Morrigel
Posts: 492
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Renorei
Women still don't have complete equality in many areas in this society. Yes, "men's rights' are an important issue, but until women are thought of as total equals in this society, I'm not going to really support men gaining more ground against women. I mean Jesus, look at the Supreme Court. Overwhelmingly male. Congress, Senate? Once again, overwhelmingly male. The CEOs of most major companies? Once again, the majority are male. And we STILL have not had a woman president, and there are fucktards in this country who think that a woman would be a bad leader.
I really don't see what you are crying about. Sure, there are a handful of areas in which men are at a disadvantage, but on the whole men in this country are still far more privileged than women.
I agree. And the fact is that the situation cited by the OP is not the result of "feminism". Male privileges and male chauvinist views of women's character and women's "natural roles" are biting them on the ass now, and have been for hundreds of years. There was no such thing as "feminism" in Erszebet Bathory's day. Women, then as now, were just often considered life-long children who could not be held accountable for their actions in the same way that men are.
So far as family law goes--there are reasons that these laws favor women, just as there are reasons that the criminal justice system favors women. And most of these reasons have to do with classical notions about the "natural" character and the "natural" roles of women.
Although these ideas do not stem from feminism per se, I agree that modern feminists are often guilty of adopting the same ideas as their patriarchal predecessors about the "natural" character and habits of women--characterizing all women as "gentle", "moral", "empathic", "loving parents", "concerned more with commitment than with sex" for example--while all men are characterized as "violent", "aggressive", "competitive", "disinterested in parenting", and "more interested in sex than in commitment".
What neither side of this debate seems to realize is that they know nothing about the "natural" character of women--or of men. Women tend to behave as they are socially trained to behave, just as men do. The key is culture. If Johnny has a hard time functioning in schools, it isn't because the "natural" character of boys is to perform poorly in school. It is because this culture at present trains boys from birth to be disinterested in the things that are taught in school.
Small wonder that Johnny does poorly, considering the values his father and mother likely display at home and the values the culture displays as a whole. The most admired, respected and successful men in our society are rarely those with the best education: they are men who are good at some relatively meaningless physical activity, like chucking a ball around; men who kill other people for a living; and men who are able to make a great deal of money. Even the ones who make a great deal of money are usually lauded and respected much more if they were able to do it without an education!
People who think that there is something "natural" about the poor performance of young white and African-American boys in American schools need to ask themselves why Jewish-American and Chinese-American boys do not have these performance problems. Are they fundamentally less "male" than their white or African-American counterparts? Or are they simply products of a culture that actually values education, and recognizes education as a valid and manly road to success as a human being? I would say the latter.
--M
< Message edited by Morrigel -- 11/25/2006 10:12:45 AM >
|
RE: To all the feminuts that always think men are most ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread