Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr View Post
Well, guess what, it works both ways. Far from undermining an an oppressive mesh of structural factors that maintains an artificial divide between the sexes and returning them to a more natural state of equality, I think feminism does the opposite. What is does is create its own artificial ideal of what a woman should be, and what she should do, and how she should live her life. In fact it attempts to make women into a copy of what is essentially the classic male rolemodel.

I mean, feminists complain at how society pressures women into a certain lifestyle. How, until at least very recently, women might be expected to be housekeepers, and many probably will still be encouraged in that direction by their parents or spouses or whoever. Well, the feminist system has created its own pressures. The successful, modern woman is now expected to have her own career and successes independent of her husband, to work her own 9-5 job and maintain herself even when married. And for things like having kids to be put off until her 40's... I've heard a lot about how feminism seeks to deconstruct artificial societal norms and return to a more natural and fairer state... well what on earth is natural about putting off having kids until the absolute maximum end of your fertile years (creating health risks for parent and child), just so that you can life the idealised life of a man in the 1950's?!
First rule of induvidualism is economic independence. So any induvidialistic solution needs to resolve this first.

The aging matter is also based on increased education and applies to both genders.

Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
The "Matriarchy" exists in every society, just like the "Patriarchy", because of the way that the elder generation interacts with it's own sex/gender and the younger generation. Up until the 19th century the majority of women were happy enough to live in a society which was, politically speaking, male-dominated. Once they stopped being happy with that they started agitating for change. It is simply impossible that women could be actively oppressed by men for thousands of years because their wives would slit their throats while they slept, or wash their jumpers in boiling water to make them shrink, refuse to do the ironing... etc.
It's simply impossible that North-Koreans are being oppressed by their goverment. Or slaves to be oppressed by thier masters.

And to be picky, the big boost in woman rights was because during the 19th century, thier rich fathers suddenly ended up with daughters impossible to marry off properly (due to lack of men with proper status in the cities). Ergo, they had to do something.

Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
The reality of human relationships is that abusive marriages are still miserable one for all involved. If a man feels like a king it can only be because his wife lets him. I'm not a fan of polygamy, for exactly the reasons you mentioned - but then easy divorce (popular among many early feminists) has all the same problems. A man can select a young and economically dependant bride, and later trade her in for a younger one.
Instead of all optional brides being economically dependable and cheat with the maid later on?

Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube View Post
Really? We're arguing about the evils of modern grammar now?

What next, the Moon is secretly plotting against women?

This is the sort of thing that makes certain portions of the population very skeptical of ALL Feminist causes, whether that's fair or not.
While "his story" is going way into overdrive, the dominant male form does have influence in the thinking and a gender neutral pronoun should be quite practical sometimes (dear sir/madame).
Gelatinous Cude didn't get pregnant with an elephant by a French soldier, nor is he a bigotic idiot who flies naked from his backroof during the weekend. Thanks to the mind ignoring the word "not", you'll probably feel a bit insulted reeding the statement above even if it's true.

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2053410503]
I see your point, really I do, but when you think that today women have multiple failed relationships (as do men) as opposed to one (or two) marriages and many more people spend larger periods of their lives not only unmarried, but actually alone: It's not that much better is it. On top of that, lots of "battered women" stay in abusive relationships, so I'm not convinced that easy access to divorce has benefitted those who are most vulnerable. That's before we even get to people who get divorced and then decide it was a stupid thing to do, only to discover it's too late.



Yes, there is a lack of practical political power - but that's offset by not being killed and, frankly, men are easily persuaded to listen to women. It's not a great system, but I would argue very seriously that the men felt like they were in charge because the women let them think it.

Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
I think sociology is wrong, I don't believe that "gender" is a social construct, that implies artificiality, I think its an expression of natural difference.
Gender is used to describe the social construct on top of the sex. Of course it's going to be artifical.

Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
I quotes this in entirity because you threatened to delete it and I think it bears reading. One point is obviously true, sexual equality has reduced social mobility, because people tend to marry their own class, and these days that means that two high earners tend to marry and devote all their earnings to making their children successful, which cuts off access to high earning jobs to clever people who want to move up, because we now have double the workforce for the same size population as we did two hundred years ago.
Source please. Obviously, it suddenly made it possible for the woman to move up by their own accord, as the starting point.