can prevent it.

Some men have changed and we need to credit them, so that others will want to do the same. Calling people names is really pointless.

I'd like to see more creative ways of dealing with this, like having victims name their abusers publicly with signs and pictures, much like Megan's Law, where known offenders are labeled and pointed out. One of the problems is that women are usually acquaintances or family of the offenders, so naming them is actually more stressful for the women than simply letting it go.

This is a sad effort.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

It's another version of the blame game
Posted by: InvisiblePimpernil on Aug 30, 2005 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women like to blame men for their lot in life. That makes life easier, because that gives them an excuse for failure. If you ask a mental health specialist about it, they will tell you that failure to accept personal responsibility is sociopathic behavior. And a lot of women engage in it. It's a survival technique. Wouldn't that make them animals too?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» divorced women Posted by: Olympiada
» Most relationship conflicts Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: ealistic Acceptance of Responsibility Posted by: Frumkinlovesmoney
» frumkinlovesmoney Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

We're ALL animals, but that's no excuse
Posted by: CrystalD on Aug 30, 2005 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time someone refers to men (or indeed humans) as animals, I brace myself for some cockamamie evo-psycho rationalization.

Yes, we are all animals, men and women alike. And so what? That doesn't excuse violence. As Scott Peck put it, "Human nature is to go to the bathroom in our pants." And somehow we learn to use the toilet, and no-one - not even Richard Dawkins - would suggest that we just drop our pants and take a dump wherever. We do all sorts of things that are "not natural" - we cook our food, wear clothes, and live in air-conditioned houses. So any "it's natural/we're animals" excuse for violence won't wash.

The notion that men are somehow naturally violent "Demonic Males", espoused by a strange alliance of radical feminists and right-wingers, is noxious. I, a feminist, expect more of men than that. I EXPECT men to be kind and caring. I EXPECT men to not use violence in their relationships. I think it is the worst form of male bashing AND anti-feminism to not hold men to the same standards we hold women. After all, men and women are both from Earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Regardless of what you expect... Posted by: decembrist

Comments are closed-

what's wrong with being an animal?
Posted by: lutragrrl on Aug 30, 2005 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By definition, all human beings are animals. We are mammals and primates - and what's wrong with that?

This points up some insufficient offering of context in this article. How did Sweden's "best known feminist" mean her remark? This is not clarified though she is quoted as saying it was taken out of context. What is it that she was actually saying - that people are animals? It is hard to say from this presentation what she intended to communicate by her remark. That's not good journalism.

Similarly, I am unclear on just how the controversial statistic concerning gender violence was arrived at. While clearly some in Sweden also question the method of reportage, we don't know why. Was the number a matter of "mere" self reportage by women, rather than a number derived say from police files? Unfortunately, as this is reported by this journalist, we simply can not know.

More careful journalism would have helped to shape this debate in a more constructive manner. Personally, I find 71% of pay to be an inadequate measure of equal pay, and yet this is the best example of parity on the planet. Obviously it's going to take more effort of some sort, as well as more time, to make these social changes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I wonder if this...
Posted by: brs04wsc on Aug 30, 2005 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
women is hot or not? Just wondering...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I wonder if this... Posted by: pomes

Comments are closed-

"Can't tell the woman from the man"?
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 30, 2005 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I expected that by now (as I recall "The Feminine Mystique" appeared in 1963?) we would have become more focused in considerations of the status of women. Perhaps the divisions in organized feminism indicate that, at least for some, new understandings have been reached. Or perhaps it is the nagging reality that human beings are singularities, individuals, and what is true for one is not true for all.

One reason I am weary of hearing the same old complaints (yes, I agree, some things have not changed or changed very much) is that I can learn more from the success stories. When a married father can say, "It's not my problem," I understand that to mean, "My family is working it out to our satisfaction." If it's good enough for them, what right does anyone else have to disdain that?

Isn't it always a question of priorities? Everything and everyone cannot be changed immediately. And were it not for the fact that we are hearing voices of appreciation for some of the changes, I could believe that it's just a matter that some people can never be pleased. (If you have not met such, I can introduce you to some.)

My priority is child abuse, whether gender specific or not. How our children are treated decides what tomorrow can be like. I believe sexual abuse of minors causes far more damage than the fact that women do not earn salaries that are identical to men.

I am bothered that so little awareness is evident of the distinction between equality and identity. Men and women are equal but not identical. Where does one put such facts as that it is far easier for a woman to find a new man to share financial responsibilities than vice versa?

The Third World rebukes us First Worlders with, in the words of Bob Marley, "Can't tell the woman from the man." Unfortunately that can sometimes seem to be the goal of feminism. If so, it does more harm than good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sexual abuse of minors Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

Violence against women
Posted by: dkm on Aug 30, 2005 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Extremist feminists seem to think that males are somehow more violent than females. The studies that actually look at this question show that there is no difference in innate violent capacity. If there are more females getting beaten up by their male companions in Sweden than vice versa, you need look no further than the comparative size and strength of the two genders. My own experience has been that in those few cases where the wife is bigger than the husband, it is the man that suffers from violence, not the other way around.

An earlier post made the obvious observation that of course men are animals. There are only five choices: bacteria (two groups), protists, fungi, animalia and plantae. I suspect that most women consider themselves to be animals as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I make no sense? Oh really. Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Violence against women Posted by: specom

Comments are closed-

domestic violence
Posted by: Olympiada on Aug 30, 2005 11:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All right this article did not make a whole lot of sense to me. In fact it had my head spinning. To me it sounded like a whole lot of convoluted bullshit to be honest.
Ok domestic violence. Did you know that violence can be psychological as well as physical? I would like to see psychological violence talked about more often.

Now, I think, that the problems between men and women stem from childhood, from the family of origin. I think perhaps it would be a better use of time and energy to look at families as a whole instead of men and women. I think it would be good at how parenting and role modeling goes back generations and what this means. I think we have to dig deeper.

I also think that egalatarianism is a good model. Patriarchy, well I do not have much to say on this. I know nothing of patriarchy personally. The cultures I come from are matriarchal. So 'patriarchs' have never liked me because they can not dominate me and that is fine. I give them their respect and stay out of their way. Now matriarchy, it is not such a good thing either. Why? It emasculates men. Why? It takes a man to show a boy how to be a man, not a woman. Personally I am more for traditional cultures where the men and the women have their defined roles and everything works together in harmony. Have you ever been to a rez or a pow wow? The Natives, at least in the Pacific Northwest know how to live. Now maybe at one point Western Civilization had it's act together, but when was that, I do not know.

Now in terms of Sweden. Well, I had always thought "if only I lived in Sweden, things would be better." I do not think so. They sound just as clueless as America!

Now that will get me flamed, I am sure. Oh well. I can stand it. Go ahead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: domestic violence Posted by: InvisiblePimpernil
» RE: domestic violence Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

The FauxLeft killing off Swede Welfare State with Identity politics?
Posted by: cry0fan on Aug 30, 2005 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looks like the FauxLeft is trying the same game there that they used successfully here in America: using identity politics to kill off the welfare state and economics leftism. Taking the focus off of the egalitarian welfare state, and the TRUE Leftism of upper vs lower, and substituting identity politics viewpoint of everyone being in a group based on race, sex, sexuality, etc.

That is good for the Elite and bad for the rest of us.

Way to go, fauxLeft.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Illusion of Social Progress
Posted by: myopicgaze on Aug 30, 2005 2:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 12th century, the Muslim (yes, Muslim) philosopher Averroes (Ibn Rushd) attacked the society of Moorish Spain (which was in fact Muslim, Jewish and Christian at the time) for treating even intelligent and gifted women as little better than slaves. This criticism--echoed by a number of others--led to university doors being temporarily opened to women. But by the time of the Christian theologian Aquinas (in part because of his urging) this opportunity for women had slipped away.

In the 15th century, an Italian woman by the name of Christine de Pizan was recognized by her scholarly contemporaries as one of the great intellectuals of her time. But in the 19th century, John Stuart Mill's lifetime companion and collaborator--Harriet Taylor--couldn't get a by-line for their seminal work "On Liberty", even though Mill himself claimed the work was as much hers as his. Even today, no publisher has put her as co-author--in my opinion, she deserves this honor.

In the 18th century, over one-third of European astronomers were women (amateurs yes, but there was as yet no organized profession of astronomers), today that number is down to about 5%. A little over a century ago, when the doors to universities were finally open to women again--to prove that they were up to the rigors of academic life, young female scholars ate heartily, writing letters home to boast of the weight they had gained. Today, though women have attained (ostensibly) equity in education, politics and employment opportunity, many have developed such social anxiety over body image and being overweight that eating disorders are epidemic and the emaciated "super-model" has become the cultural standard of female beauty.

Man-haters are not feminists--they are rather an unfortunate reaction to a sexist culture. The disappointments many women must feel--after all these years of "radical feminists" storming and raging to change things and yet they still witness themselves and their sisters being put down, held back, misunderstood, impoverished and brutalized simply because they have one more "X" chromosome than their brothers makes such outrageous remarks ("men are animals") understandable, if not excusable.

Gender liberation and equity--the true goal of feminism--can only be accomplished by men and women working together--against the men and women who oppose them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Aquinas Posted by: Olympiada
» Amendment Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

Men Have a Monopoly on Violence
Posted by: decembrist on Aug 30, 2005 5:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There just is no doubt that men are more violent than women. 99% (just a guess, statistician) of all wars are started and fought by men, 99% (yes, another guess) of all rapes are perpetrated by men, and the percentage of male-committed murders must be way up there.

Before Lesbian couples even have recognition, people are talking about their "secret violence". Give me a break. Maybe they're just frustrated because they have no legitimacy in society's eyes. nuff said.

Our society (patriarchal) may make it possible for men to be more violent (like historically only allowing men to fight in combat) but I don't think so.

It's just a fact that men have a greater tendency towards violence. And a social and evolutionary perspective on this does shed quite a bit of light. Get over the title and read "Demonic Males" by Wrangham and Peterson... don't be squeamish, you're not required to feel man-guilt, or not-my-man anger, just read it with a sense of curiosity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Child Abuse Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Child Abuse Posted by: decembrist
» point Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: point Posted by: decembrist
» RE: point Posted by: decembrist
» I love my mother too Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

Men and 'physical' aggression; as usual, it all depends.
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 30, 2005 8:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, if all you consider is 'physical' aggression, there you will find more adult men than women. But aggression and violence are not the same.

In my limited experience (not severely limited), women tend to be more verbally aggressive than men. Can one be verbally 'violent'? We may disagree. A verbal bully is still a bully.

The critical question is the linkage between aggression and violence, and anyone who has been a parent of small children knows it can be a fine line. My eldest daughter and her 4-year younger brother were aggressive enough with each other while young to make some of my adult friends uncomfortable. To say the least, when the boy became a teen-ager and physically bigger, the scene changed.

Did bullying ever appear? Maybe. And that was the point at which such behavior was no longer tolerated. I have yet to be convinced that bullying behavior is gender determined.

One of the benefits of greater equality of opportunity is to see that females don't have any better new answers. Just examine the votes of women in Congress (and don't tell me it's the men that make them do it; women are as ambitious as men).

BTW, men frequently have gone off to war with the encouragement of women. Who the hell else are they fighting for?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» aggression and violence Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

To an extent, it's true
Posted by: Kat144 on Sep 1, 2005 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've heard enough men whining that "feminism" is turning them into sissy boys (i.e. making them actually sensitive to others' feelings and needs, making them not think that farting/burping/scratching in public are funny/acceptable, making them not treat women as just a piece of ass) when in reality all they really want is to be "real men"--in other words, OG GO IN WOODS! OG KILL ANIMAL WITH OG BARE HANDS! OG GRILL ANIMAL HIMSELF! OG DRIVE BIG SUV THAT SHOW HOW MANLY OG IS! OG MAKE MANY BABIES WITH MANY WOMEN TO SHOW HOW MANLY OG IS! Sure sounds to me like these men want to be animals.

I've seen enough women raped and beaten by men who think that because they're stronger, they're dominant--sounds like something animals would do. Enough men who impregnate woman after woman only to run off, never to be heard from again....then insist "hey, it's biology to want to have sex with lots of women!"--that's acting like an animal AND BEGGING to be treated like one. Enough men who DO think their grossest bodily functions ought to be shared--the dog maybe can't help his farts or know enough to say "excuse me"--when men act the same, sure sounds like animal behavior. But even a dog doesn't giggle uncontrollably over it.

This to me says that yes, a lot of men are no better than animals or their Neanderthal ancestors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» OG? Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: OG? Posted by: Kat144
» the race assumption Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: To an extent, it's true Posted by: Logic's Edge

Comments are closed-

The luxury of complaining; whence did it arise?
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Sep 25, 2005 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are currently in a period where humanity is emerging from its animal past. Technology has made it possible to raise our level of existance beyond a constant fight for simple survival. In fact, daily life is increasingly divorced from the old struggles.

As this has happened, men have listened and tried to make changes to accomodate women and their wants. Yet there is little or no appreciation to be found. Not for men's music, men's art, men's science, men's medicine nor all the modern conveniences that women enjoy. They wake up in homes men built, dry their hair with electricity men discovered and developed, drive to work in cars men designed, fill up with fuel men extracted, and then talk on the phones that men created to complain to each other how horrible we are.

It should be acknowledged that women are now overtly partaking in the construction of society and contributing toward the advance of knowledge. But, and this cannot be denied by anyone who exerts their power of reason, we arrived at this point because of the efforts of men. We did.

Hardly the sort of behaviour you might expect from the monsters we're being painted as, isn't it?

If rape and violence were our sole raison d'etre, it's obvious the caves served us more than well enough. We never needed to leave them if that's what we wanted.

Instead of being celebrated for their efforts and achievements, men are being castigated relentlessly with stereotypes and inflated statistics. Yes, inflated statistics. Look into this for yourself if you don't believe me.

"Men are animals" is a statement full of hate. It blames all men for the actions of a small proportion. It ignores all the good they have done and are doing. It implicity asserts that women are superior, when in truth they are just somewhat different in their wants and needs.

I invite women who like to assure each other how pitiful their husbands and boyfriends are to ask themselves, how is it that I have the luxury to complain?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

davy
Posted by: davy on Aug 30, 2005 12:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is interesting to hear of a woman who has met every single man in the world.

Or as they say in the jargon of our times, "maybe she is not making informed choices."

Or can you imagine if a male goverment official said that about women?

Sheeeesh

Davy Jones Scotland

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Humans are part of the animal kingdom.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Aug 30, 2005 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I am horrified by *her* meaning, which seems to be male inferiority. Guys, that's not feminism. That's just evil under an excuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Sexist Feminism (Sweden)
Posted by: toblo on Aug 30, 2005 3:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, I've been worrying about this for a few years now, and it seems my fears are becoming reality; that the arrogance and sexism of the mainstream (swedish) feminist movement might be creating a backlash against feminism in Sweden.

-If men in sweden lose their sympathetic view on feminism; if the feminists cry wolf a few times to often, and alienate the men by constant insults.. what will happen then? Feminism and female equality in sweden will take a great step backwards, thats what.

It Is upsetting to get blamed for everything any other man does (which will happen to a man pretty soon if he chances to speak to a regular swedish feminist); it also seems extremely sexist to me. But I guess this is the way of things - regarding such an inherently emotional subject, the most extreme and irresponsible people have an advantage in climbing to the top and getting their message of hate out; and accepted as the norm.

(Thank you for an interesting on-line magazine, BTW!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» an inherently emotional subject Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

An American Feminist`
Posted by: michele0726 on Aug 30, 2005 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting article. It once again brings the subject to the fore. One of the most important points, from my perspective, is that this is not an easy issue. There are few human concerns that have easy answers and that can be solved quickly. Of course it is a complex issue that needs to be addressed again and again. Just like any issue that I deal with as a person, it takes work and time. Equality is complex, just as being a person is complex. I was active in the feminist movement in the 1980's. I served on the board of the local chapter of NOW as the political liaison. I found that, as with most groups, there was diversity. I helped to escort women into clinics, looked at the voting records of those wishing to have our support, attended debates, and marched. I did not agree with anyone about everything, but I did support the struggle to understand. What I got most from it was that I needed to understand my own stand on feminism. I needed to connect with that part of me that is feminist. I continue to find what is most important for me as a feminist is to be open and honest. Blaming others is never the answer. Looking at the facts, without looking for a scapegoat, is very important. Empowering others to be comfortable with my power is also important. I find that when I am most comfortable with my power, others are as well. The point I am trying to make is that some of what I have discovered as a result of looking within myself I have discovered what I need to be comfortable with myself. Then others can choose to be comfortable with me or not, it does not change who I am.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Heh, irony
Posted by: bettsoff on Aug 30, 2005 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men do not have a monopoly on assholic behavior. Von Whatshername illustrates that well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

whatever4
Posted by: whatever on Aug 30, 2005 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It's not my problem,"

The last sentence of the article. Says it all. Issues of equality for women hurt men in an uncountable number of ways, but yet, though they are by vast numbers the predators, and females of all ages the victims...it's not his problem.

Until he (they all) realize it's just as much their problem...their male culture...nothing will change. Women are the victims, and so, we can hardly be blamed for the actions of so many men. We can hardly do much of anything, but be born into this culture. This culture. Any culture? Are there any that don't have this problem?

Pervasive

IF the victimization cannot be stopped in a civilized society...it is not civilized.

And women should abandon it.

We need a place to go, to be healthy and safe. Where cooperation and civility are realities, and not all face time, lip-service, fair-weather-friends who think it's "not their fault" and so it's "not their problem"

It's not your problem. But it is ours.

And in that, all your faces look the same...when you stand together...as a group believing our concerns to be "silly", the numbers we quote untrue, the stories, no matter how horrible, to be "isolated"...wishing we'd just all shut up.

Some of you enjoy making us shutup. Too many of you. YOU. Not us.

Not OUR problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: whatever4 Posted by: RudiTuzla
» RE: whatever4 Posted by: toblo
» I'm sick of radical feminism Posted by: chomsky

Comments are closed-

Bad logic
Posted by: melissa999 on Aug 30, 2005 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I like the idea of women becoming more empowered, the logic behind "men are animals" is ridiculous.

Basically, it's like saying, child abuse is common. Therefore, parents are animals.

It seems that violence against women is a horrible consequence of living in a patriarchy. More drastic measures need to be taken against perpetrators, and there needs be a better understanding of why violence occurs, so that we can prevent it.

Some men have changed and we need to credit them, so that others will want to do the same. Calling people names is really pointless.

I'd like to see more creative ways of dealing with this, like having victims name their abusers publicly with signs and pictures, much like Megan's Law, where known offenders are labeled and pointed out. One of the problems is that women are usually acquaintances or family of the offenders, so naming them is actually more stressful for the women than simply letting it go.

This is a sad effort.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

It's another version of the blame game
Posted by: InvisiblePimpernil on Aug 30, 2005 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women like to blame men for their lot in life. That makes life easier, because that gives them an excuse for failure. If you ask a mental health specialist about it, they will tell you that failure to accept personal responsibility is sociopathic behavior. And a lot of women engage in it. It's a survival technique. Wouldn't that make them animals too?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» divorced women Posted by: Olympiada
» Most relationship conflicts Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: ealistic Acceptance of Responsibility Posted by: Frumkinlovesmoney
» frumkinlovesmoney Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

We're ALL animals, but that's no excuse
Posted by: CrystalD on Aug 30, 2005 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time someone refers to men (or indeed humans) as animals, I brace myself for some cockamamie evo-psycho rationalization.

Yes, we are all animals, men and women alike. And so what? That doesn't excuse violence. As Scott Peck put it, "Human nature is to go to the bathroom in our pants." And somehow we learn to use the toilet, and no-one - not even Richard Dawkins - would suggest that we just drop our pants and take a dump wherever. We do all sorts of things that are "not natural" - we cook our food, wear clothes, and live in air-conditioned houses. So any "it's natural/we're animals" excuse for violence won't wash.

The notion that men are somehow naturally violent "Demonic Males", espoused by a strange alliance of radical feminists and right-wingers, is noxious. I, a feminist, expect more of men than that. I EXPECT men to be kind and caring. I EXPECT men to not use violence in their relationships. I think it is the worst form of male bashing AND anti-feminism to not hold men to the same standards we hold women. After all, men and women are both from Earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Regardless of what you expect... Posted by: decembrist

Comments are closed-

what's wrong with being an animal?
Posted by: lutragrrl on Aug 30, 2005 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By definition, all human beings are animals. We are mammals and primates - and what's wrong with that?

This points up some insufficient offering of context in this article. How did Sweden's "best known feminist" mean her remark? This is not clarified though she is quoted as saying it was taken out of context. What is it that she was actually saying - that people are animals? It is hard to say from this presentation what she intended to communicate by her remark. That's not good journalism.

Similarly, I am unclear on just how the controversial statistic concerning gender violence was arrived at. While clearly some in Sweden also question the method of reportage, we don't know why. Was the number a matter of "mere" self reportage by women, rather than a number derived say from police files? Unfortunately, as this is reported by this journalist, we simply can not know.

More careful journalism would have helped to shape this debate in a more constructive manner. Personally, I find 71% of pay to be an inadequate measure of equal pay, and yet this is the best example of parity on the planet. Obviously it's going to take more effort of some sort, as well as more time, to make these social changes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I wonder if this...
Posted by: brs04wsc on Aug 30, 2005 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
women is hot or not? Just wondering...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I wonder if this... Posted by: pomes

Comments are closed-

"Can't tell the woman from the man"?
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 30, 2005 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I expected that by now (as I recall "The Feminine Mystique" appeared in 1963?) we would have become more focused in considerations of the status of women. Perhaps the divisions in organized feminism indicate that, at least for some, new understandings have been reached. Or perhaps it is the nagging reality that human beings are singularities, individuals, and what is true for one is not true for all.

One reason I am weary of hearing the same old complaints (yes, I agree, some things have not changed or changed very much) is that I can learn more from the success stories. When a married father can say, "It's not my problem," I understand that to mean, "My family is working it out to our satisfaction." If it's good enough for them, what right does anyone else have to disdain that?

Isn't it always a question of priorities? Everything and everyone cannot be changed immediately. And were it not for the fact that we are hearing voices of appreciation for some of the changes, I could believe that it's just a matter that some people can never be pleased. (If you have not met such, I can introduce you to some.)

My priority is child abuse, whether gender specific or not. How our children are treated decides what tomorrow can be like. I believe sexual abuse of minors causes far more damage than the fact that women do not earn salaries that are identical to men.

I am bothered that so little awareness is evident of the distinction between equality and identity. Men and women are equal but not identical. Where does one put such facts as that it is far easier for a woman to find a new man to share financial responsibilities than vice versa?

The Third World rebukes us First Worlders with, in the words of Bob Marley, "Can't tell the woman from the man." Unfortunately that can sometimes seem to be the goal of feminism. If so, it does more harm than good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sexual abuse of minors Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

Violence against women
Posted by: dkm on Aug 30, 2005 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Extremist feminists seem to think that males are somehow more violent than females. The studies that actually look at this question show that there is no difference in innate violent capacity. If there are more females getting beaten up by their male companions in Sweden than vice versa, you need look no further than the comparative size and strength of the two genders. My own experience has been that in those few cases where the wife is bigger than the husband, it is the man that suffers from violence, not the other way around.

An earlier post made the obvious observation that of course men are animals. There are only five choices: bacteria (two groups), protists, fungi, animalia and plantae. I suspect that most women consider themselves to be animals as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I make no sense? Oh really. Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Violence against women Posted by: specom

Comments are closed-

domestic violence
Posted by: Olympiada on Aug 30, 2005 11:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All right this article did not make a whole lot of sense to me. In fact it had my head spinning. To me it sounded like a whole lot of convoluted bullshit to be honest.
Ok domestic violence. Did you know that violence can be psychological as well as physical? I would like to see psychological violence talked about more often.

Now, I think, that the problems between men and women stem from childhood, from the family of origin. I think perhaps it would be a better use of time and energy to look at families as a whole instead of men and women. I think it would be good at how parenting and role modeling goes back generations and what this means. I think we have to dig deeper.

I also think that egalatarianism is a good model. Patriarchy, well I do not have much to say on this. I know nothing of patriarchy personally. The cultures I come from are matriarchal. So 'patriarchs' have never liked me because they can not dominate me and that is fine. I give them their respect and stay out of their way. Now matriarchy, it is not such a good thing either. Why? It emasculates men. Why? It takes a man to show a boy how to be a man, not a woman. Personally I am more for traditional cultures where the men and the women have their defined roles and everything works together in harmony. Have you ever been to a rez or a pow wow? The Natives, at least in the Pacific Northwest know how to live. Now maybe at one point Western Civilization had it's act together, but when was that, I do not know.

Now in terms of Sweden. Well, I had always thought "if only I lived in Sweden, things would be better." I do not think so. They sound just as clueless as America!

Now that will get me flamed, I am sure. Oh well. I can stand it. Go ahead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: domestic violence Posted by: InvisiblePimpernil
» RE: domestic violence Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

The FauxLeft killing off Swede Welfare State with Identity politics?
Posted by: cry0fan on Aug 30, 2005 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looks like the FauxLeft is trying the same game there that they used successfully here in America: using identity politics to kill off the welfare state and economics leftism. Taking the focus off of the egalitarian welfare state, and the TRUE Leftism of upper vs lower, and substituting identity politics viewpoint of everyone being in a group based on race, sex, sexuality, etc.

That is good for the Elite and bad for the rest of us.

Way to go, fauxLeft.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Illusion of Social Progress
Posted by: myopicgaze on Aug 30, 2005 2:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 12th century, the Muslim (yes, Muslim) philosopher Averroes (Ibn Rushd) attacked the society of Moorish Spain (which was in fact Muslim, Jewish and Christian at the time) for treating even intelligent and gifted women as little better than slaves. This criticism--echoed by a number of others--led to university doors being temporarily opened to women. But by the time of the Christian theologian Aquinas (in part because of his urging) this opportunity for women had slipped away.

In the 15th century, an Italian woman by the name of Christine de Pizan was recognized by her scholarly contemporaries as one of the great intellectuals of her time. But in the 19th century, John Stuart Mill's lifetime companion and collaborator--Harriet Taylor--couldn't get a by-line for their seminal work "On Liberty", even though Mill himself claimed the work was as much hers as his. Even today, no publisher has put her as co-author--in my opinion, she deserves this honor.

In the 18th century, over one-third of European astronomers were women (amateurs yes, but there was as yet no organized profession of astronomers), today that number is down to about 5%. A little over a century ago, when the doors to universities were finally open to women again--to prove that they were up to the rigors of academic life, young female scholars ate heartily, writing letters home to boast of the weight they had gained. Today, though women have attained (ostensibly) equity in education, politics and employment opportunity, many have developed such social anxiety over body image and being overweight that eating disorders are epidemic and the emaciated "super-model" has become the cultural standard of female beauty.

Man-haters are not feminists--they are rather an unfortunate reaction to a sexist culture. The disappointments many women must feel--after all these years of "radical feminists" storming and raging to change things and yet they still witness themselves and their sisters being put down, held back, misunderstood, impoverished and brutalized simply because they have one more "X" chromosome than their brothers makes such outrageous remarks ("men are animals") understandable, if not excusable.

Gender liberation and equity--the true goal of feminism--can only be accomplished by men and women working together--against the men and women who oppose them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Aquinas Posted by: Olympiada
» Amendment Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

Men Have a Monopoly on Violence
Posted by: decembrist on Aug 30, 2005 5:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There just is no doubt that men are more violent than women. 99% (just a guess, statistician) of all wars are started and fought by men, 99% (yes, another guess) of all rapes are perpetrated by men, and the percentage of male-committed murders must be way up there.

Before Lesbian couples even have recognition, people are talking about their "secret violence". Give me a break. Maybe they're just frustrated because they have no legitimacy in society's eyes. nuff said.

Our society (patriarchal) may make it possible for men to be more violent (like historically only allowing men to fight in combat) but I don't think so.

It's just a fact that men have a greater tendency towards violence. And a social and evolutionary perspective on this does shed quite a bit of light. Get over the title and read "Demonic Males" by Wrangham and Peterson... don't be squeamish, you're not required to feel man-guilt, or not-my-man anger, just read it with a sense of curiosity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Child Abuse Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: Child Abuse Posted by: decembrist
» point Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: point Posted by: decembrist
» RE: point Posted by: decembrist
» I love my mother too Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

Men and 'physical' aggression; as usual, it all depends.
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 30, 2005 8:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, if all you consider is 'physical' aggression, there you will find more adult men than women. But aggression and violence are not the same.

In my limited experience (not severely limited), women tend to be more verbally aggressive than men. Can one be verbally 'violent'? We may disagree. A verbal bully is still a bully.

The critical question is the linkage between aggression and violence, and anyone who has been a parent of small children knows it can be a fine line. My eldest daughter and her 4-year younger brother were aggressive enough with each other while young to make some of my adult friends uncomfortable. To say the least, when the boy became a teen-ager and physically bigger, the scene changed.

Did bullying ever appear? Maybe. And that was the point at which such behavior was no longer tolerated. I have yet to be convinced that bullying behavior is gender determined.

One of the benefits of greater equality of opportunity is to see that females don't have any better new answers. Just examine the votes of women in Congress (and don't tell me it's the men that make them do it; women are as ambitious as men).

BTW, men frequently have gone off to war with the encouragement of women. Who the hell else are they fighting for?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» aggression and violence Posted by: Olympiada

Comments are closed-

To an extent, it's true
Posted by: Kat144 on Sep 1, 2005 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've heard enough men whining that "feminism" is turning them into sissy boys (i.e. making them actually sensitive to others' feelings and needs, making them not think that farting/burping/scratching in public are funny/acceptable, making them not treat women as just a piece of ass) when in reality all they really want is to be "real men"--in other words, OG GO IN WOODS! OG KILL ANIMAL WITH OG BARE HANDS! OG GRILL ANIMAL HIMSELF! OG DRIVE BIG SUV THAT SHOW HOW MANLY OG IS! OG MAKE MANY BABIES WITH MANY WOMEN TO SHOW HOW MANLY OG IS! Sure sounds to me like these men want to be animals.

I've seen enough women raped and beaten by men who think that because they're stronger, they're dominant--sounds like something animals would do. Enough men who impregnate woman after woman only to run off, never to be heard from again....then insist "hey, it's biology to want to have sex with lots of women!"--that's acting like an animal AND BEGGING to be treated like one. Enough men who DO think their grossest bodily functions ought to be shared--the dog maybe can't help his farts or know enough to say "excuse me"--when men act the same, sure sounds like animal behavior. But even a dog doesn't giggle uncontrollably over it.

This to me says that yes, a lot of men are no better than animals or their Neanderthal ancestors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» OG? Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: OG? Posted by: Kat144
» the race assumption Posted by: Olympiada
» RE: To an extent, it's true Posted by: Logic's Edge

Comments are closed-

The luxury of complaining; whence did it arise?
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Sep 25, 2005 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are currently in a period where humanity is emerging from its animal past. Technology has made it possible to raise our level of existance beyond a constant fight for simple survival. In fact, daily life is increasingly divorced from the old struggles.

As this has happened, men have listened and tried to make changes to accomodate women and their wants. Yet there is little or no appreciation to be found. Not for men's music, men's art, men's science, men's medicine nor all the modern conveniences that women enjoy. They wake up in homes men built, dry their hair with electricity men discovered and developed, drive to work in cars men designed, fill up with fuel men extracted, and then talk on the phones that men created to complain to each other how horrible we are.

It should be acknowledged that women are now overtly partaking in the construction of society and contributing toward the advance of knowledge. But, and this cannot be denied by anyone who exerts their power of reason, we arrived at this point because of the efforts of men. We did.

Hardly the sort of behaviour you might expect from the monsters we're being painted as, isn't it?

If rape and violence were our sole raison d'etre, it's obvious the caves served us more than well enough. We never needed to leave them if that's what we wanted.

Instead of being celebrated for their efforts and achievements, men are being castigated relentlessly with stereotypes and inflated statistics. Yes, inflated statistics. Look into this for yourself if you don't believe me.

"Men are animals" is a statement full of hate. It blames all men for the actions of a small proportion. It ignores all the good they have done and are doing. It implicity asserts that women are superior, when in truth they are just somewhat different in their wants and needs.

I invite women who like to assure each other how pitiful their husbands and boyfriends are to ask themselves, how is it that I have the luxury to complain?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS