Subscribe
Notify of
guest

365 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

Infinite agency.
Zero responsibility.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Feminism in four words.

leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago

Gee. My feminism entailed helping women in fear for their lives after years of beating escape from their abusers w/o abandoning their children, or helping women just brutally raped. Around 3k women each year in the US are murdered by their male partners–the handful of males murdered by female partners typically have a bunch of felony batteries and TROs in their wake.
Male violence against women=male entitlement in four words.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

Male violence against women could be anything. If a woman is killing a man’s child and he pushes her away, that is male violence towards the woman. Is it entitlement?

However tragic it may be that 3k women die of domestic violence every year, it is statistically tiny.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

The fact that such idiotic comment gets ‘6’ upticks here is pretty depressing.

Ed Carden
Ed Carden
1 year ago

And yet the most violent of relationships isn’t male/female nor even male/male but female/female; that’s right, lesbians have the worst record for domestic violence. It’s because you’ve paired together 2 of the same sex where most likely both are feminists which means as a woman they are never wrong but teh problem is that their partner is also a woman and so they can’t both be never wrong. In a Male/Female relationship the majority of men put up with this b/c men can’t hit a woman without consequences but 2 women certainly can go at each other.

Your experience is just that “Your” experience and not necessarily reflective of most of what happens or is.

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  Ed Carden

the most violent of relationships isn’t male/female nor even male/male but female/female

This was quite an interesting factoid.

jane baker
jane baker
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Two women can’t share a kitchen

jane baker
jane baker
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Two women can’t share a kitchen

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  Ed Carden

the most violent of relationships isn’t male/female nor even male/male but female/female

This was quite an interesting factoid.

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

I resent the implication all men batter their wives, demonstrably false.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  James Kirk

She didn’t imply that at all, so your “resentment” is misplaced.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  James Kirk

These feminists would of course oppose any efforts to name and shame minority communities that have far higher crime rates against women.

What is also ironic is that those who claim women are helpless, weak victims of men (ignoring male victims because they don’t matter) are also precisely the same demographic that demand equal pay for female footballers, allowing women in the army or liberally adding female superheroes or action stars in movies. Because girl power, women are as strong as men, etc.

I read a term somewhere, maybe here or YouTube – Schrödinger’s feminism. Women can be both helpless victims or strooong, until you open the box and figure out what’s more convenient.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  James Kirk

She didn’t imply that at all, so your “resentment” is misplaced.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  James Kirk

These feminists would of course oppose any efforts to name and shame minority communities that have far higher crime rates against women.

What is also ironic is that those who claim women are helpless, weak victims of men (ignoring male victims because they don’t matter) are also precisely the same demographic that demand equal pay for female footballers, allowing women in the army or liberally adding female superheroes or action stars in movies. Because girl power, women are as strong as men, etc.

I read a term somewhere, maybe here or YouTube – Schrödinger’s feminism. Women can be both helpless victims or strooong, until you open the box and figure out what’s more convenient.

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
1 year ago

Male violence against women.

They really ought to pass a law against that.

I mean, men shouldn’t be entitled to do that, should they?

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago

We are a country of 330 million…about half of those are men. Not excusing it but it isn’t common place in everyday life here.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago

The fact that feminists couldn’t care less about male victims of domestic violence (about 1/3rd of the total, zero resources or help), or the mostly male victims of workplace accidents, homelessness or suicides, just underlines his point.
Plenty of men officially (as police, lawmakers or simply good samaritans) step on to help females.

Feminists on the other hand?
Always victims, no responsibility, introspection or accountability.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Samir. Every feminism discussion you have a meltdown about feminists destroying everything.
Every thread I go after you, you wimp out.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire AGAIN (sorry I know you don’t like womens ‘violent verbal politics’ was it last time?) but once again. I ask you. Where are your sources for your woman hating tropes?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I think we know Samir’s “sources”- a lifetime of repeated rejection. Which is sad, but not a reasonable basis for a philosophy.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Yeah bless him, he posts like one who has much to learn. I keep scaring him off too.
I’ll keep roasting him. He needs to come out and slap down my verbal politics, I was hoping for at least a vain attempt, a bit of sport. Come on Samir, I’ve got loads of verbal politics. They used to say at home I never know when to shut up. Right of coarse. But it doesn’t stop me from carrying on.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Cheers to you and John for pushing against a persistent, predictable tide on this comment board! I hope your informed, contra-lunatic-ranting stance reflects the views of more readers than screens would indicate. In any case, your pushback is welcome. Keep calm and carry on then.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I’m intrigued as to why this site- which has consistently interesting and varied articles- attracts such a relentlessly nutty right-wing sort of commenter, way outside the normal range of opinions one meets in life, thank God.
I suppose it’s all down to the dreaded ‘algorithms’, which are used to seek out the dispossesed, the angry and fringe conspiracy theorists, and in this case, the poor, delicate chaps who think the world went to pot the day women were given the vote, or the Witchfinder General lost his day-job. I have to remind myself that this isn’t the norm, it’s a strange collection of self-selecting individuals and just one of the odd manifestations of online demographics, even though they like to think of themselves- as such extremely vocal types invariably do- as the ‘silent majority’.

Kirsten Walstedt
Kirsten Walstedt
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You and me both! Every time I read an excellent article on here my feeling of satisfaction immediately plummets when I see the retrograde comments. If only the audience lived up to the content.
Let’s stick together!

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I agree with you and Kirsten. Periodically I have to take a break from reading the comments. It isn’t that I mind if they are right or left-wing but that the commenters from the right seem to se their opinions as facts.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Exactly. Well said. Only saw this about a week after your post but yes I was hoping to liberate (liberalize?) that “silent majority” saying from its Nixonian origins.
One hypothesis: This website lets a lot of comments through, and far-right commenters may not encounter that liberty on relatively mainstream–i.e., not insistently-wackadoodle–websites, especially for rat-a-tat back-and-forth exchanges [?].
Not to brag but I’m leading the downvotes right now.

Kirsten Walstedt
Kirsten Walstedt
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You and me both! Every time I read an excellent article on here my feeling of satisfaction immediately plummets when I see the retrograde comments. If only the audience lived up to the content.
Let’s stick together!

Judy Johnson
Judy Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I agree with you and Kirsten. Periodically I have to take a break from reading the comments. It isn’t that I mind if they are right or left-wing but that the commenters from the right seem to se their opinions as facts.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Exactly. Well said. Only saw this about a week after your post but yes I was hoping to liberate (liberalize?) that “silent majority” saying from its Nixonian origins.
One hypothesis: This website lets a lot of comments through, and far-right commenters may not encounter that liberty on relatively mainstream–i.e., not insistently-wackadoodle–websites, especially for rat-a-tat back-and-forth exchanges [?].
Not to brag but I’m leading the downvotes right now.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Thank you! Lol minus three votes. The lunatics are strong on this platform..

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

I’m intrigued as to why this site- which has consistently interesting and varied articles- attracts such a relentlessly nutty right-wing sort of commenter, way outside the normal range of opinions one meets in life, thank God.
I suppose it’s all down to the dreaded ‘algorithms’, which are used to seek out the dispossesed, the angry and fringe conspiracy theorists, and in this case, the poor, delicate chaps who think the world went to pot the day women were given the vote, or the Witchfinder General lost his day-job. I have to remind myself that this isn’t the norm, it’s a strange collection of self-selecting individuals and just one of the odd manifestations of online demographics, even though they like to think of themselves- as such extremely vocal types invariably do- as the ‘silent majority’.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Thank you! Lol minus three votes. The lunatics are strong on this platform..

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Cheers to you and John for pushing against a persistent, predictable tide on this comment board! I hope your informed, contra-lunatic-ranting stance reflects the views of more readers than screens would indicate. In any case, your pushback is welcome. Keep calm and carry on then.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Yeah bless him, he posts like one who has much to learn. I keep scaring him off too.
I’ll keep roasting him. He needs to come out and slap down my verbal politics, I was hoping for at least a vain attempt, a bit of sport. Come on Samir, I’ve got loads of verbal politics. They used to say at home I never know when to shut up. Right of coarse. But it doesn’t stop me from carrying on.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

You in turn remind me of an amusing exchange with a feminist on twitter.
I pointed out that one third of domestic violence victims are men.
She got quite enraged, and shrilly pointed out that while 1 in 4 women are victims of DV, the corresponding levels for men were only “1 in 8”.

So, sorry to disappoint you, but you are free to pretend that
A. Men aren’t a third of the victims of domestic violence, or account for most workplace accidents, homelessness or suicides
Or
B. Feminists display absolute contempt for the above, and predominantly focus on portraying women as victims

And as for not liking womens ‘violent verbal politics’ , it isn’t a personal experience or view.
I suggest you ask your female friends aged 30 plus, whether they would prefer a male or female boss.
Go on. You might get surprised.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Ah sport! Well done samir. I salute you.
I’m not that invested in battling stats on this, it’s not a subject I’m that invested in but I’ve started so I will finish.
You still have provided no source for your assertion :

‘The fact that feminists couldn’t care less about male victims of domestic violence (about 1/3rd of the total, zero resources or help), or the mostly male victims of workplace accidents, homelessness or suicides, just underlines his point.’

Surely feminists promote women’s issues? Isn’t that the point?

Or the assertion:

Feminists on the other hand?
Always victims, no responsibility, introspection or accountability.

Sounds a very sweeping statement. Or are you just basing everything on your twitter exchanges?

Ask my female friends if they want a male or female boss? What is that a weird social experiment? What answer would I be surprised to get? I don’t mind either way really as long they’re not a nutter. I certainly don’t think you should be in charge of hiring people any time soon though.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

I have serious doubts about violence statistics because it does not define actual damage which can go from death to the faintest of bruises and the level much pain inflicted. A pinch can be very painful but leave little evidence.
A woman slapping a man very hard who happens to be heavy weight boxer or a very solid prop forward will do little damage, a light frail man could be knocked to the ground.
This is why I consider more thought should be given to relative size, strength and ability to withstand blows of those involved when considering acts of violence.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Ah sport! Well done samir. I salute you.
I’m not that invested in battling stats on this, it’s not a subject I’m that invested in but I’ve started so I will finish.
You still have provided no source for your assertion :

‘The fact that feminists couldn’t care less about male victims of domestic violence (about 1/3rd of the total, zero resources or help), or the mostly male victims of workplace accidents, homelessness or suicides, just underlines his point.’

Surely feminists promote women’s issues? Isn’t that the point?

Or the assertion:

Feminists on the other hand?
Always victims, no responsibility, introspection or accountability.

Sounds a very sweeping statement. Or are you just basing everything on your twitter exchanges?

Ask my female friends if they want a male or female boss? What is that a weird social experiment? What answer would I be surprised to get? I don’t mind either way really as long they’re not a nutter. I certainly don’t think you should be in charge of hiring people any time soon though.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

I have serious doubts about violence statistics because it does not define actual damage which can go from death to the faintest of bruises and the level much pain inflicted. A pinch can be very painful but leave little evidence.
A woman slapping a man very hard who happens to be heavy weight boxer or a very solid prop forward will do little damage, a light frail man could be knocked to the ground.
This is why I consider more thought should be given to relative size, strength and ability to withstand blows of those involved when considering acts of violence.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I think we know Samir’s “sources”- a lifetime of repeated rejection. Which is sad, but not a reasonable basis for a philosophy.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

You in turn remind me of an amusing exchange with a feminist on twitter.
I pointed out that one third of domestic violence victims are men.
She got quite enraged, and shrilly pointed out that while 1 in 4 women are victims of DV, the corresponding levels for men were only “1 in 8”.

So, sorry to disappoint you, but you are free to pretend that
A. Men aren’t a third of the victims of domestic violence, or account for most workplace accidents, homelessness or suicides
Or
B. Feminists display absolute contempt for the above, and predominantly focus on portraying women as victims

And as for not liking womens ‘violent verbal politics’ , it isn’t a personal experience or view.
I suggest you ask your female friends aged 30 plus, whether they would prefer a male or female boss.
Go on. You might get surprised.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Samir. Every feminism discussion you have a meltdown about feminists destroying everything.
Every thread I go after you, you wimp out.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire AGAIN (sorry I know you don’t like womens ‘violent verbal politics’ was it last time?) but once again. I ask you. Where are your sources for your woman hating tropes?

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago

We talk around each other. Like ships in the night, we steam by these monolithic shapes, vaguely seen, and shout curses at the passing shadows. It’s really rather silly.
Feminism is clearly more than 4 words…but those particular 4 words of William’s capture the worst of it. Heck, they capture the worst of much of what we see everywhere. ‘Infinite Agency / Zero Responsibility’: the current generation which accumulates empty degrees, and 6 figure debt, ignorant & entitled & living in Mom’s basement while waiting for the Loan Forgiveness Fairy to kiss them on their forehead and make it all better (all while shouting Diversity, Inclusivity, and Equity!)
And yes, of course, there is a part of Feminism, particularly in the 1st and 2nd Waves. which insisted, rightfully so, on equal pay for equal work and equal access given equal skills. Who would disagree? But we must also acknowledge that there are other aspects of those 4-Waves which are twisted & poisonous. We can hear those loud & strident voices insisting that there is no difference between men & women (Biologic Essentialism — Oh My!)… that all sex is rape… and marriage a form of chattel servitude, and family a prison. We can see the Activists and Academicians working diligently to make ‘Gender’ performative even as they cancel Women by refusing all definitions, or telling us ‘they’re people with vulvas’.
Tragically, none of those Feminist Ideologies of whatever stripe have succeeded in eliminating violence against women. If anything, we might suspect that the last 50 years of insistence on outcome equality (Where are the female lumberjacks!?)…and the inevitable lowering of quality standards (https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/absolutely-insane-connecticut-law-would-axe-fitness-requirements-for-female-firefighters/) to achieve outcome equality has incited at least some of it.
But no, male violence against women does not equal male entitlement. Male violence is only violence. And men are significantly more violent (not because they feel a sense of entitlement but because they can be violent and are naturally aggressive). Looking at the murders committed in ’21…87% were committed by men…and 78% of the victims were also men. (a different and more dangerous kind of biologic essentialism).

Last edited 1 year ago by B Davis
jane baker
jane baker
1 year ago

I’ve got no sympathy with those women because they pick up anything in trousers,that’s got a p***s,of course rather than suffer the still real stigma of being a man- less spinster. They usually live in neighbourhoods where that weird isolated,lonely woman who no one talks to is thought to be a witch and they encourage their children to throw stones at her,and the fact she HASNT GOT A MAN is perceived as sinister and disturbing. Bunch of fat,drunken,tattooed slatterns.

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
1 year ago

3k is a tiny number compared to the number of cohabiting heterosexual couples . Who would have guessed men were so gentle and forbearing ?

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

Male violence against women could be anything. If a woman is killing a man’s child and he pushes her away, that is male violence towards the woman. Is it entitlement?

However tragic it may be that 3k women die of domestic violence every year, it is statistically tiny.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

The fact that such idiotic comment gets ‘6’ upticks here is pretty depressing.

Ed Carden
Ed Carden
1 year ago

And yet the most violent of relationships isn’t male/female nor even male/male but female/female; that’s right, lesbians have the worst record for domestic violence. It’s because you’ve paired together 2 of the same sex where most likely both are feminists which means as a woman they are never wrong but teh problem is that their partner is also a woman and so they can’t both be never wrong. In a Male/Female relationship the majority of men put up with this b/c men can’t hit a woman without consequences but 2 women certainly can go at each other.

Your experience is just that “Your” experience and not necessarily reflective of most of what happens or is.

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

I resent the implication all men batter their wives, demonstrably false.

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
1 year ago

Male violence against women.

They really ought to pass a law against that.

I mean, men shouldn’t be entitled to do that, should they?

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago

We are a country of 330 million…about half of those are men. Not excusing it but it isn’t common place in everyday life here.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago

The fact that feminists couldn’t care less about male victims of domestic violence (about 1/3rd of the total, zero resources or help), or the mostly male victims of workplace accidents, homelessness or suicides, just underlines his point.
Plenty of men officially (as police, lawmakers or simply good samaritans) step on to help females.

Feminists on the other hand?
Always victims, no responsibility, introspection or accountability.

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago

We talk around each other. Like ships in the night, we steam by these monolithic shapes, vaguely seen, and shout curses at the passing shadows. It’s really rather silly.
Feminism is clearly more than 4 words…but those particular 4 words of William’s capture the worst of it. Heck, they capture the worst of much of what we see everywhere. ‘Infinite Agency / Zero Responsibility’: the current generation which accumulates empty degrees, and 6 figure debt, ignorant & entitled & living in Mom’s basement while waiting for the Loan Forgiveness Fairy to kiss them on their forehead and make it all better (all while shouting Diversity, Inclusivity, and Equity!)
And yes, of course, there is a part of Feminism, particularly in the 1st and 2nd Waves. which insisted, rightfully so, on equal pay for equal work and equal access given equal skills. Who would disagree? But we must also acknowledge that there are other aspects of those 4-Waves which are twisted & poisonous. We can hear those loud & strident voices insisting that there is no difference between men & women (Biologic Essentialism — Oh My!)… that all sex is rape… and marriage a form of chattel servitude, and family a prison. We can see the Activists and Academicians working diligently to make ‘Gender’ performative even as they cancel Women by refusing all definitions, or telling us ‘they’re people with vulvas’.
Tragically, none of those Feminist Ideologies of whatever stripe have succeeded in eliminating violence against women. If anything, we might suspect that the last 50 years of insistence on outcome equality (Where are the female lumberjacks!?)…and the inevitable lowering of quality standards (https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/absolutely-insane-connecticut-law-would-axe-fitness-requirements-for-female-firefighters/) to achieve outcome equality has incited at least some of it.
But no, male violence against women does not equal male entitlement. Male violence is only violence. And men are significantly more violent (not because they feel a sense of entitlement but because they can be violent and are naturally aggressive). Looking at the murders committed in ’21…87% were committed by men…and 78% of the victims were also men. (a different and more dangerous kind of biologic essentialism).

Last edited 1 year ago by B Davis
jane baker
jane baker
1 year ago

I’ve got no sympathy with those women because they pick up anything in trousers,that’s got a p***s,of course rather than suffer the still real stigma of being a man- less spinster. They usually live in neighbourhoods where that weird isolated,lonely woman who no one talks to is thought to be a witch and they encourage their children to throw stones at her,and the fact she HASNT GOT A MAN is perceived as sinister and disturbing. Bunch of fat,drunken,tattooed slatterns.

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
1 year ago

3k is a tiny number compared to the number of cohabiting heterosexual couples . Who would have guessed men were so gentle and forbearing ?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Really? What a bizarre assertion. Why specify only women for this claim, and not men?

Ed Carden
Ed Carden
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Truth and reality might have something to do with that. Not all men have been suckered into going along with the feminist non-sense; the societal cancer it is.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Ed Carden

They may be the “truth and reality” for a bunch of whining, misogynist incels crying into their laptops, but they ain’t mine dear.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

“Incel” is now as tired as “small pee pee”, “mother’s basement” and all the other insults for people who object to feminism. Do better.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

It’s not an insult, it’s a self-description. It’s what these sad people call themselves. You’ll find them easily enough, should you want to, if you type ‘I hate feminists’ into your computer.
I’ve never heard of “small pee pee”- how quaint. Do you mean small d**k?

Last edited 1 year ago by John Holland
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

It’s not an insult, it’s a self-description. It’s what these sad people call themselves. You’ll find them easily enough, should you want to, if you type ‘I hate feminists’ into your computer.
I’ve never heard of “small pee pee”- how quaint. Do you mean small d**k?

Last edited 1 year ago by John Holland
Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

“Incel” is now as tired as “small pee pee”, “mother’s basement” and all the other insults for people who object to feminism. Do better.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Ed Carden

They may be the “truth and reality” for a bunch of whining, misogynist incels crying into their laptops, but they ain’t mine dear.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Which claim are you referring to?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

The claim that feminism is “infinite agency, zero responsibility”.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I did not specify women anywhere in that assertion. I specified an ideology, not a demographic as such.

Andre Lower
Andre Lower
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

To which the answer (regarding “evidence”) is: John (are you really a John, I wonder?…) where do you live? Under a rock, perhaps?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Andre Lower

Why would I not be a ‘John’? Are we already into conspiracy theories, so soon? Are you ‘really an ‘Andre’, I wonder…..?’ How do I know you’re not a robot from the future, sent to destroy humanity? Or, even worse (help!) Andrea, a WOMAN!!!!!
And no, I don’t live under a rock, thanks for asking- I live in the normal world, with a wife, a couple of jobs and a family, with normal friends of both sexes; rather than the wierd, online Men’s Victimhood Society that most of the commenters here seem to spend an unhealthy amount of time in.
You should try it, Andre. It’s not nearly as scary as some people here think it is. You might even get laid, if you’re lucky….

Andre Lower
Andre Lower
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

No conspiracy theories, on my side at least. Just the infantile habit of posting as a man when you’re a woman, quite common these days. As for the ad hominem disparaging, it only lets everyone realize how mature you are… Anyways, enough of attention to you.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Andre Lower

Oh my God, it turns out I’m a woman! Thanks for telling me, Andre, or Andrea, or whatever you are.
By the way, look up the meaning of ‘ad hominem’- it doesn’t mean what the standard dumb internet usage thinks it is.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Andre Lower

Oh my God, it turns out I’m a woman! Thanks for telling me, Andre, or Andrea, or whatever you are.
By the way, look up the meaning of ‘ad hominem’- it doesn’t mean what the standard dumb internet usage thinks it is.

Andre Lower
Andre Lower
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

No conspiracy theories, on my side at least. Just the infantile habit of posting as a man when you’re a woman, quite common these days. As for the ad hominem disparaging, it only lets everyone realize how mature you are… Anyways, enough of attention to you.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Andre Lower

Why would I not be a ‘John’? Are we already into conspiracy theories, so soon? Are you ‘really an ‘Andre’, I wonder…..?’ How do I know you’re not a robot from the future, sent to destroy humanity? Or, even worse (help!) Andrea, a WOMAN!!!!!
And no, I don’t live under a rock, thanks for asking- I live in the normal world, with a wife, a couple of jobs and a family, with normal friends of both sexes; rather than the wierd, online Men’s Victimhood Society that most of the commenters here seem to spend an unhealthy amount of time in.
You should try it, Andre. It’s not nearly as scary as some people here think it is. You might even get laid, if you’re lucky….

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I did not specify women anywhere in that assertion. I specified an ideology, not a demographic as such.

Andre Lower
Andre Lower
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

To which the answer (regarding “evidence”) is: John (are you really a John, I wonder?…) where do you live? Under a rock, perhaps?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

The claim that feminism is “infinite agency, zero responsibility”.

Ed Carden
Ed Carden
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Truth and reality might have something to do with that. Not all men have been suckered into going along with the feminist non-sense; the societal cancer it is.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Which claim are you referring to?

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

As a movement, ‘feminism’ is dead – it lost the plot a while back…

Last edited 1 year ago by Cathy Carron
William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

Accountability is kryptonite to women.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Aren’t women horrible, Will? Absolutely awful.
If only us men could live together without them, just us strong, naked, lithe chaps, muscles all glistening in the purifying sunlight, limbs glistening like sweaty bronze….. far, far from `Mummy and her suffocating, emasculating embrace…

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Aren’t women horrible, Will? Absolutely awful.
If only us men could live together without them, just us strong, naked, lithe chaps, muscles all glistening in the purifying sunlight, limbs glistening like sweaty bronze….. far, far from `Mummy and her suffocating, emasculating embrace…

leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago

Gee. My feminism entailed helping women in fear for their lives after years of beating escape from their abusers w/o abandoning their children, or helping women just brutally raped. Around 3k women each year in the US are murdered by their male partners–the handful of males murdered by female partners typically have a bunch of felony batteries and TROs in their wake.
Male violence against women=male entitlement in four words.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Really? What a bizarre assertion. Why specify only women for this claim, and not men?

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

As a movement, ‘feminism’ is dead – it lost the plot a while back…

Last edited 1 year ago by Cathy Carron
William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

Accountability is kryptonite to women.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Feminism in four words.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

Infinite agency.
Zero responsibility.

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago

The way I see this is, any ideology that centres itself around selfishness will be unwilling to pass the baton on (why be selfness for the next generation if your point is about being selfish), and eventually starve itself out unable to continue. Or reading it backwards, any ideology or society that’s dying out because it can’t have continuity may have been doing so because they adopted a selfish ideology some time back.
Judging by birthrates, Western society (esp Europe) is quite literally dying out. This may be because of a selfish ideology adopted a while back.

leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Modern Western culture is an “ideology that centres itself around selfishness”–would you call any movement that asks for rights not to be battered and raped w/ impunity “selfish?” Was the Civil Rights Movement “selfish?”

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago

“raped w/ impunity” – I hope you’re not referring to marriage with that.
I would have in mind things like drug use, lack of commitment to raising children or family, lack of interest in creating a community / knowing your neighbours, lack of respect for hard work or on its inverse being focused solely on financial success at the expense of others – that kind of thing. None of these are unique to Western societies of course, but a liberal system based on “experiments on living” obviously won’t be there to tell you not to do these things.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

Sorry, but your comment has to be called out as being utterly obnoxious and infantile.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

What exactly was “obnoxious” about it?

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Standard Culdy Sack comment sadly.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
Romi Elnagar
Romi Elnagar
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

“Infantile.” Now THERE’S good word for characterizing something a woman says. I notice Suburbia’s comment was something more than name-calling, unlike your reply.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

What exactly was “obnoxious” about it?

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Standard Culdy Sack comment sadly.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
Romi Elnagar
Romi Elnagar
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

“Infantile.” Now THERE’S good word for characterizing something a woman says. I notice Suburbia’s comment was something more than name-calling, unlike your reply.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

The right not to be battered and raped already exists. It’s why people proven to have violated those rights go to jail.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Occasionally, yes. Not very often.
The Met Police officer Carrick has finally been arrested after raping at least 12 women over a period of 20 years, despite a number of accusations against him, during which he was promoted several times. “Nasty” was his Met nickname, apparently.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

The rights exist otherwise the laws would not be in place.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Yes. I realise that. And I have a right not to be burgled, but whether the police are inclined to investigate a burglery, to bring a case to court, or the courts to prosecute it, is an entirely different issue.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Yes. I realise that. And I have a right not to be burgled, but whether the police are inclined to investigate a burglery, to bring a case to court, or the courts to prosecute it, is an entirely different issue.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

The rights exist otherwise the laws would not be in place.

Romi Elnagar
Romi Elnagar
1 year ago

I think one of the sticking points on your comment is “proven.” That’s a high bar to cross when police won’t even test a rape kit or listen to a woman’s complaints to begin with.
I guess the police have more IMPORTANT things to do than listen to a woman’s “infantile” complaints, regardless of how “shrilly” they are lodged.
Did I miss any of the dog-whistles used for women in this comments thread?
“Accountability is kryptonite to women.”
“Zero responsibility.”
“…the obsession with patriarchy is overdone.”

Last edited 1 year ago by Romi Elnagar
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Occasionally, yes. Not very often.
The Met Police officer Carrick has finally been arrested after raping at least 12 women over a period of 20 years, despite a number of accusations against him, during which he was promoted several times. “Nasty” was his Met nickname, apparently.

Romi Elnagar
Romi Elnagar
1 year ago

I think one of the sticking points on your comment is “proven.” That’s a high bar to cross when police won’t even test a rape kit or listen to a woman’s complaints to begin with.
I guess the police have more IMPORTANT things to do than listen to a woman’s “infantile” complaints, regardless of how “shrilly” they are lodged.
Did I miss any of the dog-whistles used for women in this comments thread?
“Accountability is kryptonite to women.”
“Zero responsibility.”
“…the obsession with patriarchy is overdone.”

Last edited 1 year ago by Romi Elnagar
Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago

“raped w/ impunity” – I hope you’re not referring to marriage with that.
I would have in mind things like drug use, lack of commitment to raising children or family, lack of interest in creating a community / knowing your neighbours, lack of respect for hard work or on its inverse being focused solely on financial success at the expense of others – that kind of thing. None of these are unique to Western societies of course, but a liberal system based on “experiments on living” obviously won’t be there to tell you not to do these things.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

Sorry, but your comment has to be called out as being utterly obnoxious and infantile.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

The right not to be battered and raped already exists. It’s why people proven to have violated those rights go to jail.

leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Modern Western culture is an “ideology that centres itself around selfishness”–would you call any movement that asks for rights not to be battered and raped w/ impunity “selfish?” Was the Civil Rights Movement “selfish?”

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago

The way I see this is, any ideology that centres itself around selfishness will be unwilling to pass the baton on (why be selfness for the next generation if your point is about being selfish), and eventually starve itself out unable to continue. Or reading it backwards, any ideology or society that’s dying out because it can’t have continuity may have been doing so because they adopted a selfish ideology some time back.
Judging by birthrates, Western society (esp Europe) is quite literally dying out. This may be because of a selfish ideology adopted a while back.

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago

Ellie, 30, a New England mother of two under two, tells me…her mother …scornfully rejected an offer to live rent-free closer by, in exchange for helping with childcare, as a hostile attempt to reduce her to “just a grandma”.

“Hi Mom, what say you completely rearrange your life to be a free, on-demand babysitter for my kids? What? You won’t?!”

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

That was my reaction too (Gen X not a Boomer)

Nunya Business
Nunya Business
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

This was my reaction as well, and that’s from a Gen Z baby. Who would want to be unable to say no to any childcare demands, no matter how last minute or unreasonable, on pain of jeopardising your housing arrangement?

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

Funny – I know plenty of people who do that for their families but they’re not white English people.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Yes, it seems that this selfish, narcissistic way of life has captured the Anglosphere, in particular. Affluence can be a curse, for sure. Family is still #1 in many other cultures, to their credit and to the Anglosphere’s peril.

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

It’s possible you have a point, but I’m not sure what it is. Is it that, because those people you know do it, “white English” people should also do it? If so, your logic escapes me.

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

It’s more a remark than a point really. You made a comment I understood to say what’s described in the article wasn’t necessarily a reasonable ask – which was heavily agreed with/voted by people. Seeing this I remarked this seems to be a white English thing as in my circle it’s fairly common practice.

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Fair enough. I appreciate your measured reply, and I apologise for misjudging your previous one.

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Fair enough. I appreciate your measured reply, and I apologise for misjudging your previous one.

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

It’s more a remark than a point really. You made a comment I understood to say what’s described in the article wasn’t necessarily a reasonable ask – which was heavily agreed with/voted by people. Seeing this I remarked this seems to be a white English thing as in my circle it’s fairly common practice.

Fred Bloggs
Fred Bloggs
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

And I know quite a few who are white English people.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Yes, it seems that this selfish, narcissistic way of life has captured the Anglosphere, in particular. Affluence can be a curse, for sure. Family is still #1 in many other cultures, to their credit and to the Anglosphere’s peril.

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

It’s possible you have a point, but I’m not sure what it is. Is it that, because those people you know do it, “white English” people should also do it? If so, your logic escapes me.

Fred Bloggs
Fred Bloggs
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

And I know quite a few who are white English people.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

On the other hand we were expected to routinely drag two toddlers across an entire continent for week long stays with family during which neither set of grandparents offered to babysit even for an hour. There is no doubt this issue breeds resentment. I certainly resented it.

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

I can understand your resentment. It will often arise if you accede to other people’s unreasonable expectations. But, as my old dad used to say: “You have a choice: do it, or moan about it; but don’t do it and moan about it.”

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

I can understand your resentment. It will often arise if you accede to other people’s unreasonable expectations. But, as my old dad used to say: “You have a choice: do it, or moan about it; but don’t do it and moan about it.”

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

I love babies so would be happy to assist in rearing my descendants and being an influence in their lives. Many of today’s children don’t know basic fairy tales or nursery songs or games, I would love to pass down that cultural heritage.

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

I genuinely applaud your willingness to pitch in. That being the case, you should look for ways to make it easier for you to do so. It just struck me as massively entitled for someone to think it reasonable to ask someone else, even a parent, to move house because it would make their own life easier.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

The thing is that families are a bulwark and provide stability and cohesion. You don’t have to give up your own enjoyments and goals to help out. By no means should you be a doormat but why wouldn’t you want to spend a good amount of time with the people who you love the most?

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

I agree with you where family is concerned, but the devil is in the details: from my perspective, the expectation that the mother would determine how much time her mother spends with the grandchild, not the grandmother herself, is implicit in the request that the grandmother make such a major change to her own life.
You ask, “why wouldn’t you want to spend a good amount of time with the people who you love the most?”, but we all have our own idea of what constitutes a “good amount of time”.

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

I agree with you where family is concerned, but the devil is in the details: from my perspective, the expectation that the mother would determine how much time her mother spends with the grandchild, not the grandmother herself, is implicit in the request that the grandmother make such a major change to her own life.
You ask, “why wouldn’t you want to spend a good amount of time with the people who you love the most?”, but we all have our own idea of what constitutes a “good amount of time”.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

The thing is that families are a bulwark and provide stability and cohesion. You don’t have to give up your own enjoyments and goals to help out. By no means should you be a doormat but why wouldn’t you want to spend a good amount of time with the people who you love the most?

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

I genuinely applaud your willingness to pitch in. That being the case, you should look for ways to make it easier for you to do so. It just struck me as massively entitled for someone to think it reasonable to ask someone else, even a parent, to move house because it would make their own life easier.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

That was my reaction too (Gen X not a Boomer)

Nunya Business
Nunya Business
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

This was my reaction as well, and that’s from a Gen Z baby. Who would want to be unable to say no to any childcare demands, no matter how last minute or unreasonable, on pain of jeopardising your housing arrangement?

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

Funny – I know plenty of people who do that for their families but they’re not white English people.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

On the other hand we were expected to routinely drag two toddlers across an entire continent for week long stays with family during which neither set of grandparents offered to babysit even for an hour. There is no doubt this issue breeds resentment. I certainly resented it.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Pat Rowles

I love babies so would be happy to assist in rearing my descendants and being an influence in their lives. Many of today’s children don’t know basic fairy tales or nursery songs or games, I would love to pass down that cultural heritage.

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago

Ellie, 30, a New England mother of two under two, tells me…her mother …scornfully rejected an offer to live rent-free closer by, in exchange for helping with childcare, as a hostile attempt to reduce her to “just a grandma”.

“Hi Mom, what say you completely rearrange your life to be a free, on-demand babysitter for my kids? What? You won’t?!”

Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago

I feel the obsession with ‘patriarchy’ is overdone. The belief has become an unchallenged cult, blamed for everything.

It is hardly surprising that with women having and caring for babies and children, and men being more suited to a physical protection role that they had different spheres of control.

Inevitably most men don’t want to be told when or how to risk their lives by a woman who is not going to fight but instead want to make such decisions with their comrades who they will fight with. This then leads to male control of war and the pre war state, which ultimately covers a lot of areas. Not the household though where the woman has traditionally been in charge in most cultures.

Now that war is being taken away from the individual (militarily, culturally and legally) it is reasonable for woman to want more control over their life. However this is leaving men with a reduced and uncertain role and is making our society less able to withstand violent threats when they arrive. And they will and are.

At some point we will regret the loss of the maleness that we used to have. Probably in the next decade.

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the arrival of nuclear weapons and really the detente in the Cold War, and the start sexual revolution/women’s emancipation follow each other. In all likelihood, the patriarchy narrative was made possible basically because of nuclear weapons.
To add to the above, nuclear weapons may not be able to keep us in peace indefinitely. Some day, some nation may be able find an asymmetric weapon, or find means to hack into others’ weapon systems. That’s where today’s danger lies for me.

Last edited 1 year ago by Emre S
Samantha Phillips
Samantha Phillips
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Men no longer preoccupied by war can divert their energies to protecting the family identity of female and male from the ravaging war being waged against the family unit by ideology cults who have invaded our establishment our schools hospitals prisons etc? (Aka Tavistock and mermaids) Maybe our warrior men are not superfluous but can help defend womanhood and womens safe spaces?

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

Women have been fighting for themselves for decades at the expense of men. It’s time men woke up and fought for themselves. No more sacrifices for a section of humanity that hates us.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Oh dear- was Mummy mean to you?

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Your contribution to this thread seems to be ad hominem disparaging remarks directed at anyone with whom you disagree.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

You don’t think perhaps that the accusation of “ad hominems” (which is misplaced, as you seem to follow the standard misunderstanding of the term as meaning ‘personal insult’, which it doesn’t), when applied to a thread largely consisting of a bunch of angry men getting increasingly bilious about women who don’t behave as they think they should, is just a little ironic? You just whined that most women “hate you”, for God’s sake. That’s not exactly Socratic in its dispassionate intellectualism, is it? What do you want, a bowl of ice cream and a hanky?
If you don’t like “ad hominem” (sic) disparaging remarks directed at anyone with whom you disagree (ie, the great majority of women), you must strongly dislike most of the stuff here.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

I was fully enjoying it. You Americans don’t understand British humour at all do you? There’s little left when all hope of rationality has abandoned ship to crazy American feminist rants.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

You don’t think perhaps that the accusation of “ad hominems” (which is misplaced, as you seem to follow the standard misunderstanding of the term as meaning ‘personal insult’, which it doesn’t), when applied to a thread largely consisting of a bunch of angry men getting increasingly bilious about women who don’t behave as they think they should, is just a little ironic? You just whined that most women “hate you”, for God’s sake. That’s not exactly Socratic in its dispassionate intellectualism, is it? What do you want, a bowl of ice cream and a hanky?
If you don’t like “ad hominem” (sic) disparaging remarks directed at anyone with whom you disagree (ie, the great majority of women), you must strongly dislike most of the stuff here.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

I was fully enjoying it. You Americans don’t understand British humour at all do you? There’s little left when all hope of rationality has abandoned ship to crazy American feminist rants.

Aidan A
Aidan A
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

This not a nice comment. Totally unnecessary.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Aidan A

Whereas a comment by a man whining that women are hateful and men need to “fight” back is both “nice” and “necessary”
Good grief.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Aidan A

Whereas a comment by a man whining that women are hateful and men need to “fight” back is both “nice” and “necessary”
Good grief.

Andre Lower
Andre Lower
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

John, the downvotes should be enough for you to realize just how much your opinion is appreciated over here. Do yourself a favour and go join some feminist march somewhere, please? People are trying to discuss as adults here, and you are sticking out like a sore thumb.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Andre Lower

Andre, dear, the reason this blog is called ‘unHerd’ is precisely because it supposedly prides itself on NOT being a repository for the kind of braying “herd” mentality that infests the internet these days.
Sadly, you represent exactly this braying herd mentality, the sort of group-think clone who cannot cope with a different viewpoint, and merely wants to sit in some half-witted echo-chamber of your own ‘thoughts’ , unchallenged by anything or anyone. In which case, why not just sit in a darkened room and talk to yourself? You’ll be guaranteed not to be upset by a differring opinion.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Andre Lower

Andre, dear, the reason this blog is called ‘unHerd’ is precisely because it supposedly prides itself on NOT being a repository for the kind of braying “herd” mentality that infests the internet these days.
Sadly, you represent exactly this braying herd mentality, the sort of group-think clone who cannot cope with a different viewpoint, and merely wants to sit in some half-witted echo-chamber of your own ‘thoughts’ , unchallenged by anything or anyone. In which case, why not just sit in a darkened room and talk to yourself? You’ll be guaranteed not to be upset by a differring opinion.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Your contribution to this thread seems to be ad hominem disparaging remarks directed at anyone with whom you disagree.

Aidan A
Aidan A
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

This not a nice comment. Totally unnecessary.

Andre Lower
Andre Lower
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

John, the downvotes should be enough for you to realize just how much your opinion is appreciated over here. Do yourself a favour and go join some feminist march somewhere, please? People are trying to discuss as adults here, and you are sticking out like a sore thumb.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Oh dear- was Mummy mean to you?

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

Problem is, when you have spent decades pathologising males and their agency, you might not get the response you wish for when you appeal for their aid.

Feminism helped create a world where men are at a loss as to what they are supposed to be and where male activity is constantly subject to outside approval. The same kind of men who will be aware of the trans issue are the same kind of men who would be horrified of being called a sexist, and as such, are equally horrified of being called a transphobe. Men know that they will be condemned whatever they do.

Ironically the men who hold the most traditional views on gender are the working-class types feminists would never dream of associating with and who couldn’t care less what feminists think.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Most men are doing ok- they have jobs, families, friends, they watch sport, go to the pub, secretly look at a bit of porn, do the gardening and even change nappies. They aren’t “condemned” by anyone for doing these things.
They don’t tend to spend their time crying to everyone about their victimhood and how they suffer under such a cruel dystopian nightmare. Maybe you should give it a try.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I was obviously referring to men’s role in society. Men are seen as optional, at best. Greater minds than yours are concerned, female and male.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Men clearly aren’t seen as “optional” by anyone other than a few fringe figures who can be safely ignored by any sane person.
You might think they are “great minds”, but 99% of normal humans think they just need to get laid and find a hobby.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Men clearly aren’t seen as “optional” by anyone other than a few fringe figures who can be safely ignored by any sane person.
You might think they are “great minds”, but 99% of normal humans think they just need to get laid and find a hobby.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I was obviously referring to men’s role in society. Men are seen as optional, at best. Greater minds than yours are concerned, female and male.

tom carson
tom carson
1 year ago

My only problem with this line of thinking is it portrays men as helpless victims of the unreasonable demands of women. I personally find that cringe worthy. Men find great comfort in strong established roles and are very hierarchical. The women’s movement smashed that up. We have been called to reimagine what bravery, commitment and sacrifice look like. Instead of relying on mum to affirm our manhood. We all know what manhood looks like, especially women. It’s time to take our hands off it and get on with it without constantly looking for female approval.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Most men are doing ok- they have jobs, families, friends, they watch sport, go to the pub, secretly look at a bit of porn, do the gardening and even change nappies. They aren’t “condemned” by anyone for doing these things.
They don’t tend to spend their time crying to everyone about their victimhood and how they suffer under such a cruel dystopian nightmare. Maybe you should give it a try.

tom carson
tom carson
1 year ago

My only problem with this line of thinking is it portrays men as helpless victims of the unreasonable demands of women. I personally find that cringe worthy. Men find great comfort in strong established roles and are very hierarchical. The women’s movement smashed that up. We have been called to reimagine what bravery, commitment and sacrifice look like. Instead of relying on mum to affirm our manhood. We all know what manhood looks like, especially women. It’s time to take our hands off it and get on with it without constantly looking for female approval.

Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago

I am trying, as, it seems, are quite a few men. Just don’t understand why some men and lots of women seem to support the transcultists.

It is damaging to both sexes/genders and all of society.

In effect we are now at war, just one where guns are not being used. Yet.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

The trans agenda dovetails into a lot of the things that helped feminism succeed

1) assertion that a group is oppressed or vulnerable (then women, now trans)
2) a desire for people to be seen as tolerant and inclusive towards this group
3) an opponent group who are seen as discriminatory and cruel to the group (feminism would have painted this figure as an archetype of sexism and male chauvinism, the trans equivalent is what they call a TERF)
4) an environment of liberalism which makes people subconsciously believe freedom is the ultimate end and that the more freedom there is the better.

The trans have two more things going for them

A) for young men who are fed up of the way they feel they are treated by society, they can instantly become part of a progressive “in-group” by becoming trans. Going from male to trans woman means going from the very bottom of the progressive stack right to the very top. Once in the crosshairs of the Left, they are now aiming the gun.

B) a lot of young men will seek to “get back” at women by presenting as one

C) there is a potentially huge social dividend to being trans and young. Trans people can make a LOT of money as social media figures in a way men simply cannot. There is a boy at a local school being “transitioned” by 5 girls. He has instantly boosted his social circle. Being trans is a popular thing amongst the young.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Most ‘trans’ people are now girls wanting to become boys- more than two-thirds. This does rather contradict your simple theories.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Depends what numbers you look at. The main concern is male to female transition. Then again, you don’t seem to be able to really do much in the comments section other than be obtuse and insult people.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

It’s a fact, in the UK at least- if you have figures that dispute it, please say.
And why is the “main concern” male to female transition? Whose “main concern”, and why? Perhaps you mean YOUR main concern- in which case, why is the one so much more of a “concern” to you than the other?
And yes, many of my comments today have been a bit, er, tetchy- that’s because the comments I’m responding to have been pretty unpleasant misogynist ranting. If someone posts that stuff, they should surely be ‘man enough’ to take it on the chin, no? Or should we blame their Mothers?

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Where are your figures from?

The main concern is male-to-female transitioners because these individuals are biological men who are seeking access to women’s spaces. You would know that if you were so knowledgable about the trans issue. Various feminists have written on Unherd about it. You can pollute the comments on those articles too.

“Misogynistic ranting”. Lol. Get a grip. I think you got bullied a lot at school.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

“Where do you get you figures from?” There is no strict authority, but the great majority of studies put the current number at around 2/3rds female to male- see Meier and Lebusky , ‘The demographics of transgender population’.
“Various feminists have written…” I thought you hated feminists, and blamed them for most of the world’s ills? Why are you now telling me I should read these hateful, man-hating harridans? Make your mind up.
“I think you got bullied a lot at school”. Ah. Very good argument. I’ve tried to think of an intellectual counter to that epistemological theory, but I just can’t. Top marks.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

“Where do you get you figures from?” There is no strict authority, but the great majority of studies put the current number at around 2/3rds female to male- see Meier and Lebusky , ‘The demographics of transgender population’.
“Various feminists have written…” I thought you hated feminists, and blamed them for most of the world’s ills? Why are you now telling me I should read these hateful, man-hating harridans? Make your mind up.
“I think you got bullied a lot at school”. Ah. Very good argument. I’ve tried to think of an intellectual counter to that epistemological theory, but I just can’t. Top marks.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Where are your figures from?

The main concern is male-to-female transitioners because these individuals are biological men who are seeking access to women’s spaces. You would know that if you were so knowledgable about the trans issue. Various feminists have written on Unherd about it. You can pollute the comments on those articles too.

“Misogynistic ranting”. Lol. Get a grip. I think you got bullied a lot at school.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

It’s a fact, in the UK at least- if you have figures that dispute it, please say.
And why is the “main concern” male to female transition? Whose “main concern”, and why? Perhaps you mean YOUR main concern- in which case, why is the one so much more of a “concern” to you than the other?
And yes, many of my comments today have been a bit, er, tetchy- that’s because the comments I’m responding to have been pretty unpleasant misogynist ranting. If someone posts that stuff, they should surely be ‘man enough’ to take it on the chin, no? Or should we blame their Mothers?

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Depends what numbers you look at. The main concern is male to female transition. Then again, you don’t seem to be able to really do much in the comments section other than be obtuse and insult people.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Most ‘trans’ people are now girls wanting to become boys- more than two-thirds. This does rather contradict your simple theories.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

The trans agenda dovetails into a lot of the things that helped feminism succeed

1) assertion that a group is oppressed or vulnerable (then women, now trans)
2) a desire for people to be seen as tolerant and inclusive towards this group
3) an opponent group who are seen as discriminatory and cruel to the group (feminism would have painted this figure as an archetype of sexism and male chauvinism, the trans equivalent is what they call a TERF)
4) an environment of liberalism which makes people subconsciously believe freedom is the ultimate end and that the more freedom there is the better.

The trans have two more things going for them

A) for young men who are fed up of the way they feel they are treated by society, they can instantly become part of a progressive “in-group” by becoming trans. Going from male to trans woman means going from the very bottom of the progressive stack right to the very top. Once in the crosshairs of the Left, they are now aiming the gun.

B) a lot of young men will seek to “get back” at women by presenting as one

C) there is a potentially huge social dividend to being trans and young. Trans people can make a LOT of money as social media figures in a way men simply cannot. There is a boy at a local school being “transitioned” by 5 girls. He has instantly boosted his social circle. Being trans is a popular thing amongst the young.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
tom carson
tom carson
1 year ago

Yes Samantha I think I agree with that. Whenever I see us bemoan the loss of traditional roles I think it is mostly a loss of imagination. Are we saying that we no longer need men to be brave? Do we no longer need men to be protective? Do we no longer need men to be father to children? My God, there is a world of work to do as you pointed out. The traditional roles for men and women do not become superfluous. They just need to be reimagined.

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  tom carson

Well said.

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  tom carson

Well said.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

Women have been fighting for themselves for decades at the expense of men. It’s time men woke up and fought for themselves. No more sacrifices for a section of humanity that hates us.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

Problem is, when you have spent decades pathologising males and their agency, you might not get the response you wish for when you appeal for their aid.

Feminism helped create a world where men are at a loss as to what they are supposed to be and where male activity is constantly subject to outside approval. The same kind of men who will be aware of the trans issue are the same kind of men who would be horrified of being called a sexist, and as such, are equally horrified of being called a transphobe. Men know that they will be condemned whatever they do.

Ironically the men who hold the most traditional views on gender are the working-class types feminists would never dream of associating with and who couldn’t care less what feminists think.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago

I am trying, as, it seems, are quite a few men. Just don’t understand why some men and lots of women seem to support the transcultists.

It is damaging to both sexes/genders and all of society.

In effect we are now at war, just one where guns are not being used. Yet.

tom carson
tom carson
1 year ago

Yes Samantha I think I agree with that. Whenever I see us bemoan the loss of traditional roles I think it is mostly a loss of imagination. Are we saying that we no longer need men to be brave? Do we no longer need men to be protective? Do we no longer need men to be father to children? My God, there is a world of work to do as you pointed out. The traditional roles for men and women do not become superfluous. They just need to be reimagined.

Sam Sky
Sam Sky
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Many of these grandparents have done their duty, raised the next generation and now want a break from both work and small children and expect the next generation to do their bit now, as they did. Not everyone wants their last years on earth surrounded by horrible little brats running and screaming around, for which they no longer have the energy of youth to tolerate. Especially as the current generation of parents – and our current legal system – forbids giving such brats the corporal punishment – the belt, the ruler to the knuckles that all children were familiar with 50 years ago – they deserve that we used to have. Back when we were (quite properly) expected to be seen and not heard and feared the wroth of adults if we dared to intrude on their adult world with our insufferable childishness.

That other cultures that contributed a mere iota of what the English have think differently strikes me as a moot point.

Last edited 1 year ago by Sam Sky
Samantha Phillips
Samantha Phillips
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Men no longer preoccupied by war can divert their energies to protecting the family identity of female and male from the ravaging war being waged against the family unit by ideology cults who have invaded our establishment our schools hospitals prisons etc? (Aka Tavistock and mermaids) Maybe our warrior men are not superfluous but can help defend womanhood and womens safe spaces?

Sam Sky
Sam Sky
1 year ago
Reply to  Emre S

Many of these grandparents have done their duty, raised the next generation and now want a break from both work and small children and expect the next generation to do their bit now, as they did. Not everyone wants their last years on earth surrounded by horrible little brats running and screaming around, for which they no longer have the energy of youth to tolerate. Especially as the current generation of parents – and our current legal system – forbids giving such brats the corporal punishment – the belt, the ruler to the knuckles that all children were familiar with 50 years ago – they deserve that we used to have. Back when we were (quite properly) expected to be seen and not heard and feared the wroth of adults if we dared to intrude on their adult world with our insufferable childishness.

That other cultures that contributed a mere iota of what the English have think differently strikes me as a moot point.

Last edited 1 year ago by Sam Sky
Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

Well Ukrainian men have been expected to be very traditional whether they like it or not. I am always surprised at how many of them are middle aged in the combat footage. I would have been all over being a warrior when I was 19 – not so much in my middle age.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

No feminists in house fires, the Titanic or trenches on the Ukrainian battlefield

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Plenty in HM Submarines unfortunately.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago

Three women submariners as fas as I know.
Which may be your definition of “plenty”, but it’s a lot less than the number of women “victims” who have murdered their partners.

Edit: 2016. Could be modestly higher now, I guess.

Last edited 1 year ago by Samir Iker
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

I agree.
However there has been quite a bit of “bovver “ in HM Submarines in recent years despite the MoD doing its very best to suppress any mention of it.
Courts Martial have been the result and one tabloid has highlighted the scandal, rather amusingly as “UP PERISCOPE “!

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Oh, to be in a long hard vessel full of seamen, Samir….

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

I agree.
However there has been quite a bit of “bovver “ in HM Submarines in recent years despite the MoD doing its very best to suppress any mention of it.
Courts Martial have been the result and one tabloid has highlighted the scandal, rather amusingly as “UP PERISCOPE “!

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Oh, to be in a long hard vessel full of seamen, Samir….

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago

Three women submariners as fas as I know.
Which may be your definition of “plenty”, but it’s a lot less than the number of women “victims” who have murdered their partners.

Edit: 2016. Could be modestly higher now, I guess.

Last edited 1 year ago by Samir Iker
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

ps. (Useless information.)
You serve IN a Royal Navy vessel not ON.
The only two exceptions used to be H.M.S.Aisne and H.M.S. Opportune. Both now scrapped.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago

What you also do ON a navy vessel is to watch out for other ships. Not a hard task, given the extent of navigation aids and radars.
Which is something that the crew of the USN Fitzgerald and KNM Helge Ingstad failed to do, quite miserably, under benign conditions.
Guess what was the common link?

In other news, the royal navy is trying to double the number of women (overall, not those in submarines and stuff) from 1 in 10 currently. Should be good. Strangely, no such initiative for increasing male teachers in schools though.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago

What you also do ON a navy vessel is to watch out for other ships. Not a hard task, given the extent of navigation aids and radars.
Which is something that the crew of the USN Fitzgerald and KNM Helge Ingstad failed to do, quite miserably, under benign conditions.
Guess what was the common link?

In other news, the royal navy is trying to double the number of women (overall, not those in submarines and stuff) from 1 in 10 currently. Should be good. Strangely, no such initiative for increasing male teachers in schools though.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

Plenty in HM Submarines unfortunately.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

ps. (Useless information.)
You serve IN a Royal Navy vessel not ON.
The only two exceptions used to be H.M.S.Aisne and H.M.S. Opportune. Both now scrapped.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

No feminists in house fires, the Titanic or trenches on the Ukrainian battlefield

Emre S
Emre S
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the arrival of nuclear weapons and really the detente in the Cold War, and the start sexual revolution/women’s emancipation follow each other. In all likelihood, the patriarchy narrative was made possible basically because of nuclear weapons.
To add to the above, nuclear weapons may not be able to keep us in peace indefinitely. Some day, some nation may be able find an asymmetric weapon, or find means to hack into others’ weapon systems. That’s where today’s danger lies for me.

Last edited 1 year ago by Emre S
Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

Well Ukrainian men have been expected to be very traditional whether they like it or not. I am always surprised at how many of them are middle aged in the combat footage. I would have been all over being a warrior when I was 19 – not so much in my middle age.

Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago

I feel the obsession with ‘patriarchy’ is overdone. The belief has become an unchallenged cult, blamed for everything.

It is hardly surprising that with women having and caring for babies and children, and men being more suited to a physical protection role that they had different spheres of control.

Inevitably most men don’t want to be told when or how to risk their lives by a woman who is not going to fight but instead want to make such decisions with their comrades who they will fight with. This then leads to male control of war and the pre war state, which ultimately covers a lot of areas. Not the household though where the woman has traditionally been in charge in most cultures.

Now that war is being taken away from the individual (militarily, culturally and legally) it is reasonable for woman to want more control over their life. However this is leaving men with a reduced and uncertain role and is making our society less able to withstand violent threats when they arrive. And they will and are.

At some point we will regret the loss of the maleness that we used to have. Probably in the next decade.

Sue Frisby
Sue Frisby
1 year ago

A thought-provoking article, particularly as it’s very relevant to me. I was a radical ‘80s feminist and I’m now a grandmother. I have been seriously re-thinking my views around women and men for some years and I have been letting go of the idea I must prove myself in the ‘outside world’ at the same time as being a single mother. Even though I was seriously programmed by feminist ideology, it still feels natural to me to home-make and nurture. My spiritual and practical female wisdom is vital for my family.

Sue Frisby
Sue Frisby
1 year ago

A thought-provoking article, particularly as it’s very relevant to me. I was a radical ‘80s feminist and I’m now a grandmother. I have been seriously re-thinking my views around women and men for some years and I have been letting go of the idea I must prove myself in the ‘outside world’ at the same time as being a single mother. Even though I was seriously programmed by feminist ideology, it still feels natural to me to home-make and nurture. My spiritual and practical female wisdom is vital for my family.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago

Yes, dear old Siggi and “what do women want?”
He was wrong, as usual. The question is rather “what do women expect?”
And the answer is that “women expect to be protected,” by men, by mothers, by grandmothers, by government, by first-wave feminists, and Uncle Tom Cobbley.
And yes, when a woman has a baby she needs — expects — a lot of support. That is how to beat the odds on all the things that can go wrong.
I know a mother who says “my job is to keep these kids alive.”
I think she is probably right. But I don’t know if the lasses on Mumsnet would agree.

Phillipa Fioretti
Phillipa Fioretti
1 year ago

In a society like Freud’s the question was ‘What do men want from women?’ and so women were shaped accordingly, focussing on sexual attractiveness and marriagability. It was hammered home that this is how they should be by making it impossible to survive without a man’s protection.

To ask what it was a woman wanted was a question she couldn’t answer as she’d been schooled in meekness and obedience and was allowed little agency.

So Freud could find no answer in his time and was utterly puzzled by the woman that patriarchy had created and shaped. That he could not see the blindingly obvious- that women want to be seen as humans first and ‘women’ afterwards, is an indication of deeply ingrained patriarchy was in his time.

Now we ask what do men want? And if the Internet is any indication, they want to be back on top again, where they can dictate the terms then ridicule women for following them.

I

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

Very perceptive. We frequently see evidence of what you describe in Unherd Comments.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

And where does this patriarchy come from?….the Bible, and the Koran, and thus the three so called Abrahamic Faiths confine women the dustbin. ( perhaps it is something to do with the desert where they came from?)

Although the Romans were not entirely blameless,* at least Roman women in the first century AD had far greater legal and property rights than women in the UK did until the late nineteenth century.

(*The Pater Familias etc.)

Phillipa Fioretti
Phillipa Fioretti
1 year ago

Where does patriarchy come from? Well, it goes way back beyond the Abrahamic religions. I hoped Yolanda Harari would answer that question in his book Homo Sapiens, but he basically said he didn’t know and that it could be stemming from men’s superior strength.
It’s a really fraught question because if it’s regarded as a default, natural state of affairs, then we would all have to just give up striving for equality. And I do think that as animals, there is a strong biological factor. But we are also, social and symbolic beings living on the cusp of gender implosion, so we can implement change and choice.

Those who say it’s a natural thing should be reminded that Nature does not give a toss how we arrange ourselves only that we reproduce. Nature has endowed humans with some seriously self destructive features and we deploy them every day. It would be good if we could rise above patriarchal structures, good for all, I suspect.

Phillipa Fioretti
Phillipa Fioretti
1 year ago

That should be Yohan Harari, not Yolanda

Jonathan Smith
Jonathan Smith
1 year ago

Yuval Noah Harari

Jonathan Smith
Jonathan Smith
1 year ago

Yuval Noah Harari

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Sadly Aristotle has much to answer for on this subject, although his mentor Plato, is far more magnanimous.

Adam Bartlett
Adam Bartlett
1 year ago

Surely you jest Charles? “Pater” is the Latin word for father, who in Roman society had the right to kill his children on a whim and for centuries had legally sanctified absolute authority over his wife. Hence the historically widely used term “paterfamilias”. The rest of the family other than the Father was legally defined as a “body of slaves”. All this has been well known to the educated classes since Fustel de Coulanges published ‘The ancient city’ back in 1864. Christianity on the other hand had woman leading some of the churches right from the first few decades, and the Holy Bible has several famous and influential pro equality passages.
 
An excellent book detailing the utterly oppressive nature of Roman society and the largely liberating nature of Christianity is “Inventing the individual” by good Larry Siedentop. Subtitled ‘The Origins of Western Liberalism’ it also sheds historical light on several of Mary’s fave themes. Conversely, you’re not going to be able to cite a single even 5th rank scholar who holds ancient Rome was more pro Woman than Christianity, as that’s such an absurd position.
That said, of course there have been many oppressive movements within the faith, and even as a Christian I’m glad that feminists has done much to counter them. PS – great insight in the original comment by Pip & as ever in Mary’s article.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam Bartlett

In the early Republic you are absolutely correct about the potential power of the Pater Familias or as some say Paterfamilias, but over time this slackened and by the first century of the Principate a woman could divorce almost at will and RETAIN her property. Surely you don’t deny this?

You are also correct that in the early Church woman were treated as equals or at least near equals, but later (St) Augustine & Co soon put a stop to that and they (women)were reduced to the status of near Helots. Hardly surprising really in a Semitic religion is it?

I would dispute your claim about the oppressive nature of Roman Society, and given the longevity of that society it would take all day to discuss it!

However I must agree that I can think of no notable Classicist who has troubled themselves discuss the position of Roman women and the advent of Christianity, particularly from a legal standpoint. That off course says something in itself does it not?

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam Bartlett

Whilst what you say about the power of the paterfamilias in Roman society is essentially true, this was more de jure and less de facto; killing one’s wife when she had a living father and brothers, who may have wielded more power than you, was never wise. Also, certainly by the 1st century AD, the main type of marriage was sine mano, in which the woman’s father remained her paterfamilias,and she retained her own property rights. The stories of the grim paterfamilias killing his own kin are just that – stories.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Thank you Linda.

Adam Bartlett
Adam Bartlett
1 year ago

Thanks for the gentle correction to my somewhat excessive assertions Linda & Charles.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Thank you Linda.

Adam Bartlett
Adam Bartlett
1 year ago

Thanks for the gentle correction to my somewhat excessive assertions Linda & Charles.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam Bartlett

In the early Republic you are absolutely correct about the potential power of the Pater Familias or as some say Paterfamilias, but over time this slackened and by the first century of the Principate a woman could divorce almost at will and RETAIN her property. Surely you don’t deny this?

You are also correct that in the early Church woman were treated as equals or at least near equals, but later (St) Augustine & Co soon put a stop to that and they (women)were reduced to the status of near Helots. Hardly surprising really in a Semitic religion is it?

I would dispute your claim about the oppressive nature of Roman Society, and given the longevity of that society it would take all day to discuss it!

However I must agree that I can think of no notable Classicist who has troubled themselves discuss the position of Roman women and the advent of Christianity, particularly from a legal standpoint. That off course says something in itself does it not?

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam Bartlett

Whilst what you say about the power of the paterfamilias in Roman society is essentially true, this was more de jure and less de facto; killing one’s wife when she had a living father and brothers, who may have wielded more power than you, was never wise. Also, certainly by the 1st century AD, the main type of marriage was sine mano, in which the woman’s father remained her paterfamilias,and she retained her own property rights. The stories of the grim paterfamilias killing his own kin are just that – stories.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago

Maybe I only remember the ‘Human Biogrammar’ from my otherwise stupendously dull Sociology ‘A’ Level (maybe because it was written by the groovily-named Tiger and Fox) was because it made so much sense about why men are men and women are women. Well, to me, anyhow.
That, and my cookie-cutter ‘Millie Tant’ style uber-feminist lecturer hated it. Ha ha ha.

leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago

I agree. Just because something is “natural,” like most 17-year-old boys feeling the urge to rape half the females who pass by, doesn’t make it inevitable or unsurmountable. Most people have felt enraged enough at some point (sometimes justifiably, like after having a family member harmed) that if they’d had a loaded gun immediately available w/ the perp right there they’d use it–that’s why we develop ethics, morals, and a justice system, to restrain those impulses.

I feel some impulses of revenge against the many men on my “metoo” list but I’m above chasing them down for deplatforming and other shaming retribution, because I’m emotionally intelligent enough to recognize that their nervousness now is enough of a consequence and that I also need to get on w/ my blip-in-time life.

“Natural” isn’t an excuse for anything, and has often been reworked to justify Enlightment-forward atrocities, such as Negro slavery, contemporary patriarchy through sociobioogy, Nazi eugenics, or the latest transactivist nonsense. It’s informative, to be sure, and worth investigating, but it’s not determinative. That’s what makes us human.

Last edited 1 year ago by leculdesac suburbia
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I never felt the urge at 17 to “rape half the females who pass by”. Have sex with them, yes- well, a quarter- but not rape.
I wanted women to find me devastatingly attractive, to desire me and willingly submit to my devastating masculine charms. I don’t think any of my friends wanted to rape women on a daily basis either- we didn’t spend our teenage lives constantly suppressing a desire to violently attack girls and violate them. We just wanted constant consensual sex, and occasionally got lucky. If you did, I’m sorry for you. It must have been terrible- did it ever recede, or do you still want to rape half of the women you see?

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago

“Just because something is “natural,” like most 17-year-old boys feeling the urge to rape half the females who pass by … ”
I was going to ignore this outrageous comment, but I’ve changed my mind. How do you know what adolescent most (or any) boys think or feel? You’re equating sex with rape. What everyone does know, and what biologists know, is that boys of this age have sex on their minds (and so do teenage girls). That’s what puberty is all about. But rape? That’s a preposterous non sequitur, to say the least. Unfortunately, it’s also become a pervasive ideological assumption.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

I agree, it’s hard to scroll by when there’s so much wrong with that comment on so many levels. And somehow it’s got five up votes.
This part:
‘I feel some impulses of revenge against the many men on my “metoo” list but I’m above chasing them down for deplatforming and other shaming retribution, because I’m emotionally intelligent enough to recognize that their nervousness now is enough of a consequence and that I also need to get on w/ my blip-in-time life.’

You have a metoo list??? Where do find these men?? You’re basically saying your above blackmailing these people because of your’ emotional intelligence’??
If someone has committed a crime against you and you have evidence enough to ‘chase them down and deplatform them or other shaming retribution ‘ surely you should just go to the police??

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Seems that someone is not bothered about protecting other women and just wants a power trip. Plus, how does she know they are nervous?

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Seems that someone is not bothered about protecting other women and just wants a power trip. Plus, how does she know they are nervous?

Melissa Martin
Melissa Martin
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

Teenage girls have romance on their minds. One reason men on oestrogen doesn’t work is it gives them romantic drives when they are the romantic target of 0% of the population.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

I agree, it’s hard to scroll by when there’s so much wrong with that comment on so many levels. And somehow it’s got five up votes.
This part:
‘I feel some impulses of revenge against the many men on my “metoo” list but I’m above chasing them down for deplatforming and other shaming retribution, because I’m emotionally intelligent enough to recognize that their nervousness now is enough of a consequence and that I also need to get on w/ my blip-in-time life.’

You have a metoo list??? Where do find these men?? You’re basically saying your above blackmailing these people because of your’ emotional intelligence’??
If someone has committed a crime against you and you have evidence enough to ‘chase them down and deplatform them or other shaming retribution ‘ surely you should just go to the police??

Melissa Martin
Melissa Martin
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

Teenage girls have romance on their minds. One reason men on oestrogen doesn’t work is it gives them romantic drives when they are the romantic target of 0% of the population.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

I never felt the urge to rape half the females who passed by me when I was 17. What a pathetic statement.

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago

Let’s not be ridiculous. No, “most 17 yr. old boys do NOT feel the urge to rape half the females who pass by”.
Are most 17 yr. old boys obsessed with sex? Absolutely; no question.
But there is a vast and chasmic difference between being sexually obsessed, fascinated, & entranced .. as all that is focused — at 17 — primarily upon the stereotypical movie-star/cheerleader girls who only date QB’s….and feeling the urge to rape. The Venn Overlap between the set of young boys who desperately want to go on a date with ‘Jacy Farrow’ (as played by Cybill Shepherd in “The Last Picture Show”) and those who are seriously considering rape is microscopically small.
Let’s not confuse normal, adolescent sexual fascination with criminal sociopathy.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I never felt the urge at 17 to “rape half the females who pass by”. Have sex with them, yes- well, a quarter- but not rape.
I wanted women to find me devastatingly attractive, to desire me and willingly submit to my devastating masculine charms. I don’t think any of my friends wanted to rape women on a daily basis either- we didn’t spend our teenage lives constantly suppressing a desire to violently attack girls and violate them. We just wanted constant consensual sex, and occasionally got lucky. If you did, I’m sorry for you. It must have been terrible- did it ever recede, or do you still want to rape half of the women you see?

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago

“Just because something is “natural,” like most 17-year-old boys feeling the urge to rape half the females who pass by … ”
I was going to ignore this outrageous comment, but I’ve changed my mind. How do you know what adolescent most (or any) boys think or feel? You’re equating sex with rape. What everyone does know, and what biologists know, is that boys of this age have sex on their minds (and so do teenage girls). That’s what puberty is all about. But rape? That’s a preposterous non sequitur, to say the least. Unfortunately, it’s also become a pervasive ideological assumption.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

I never felt the urge to rape half the females who passed by me when I was 17. What a pathetic statement.

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago

Let’s not be ridiculous. No, “most 17 yr. old boys do NOT feel the urge to rape half the females who pass by”.
Are most 17 yr. old boys obsessed with sex? Absolutely; no question.
But there is a vast and chasmic difference between being sexually obsessed, fascinated, & entranced .. as all that is focused — at 17 — primarily upon the stereotypical movie-star/cheerleader girls who only date QB’s….and feeling the urge to rape. The Venn Overlap between the set of young boys who desperately want to go on a date with ‘Jacy Farrow’ (as played by Cybill Shepherd in “The Last Picture Show”) and those who are seriously considering rape is microscopically small.
Let’s not confuse normal, adolescent sexual fascination with criminal sociopathy.

Gordon Black
Gordon Black
1 year ago

Nature doesn’t give a toss about extinction, only we care about our reproduction to avoid that fate. That requires, by all means fair or foul, women must average 2+x children each. Anything less guarantees extinction so let’s try to keep the means fair. And, from a species survival perspective, “… some seriously self destructive features…” are homosexuality, contraception and abortion: but I think we can maybe work round that with the ‘x’ in 2+x.

Last edited 1 year ago by Gordon Black
Phillipa Fioretti
Phillipa Fioretti
1 year ago

That should be Yohan Harari, not Yolanda

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Sadly Aristotle has much to answer for on this subject, although his mentor Plato, is far more magnanimous.

Adam Bartlett
Adam Bartlett
1 year ago

Surely you jest Charles? “Pater” is the Latin word for father, who in Roman society had the right to kill his children on a whim and for centuries had legally sanctified absolute authority over his wife. Hence the historically widely used term “paterfamilias”. The rest of the family other than the Father was legally defined as a “body of slaves”. All this has been well known to the educated classes since Fustel de Coulanges published ‘The ancient city’ back in 1864. Christianity on the other hand had woman leading some of the churches right from the first few decades, and the Holy Bible has several famous and influential pro equality passages.
 
An excellent book detailing the utterly oppressive nature of Roman society and the largely liberating nature of Christianity is “Inventing the individual” by good Larry Siedentop. Subtitled ‘The Origins of Western Liberalism’ it also sheds historical light on several of Mary’s fave themes. Conversely, you’re not going to be able to cite a single even 5th rank scholar who holds ancient Rome was more pro Woman than Christianity, as that’s such an absurd position.
That said, of course there have been many oppressive movements within the faith, and even as a Christian I’m glad that feminists has done much to counter them. PS – great insight in the original comment by Pip & as ever in Mary’s article.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
1 year ago

Maybe I only remember the ‘Human Biogrammar’ from my otherwise stupendously dull Sociology ‘A’ Level (maybe because it was written by the groovily-named Tiger and Fox) was because it made so much sense about why men are men and women are women. Well, to me, anyhow.
That, and my cookie-cutter ‘Millie Tant’ style uber-feminist lecturer hated it. Ha ha ha.

leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago

I agree. Just because something is “natural,” like most 17-year-old boys feeling the urge to rape half the females who pass by, doesn’t make it inevitable or unsurmountable. Most people have felt enraged enough at some point (sometimes justifiably, like after having a family member harmed) that if they’d had a loaded gun immediately available w/ the perp right there they’d use it–that’s why we develop ethics, morals, and a justice system, to restrain those impulses.

I feel some impulses of revenge against the many men on my “metoo” list but I’m above chasing them down for deplatforming and other shaming retribution, because I’m emotionally intelligent enough to recognize that their nervousness now is enough of a consequence and that I also need to get on w/ my blip-in-time life.

“Natural” isn’t an excuse for anything, and has often been reworked to justify Enlightment-forward atrocities, such as Negro slavery, contemporary patriarchy through sociobioogy, Nazi eugenics, or the latest transactivist nonsense. It’s informative, to be sure, and worth investigating, but it’s not determinative. That’s what makes us human.

Last edited 1 year ago by leculdesac suburbia
Gordon Black
Gordon Black
1 year ago

Nature doesn’t give a toss about extinction, only we care about our reproduction to avoid that fate. That requires, by all means fair or foul, women must average 2+x children each. Anything less guarantees extinction so let’s try to keep the means fair. And, from a species survival perspective, “… some seriously self destructive features…” are homosexuality, contraception and abortion: but I think we can maybe work round that with the ‘x’ in 2+x.

Last edited 1 year ago by Gordon Black
Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

Patriarchy is inevitable. Like it or not, the psychological and physical tools of leadership lie with men.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago

Reality is a problem in our current world. It is likely to become an even bigger one if our leaders continue the way they are. So I wouldn’t worry about down-votes. If Ukraine gets out of hand it won’t be the feminists being conscripted, assuming it doesn’t go nuclear. That happens and what Rough men survive, will be in great demand, maybe even by Feminists.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

The small logical problem with this particular concept of “reality” is that the solution and the problem are the same- i.e., “tough men”.
What you and your angry little friend above are sayig is, basically, ‘when violent men (or “Rough men”- ooh..) are threatening you, you’re going to want a violent man to protect you’. The fact that the problem, as well as the putative solution, is violent men suggests that you need to think this through a bit more Bill.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

In a situation where someone is threatening you with violence, defending yourself, or getting someone to defend you, which will probably involve something approaching violence, may be unavoidable, however unpalatable it may be and however preferable other solutions may be.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Yes- and that “someone threatening you” will almost certainly be a violent man, so that’s not much of a sales pitch.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You’re missing the point. It would be nigh-on impossible to eliminate violence in human society. So the next best solution is to employ safeguards to counteract it. One of these may be being prepared to be violent to counter a violent person, or being under the protection of another person or group entity.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Yes. But my confusion here lies in the fact that the anti-feminist comments here get deeply upset by the supposed assertion that male violence is endemic, whilst simultaneously glorifying in male aggressiveness, and telling women that they should shut up and be grateful that some nice violent men might protect them against other nasty violent men.
Can we have some honest logic here, rather than just blaming women for both ‘nice’ violent men and ‘nasty’ violent men? If men ARE inherently violent (which may, to some degree, be true), can we please just stop blaming feminists for this? It’s a cop-out.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Yes. But my confusion here lies in the fact that the anti-feminist comments here get deeply upset by the supposed assertion that male violence is endemic, whilst simultaneously glorifying in male aggressiveness, and telling women that they should shut up and be grateful that some nice violent men might protect them against other nasty violent men.
Can we have some honest logic here, rather than just blaming women for both ‘nice’ violent men and ‘nasty’ violent men? If men ARE inherently violent (which may, to some degree, be true), can we please just stop blaming feminists for this? It’s a cop-out.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You’re missing the point. It would be nigh-on impossible to eliminate violence in human society. So the next best solution is to employ safeguards to counteract it. One of these may be being prepared to be violent to counter a violent person, or being under the protection of another person or group entity.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Yes- and that “someone threatening you” will almost certainly be a violent man, so that’s not much of a sales pitch.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

In a situation where someone is threatening you with violence, defending yourself, or getting someone to defend you, which will probably involve something approaching violence, may be unavoidable, however unpalatable it may be and however preferable other solutions may be.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

The small logical problem with this particular concept of “reality” is that the solution and the problem are the same- i.e., “tough men”.
What you and your angry little friend above are sayig is, basically, ‘when violent men (or “Rough men”- ooh..) are threatening you, you’re going to want a violent man to protect you’. The fact that the problem, as well as the putative solution, is violent men suggests that you need to think this through a bit more Bill.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Perhaps but an unfortunate use of the word TOOLS.
In Tudor England, the England of Henry VIII tool was vernacular word for p*nis.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

As such it survives to this day.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

As such it survives to this day.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago

Reality is a problem in our current world. It is likely to become an even bigger one if our leaders continue the way they are. So I wouldn’t worry about down-votes. If Ukraine gets out of hand it won’t be the feminists being conscripted, assuming it doesn’t go nuclear. That happens and what Rough men survive, will be in great demand, maybe even by Feminists.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Perhaps but an unfortunate use of the word TOOLS.
In Tudor England, the England of Henry VIII tool was vernacular word for p*nis.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Not to mention our Norman overlords, who had a far more restrictive legal and social attitude to women than the Anglo-Saxons.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Even perhaps ‘Droit du seigneur’ for the lucky few.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I think this occurs in Europe post Charlemagne where an aristocracy with inheritable titles and land evolved.
In rural societies where there was little to inherit, female fertility was the most important quality of women. Pre 1492 and the introduction of syphilis, there is the indication that rural women married the man who got her pregnant. Chaucer was not prudish.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Contrary to popular opinion, syphilis, (otherwise known as the dreaded Pox) was not introduced from the New World.

There is forensic evidence from a Nunnery in I think Kingston upon Hull* that it was thriving by the mid thirteenth century.

*Correction that should read Mendicant Friary in Gloucester. Sorry Hull!

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

Amusing truly, that the correction focused on geography rather than nuns vs. friars!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  E. L. Herndon

That would have taken too long sadly!
Although there is certainly evidence for “hanky panky” at both as I recall.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 year ago

‘As I recall’. I had you down as old Charles, but not that old!

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 year ago

‘As I recall’. I had you down as old Charles, but not that old!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  E. L. Herndon

That would have taken too long sadly!
Although there is certainly evidence for “hanky panky” at both as I recall.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

Amusing truly, that the correction focused on geography rather than nuns vs. friars!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Contrary to popular opinion, syphilis, (otherwise known as the dreaded Pox) was not introduced from the New World.

There is forensic evidence from a Nunnery in I think Kingston upon Hull* that it was thriving by the mid thirteenth century.

*Correction that should read Mendicant Friary in Gloucester. Sorry Hull!

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Even perhaps ‘Droit du seigneur’ for the lucky few.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I think this occurs in Europe post Charlemagne where an aristocracy with inheritable titles and land evolved.
In rural societies where there was little to inherit, female fertility was the most important quality of women. Pre 1492 and the introduction of syphilis, there is the indication that rural women married the man who got her pregnant. Chaucer was not prudish.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

Sparta gave women far more freedom than Athens and the Gauls more than the Romans. Was it Tacitus or Caesar who noted that women in Gaul had more freedom than in Rome? Beduin women have more freedom than those who live in cities. I suggest that where societies are of the warrior type, rural, nomadic or where men sail overseas ( Viking )women have far more freedom as they run the farm when the men are away. Where the society is urban and the fmily is sufficiently wealthy so they do not have to work, women, have often been housebound.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Yes it is said that Spartan women even used to wrestle…….naked and……………covered in olive oil…..simply outrageous!

It was Caesar who commented on Gallic women and Tacitus on German, besides our own beloved Boudicca or Boadicea as ‘we’ used to call her.

However, as outlined above, Roman women soon caught up, legally speaking, which rather challenges your ‘Warrior Thesis’. The ‘exception that proves the rule’ so to speak.

Then off course there the mythical (?) Amazons, but we had better leave that for another day.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

I think it is basic, when men are away wife has to run farm , business , home, et.Shepherdesses had to be free to roam the hills and women take goods to market: they were not house bound.
Women in nomadic groups, especially warrior ones such as Huns and Mongols had to be able to ride long distances. My Mother used to say that freedom with which a women could move wearing her clothes showed the freedom she had in society. Compare a Mongol , Spartan, Viking or British Shepherdess with an upper middle class urban women of late 19th Europe who had to wear very restrictive dresses.
Lady Anthonia Fraser in one her books said war tends to increase women’s freedom whether it is defending family home when men away : The Anarchy, War of Roses, Civil War and domestic staff going to work in factories are examples.
Did Roman women ever have the freedom and physical training of Spartan?
Perhaps the the ability to think, speak and move freely are beneficial to the growth of balanced and well developed people.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

No, I doubt very much that Roman woman achieved quite the same level of athleticism as Spartan women are thought to have done.

However the major social event in the Roman world for both men and women was attendance at the Baths (Thermae).
As such all ‘Baths’ had either a Gymnasium* or a Palaestra attached to them. Both were places for extreme physical exercise, prior to bathing.
Off course this exercise was performed naked which was NO problem in the pre Christian/Semitic world, unlike today.

(* From the Greek ‘gymnos’: Naked or without clothes!)

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

No, I doubt very much that Roman woman achieved quite the same level of athleticism as Spartan women are thought to have done.

However the major social event in the Roman world for both men and women was attendance at the Baths (Thermae).
As such all ‘Baths’ had either a Gymnasium* or a Palaestra attached to them. Both were places for extreme physical exercise, prior to bathing.
Off course this exercise was performed naked which was NO problem in the pre Christian/Semitic world, unlike today.

(* From the Greek ‘gymnos’: Naked or without clothes!)

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

I think it is basic, when men are away wife has to run farm , business , home, et.Shepherdesses had to be free to roam the hills and women take goods to market: they were not house bound.
Women in nomadic groups, especially warrior ones such as Huns and Mongols had to be able to ride long distances. My Mother used to say that freedom with which a women could move wearing her clothes showed the freedom she had in society. Compare a Mongol , Spartan, Viking or British Shepherdess with an upper middle class urban women of late 19th Europe who had to wear very restrictive dresses.
Lady Anthonia Fraser in one her books said war tends to increase women’s freedom whether it is defending family home when men away : The Anarchy, War of Roses, Civil War and domestic staff going to work in factories are examples.
Did Roman women ever have the freedom and physical training of Spartan?
Perhaps the the ability to think, speak and move freely are beneficial to the growth of balanced and well developed people.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Yes it is said that Spartan women even used to wrestle…….naked and……………covered in olive oil…..simply outrageous!

It was Caesar who commented on Gallic women and Tacitus on German, besides our own beloved Boudicca or Boadicea as ‘we’ used to call her.

However, as outlined above, Roman women soon caught up, legally speaking, which rather challenges your ‘Warrior Thesis’. The ‘exception that proves the rule’ so to speak.

Then off course there the mythical (?) Amazons, but we had better leave that for another day.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago

Fascinating question.
But isn’t the answer obvious?
If by ‘patriarchy’ we mean a social system in which men hold most of the nominal power….and since patriarchal systems have dominated human society since time immemorial….should we not conclude that male leadership of most social collectives is a natural function of the qualities which are stereotypically male? (you know, the standard list: strength, independence, courage, leadership, aggression…the qualities which existed long, long before the concept of ‘patriarchy’ was invented)
What else could it be (given a lack of good-old-boy backroom clubs back in 10,000 BC)?
Given a world in which life was short, nasty & brutish…a world absent any any moderating civilization… group survival would depend upon devising and using successful solutions to life & death problems. If male leadership provided those solutions more consistently…if male strengths were more effective in nominal tribal leadership roles than female…if female strengths fit more effectively elsewhere….then male leadership became the normal operational solution as demonstrated by those same 10,000 years of human behavior.
You speak of ‘blame’ but ‘blame’ has nothing to do with the fact that the so-called ‘patriarchy’ was clearly, historically, the solution which worked.
As for the roles women played, they were far from powerless. But their social roles were clearly different and less nominally powerful than male roles…with rare exception.
But please note, these were not social roles invented by the Patriarchy (capital ‘P’), rather this male/female division of labor which created what we now call ‘patriarchy’ was patterned by the very exigencies of existence itself. 10,000 years later things have change…and male / female roles have also changed…but there remains, always, the essential biologic difference between men & women and this is still reflected in any number of life choices still being made by both men & women.

Phillipa Fioretti
Phillipa Fioretti
1 year ago

Where does patriarchy come from? Well, it goes way back beyond the Abrahamic religions. I hoped Yolanda Harari would answer that question in his book Homo Sapiens, but he basically said he didn’t know and that it could be stemming from men’s superior strength.
It’s a really fraught question because if it’s regarded as a default, natural state of affairs, then we would all have to just give up striving for equality. And I do think that as animals, there is a strong biological factor. But we are also, social and symbolic beings living on the cusp of gender implosion, so we can implement change and choice.

Those who say it’s a natural thing should be reminded that Nature does not give a toss how we arrange ourselves only that we reproduce. Nature has endowed humans with some seriously self destructive features and we deploy them every day. It would be good if we could rise above patriarchal structures, good for all, I suspect.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

Patriarchy is inevitable. Like it or not, the psychological and physical tools of leadership lie with men.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Not to mention our Norman overlords, who had a far more restrictive legal and social attitude to women than the Anglo-Saxons.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

Sparta gave women far more freedom than Athens and the Gauls more than the Romans. Was it Tacitus or Caesar who noted that women in Gaul had more freedom than in Rome? Beduin women have more freedom than those who live in cities. I suggest that where societies are of the warrior type, rural, nomadic or where men sail overseas ( Viking )women have far more freedom as they run the farm when the men are away. Where the society is urban and the fmily is sufficiently wealthy so they do not have to work, women, have often been housebound.

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago

Fascinating question.
But isn’t the answer obvious?
If by ‘patriarchy’ we mean a social system in which men hold most of the nominal power….and since patriarchal systems have dominated human society since time immemorial….should we not conclude that male leadership of most social collectives is a natural function of the qualities which are stereotypically male? (you know, the standard list: strength, independence, courage, leadership, aggression…the qualities which existed long, long before the concept of ‘patriarchy’ was invented)
What else could it be (given a lack of good-old-boy backroom clubs back in 10,000 BC)?
Given a world in which life was short, nasty & brutish…a world absent any any moderating civilization… group survival would depend upon devising and using successful solutions to life & death problems. If male leadership provided those solutions more consistently…if male strengths were more effective in nominal tribal leadership roles than female…if female strengths fit more effectively elsewhere….then male leadership became the normal operational solution as demonstrated by those same 10,000 years of human behavior.
You speak of ‘blame’ but ‘blame’ has nothing to do with the fact that the so-called ‘patriarchy’ was clearly, historically, the solution which worked.
As for the roles women played, they were far from powerless. But their social roles were clearly different and less nominally powerful than male roles…with rare exception.
But please note, these were not social roles invented by the Patriarchy (capital ‘P’), rather this male/female division of labor which created what we now call ‘patriarchy’ was patterned by the very exigencies of existence itself. 10,000 years later things have change…and male / female roles have also changed…but there remains, always, the essential biologic difference between men & women and this is still reflected in any number of life choices still being made by both men & women.

CF Hankinson
CF Hankinson
1 year ago

Yes, basically because patriarchal power comes at the cost of the
‘other ‘ having to use every trick in the book to give herself some agency.

As for the power of the grandmother? Very diminished, the competition on mumsnet between female generations is toxic. Mother in law hate particularly, ‘how dare they imagine they have any rights of access over my children ’ etc etc. the latest craze is to ‘ghost’ them. Female generations are competing for the attention of the husband / son. The last thing they are doing is honouring the elder generation’s experience knowledge and wisdom.

In an age where everything is monetised, money rules, men have most access to that which fuels their power and feelings of superiority which many women willingly feed off. The majority of female pensioners have very little.
That grandmothers prioritise their attractiveness to men, over their valuable knowledge and experience is tragic indeed.

Phillipa Fioretti
Phillipa Fioretti
1 year ago
Reply to  CF Hankinson

It seems that women still internalise misogyny. Siding with power and denigrating the aged female who is long past her alleged prime. Wait until they get there and get a taste of it.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  CF Hankinson

It would be tragic, were that not a false dilemma. Surely to imply that a woman loses the right to an expressive personal existence the moment she begins to breed exemplifies misogyny. As is most things, the secret sauce is in the proportionality.

Phillipa Fioretti
Phillipa Fioretti
1 year ago
Reply to  CF Hankinson

It seems that women still internalise misogyny. Siding with power and denigrating the aged female who is long past her alleged prime. Wait until they get there and get a taste of it.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  CF Hankinson

It would be tragic, were that not a false dilemma. Surely to imply that a woman loses the right to an expressive personal existence the moment she begins to breed exemplifies misogyny. As is most things, the secret sauce is in the proportionality.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

Why is a patriarchy a patriarchy? Women throughout history have been in the position of influencing the younger generation. The Jesuits recognised the importance of influencing the thoughts of those under seven for a long term return. Why have women until very recently singularly failed to instil into the children in their charge a matriarchal ideology? Could it be that for many women a “patriarchal” society suited them fine? Perhaps most preferred to pull the strings out of sight and leave the illusion of patriarchy.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

A point well made, Jeremy. Female power has always been more subtle, interpersonal, social.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

A point well made, Jeremy. Female power has always been more subtle, interpersonal, social.

JOHN BINGHAM
JOHN BINGHAM
1 year ago

Phillipa, In my view we are living through a very indulgent time and that applies to men and women. The top comment does not reflect this. The “the refusal of responsibility” applies at least as much to men as to women – and probably more to men, who seem to be opting for a state of permanent adolescence. But what has driven this is the deification of the concept of personhood. The idea of self determination without reference to family or community.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

Very perceptive. We frequently see evidence of what you describe in Unherd Comments.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

And where does this patriarchy come from?….the Bible, and the Koran, and thus the three so called Abrahamic Faiths confine women the dustbin. ( perhaps it is something to do with the desert where they came from?)

Although the Romans were not entirely blameless,* at least Roman women in the first century AD had far greater legal and property rights than women in the UK did until the late nineteenth century.

(*The Pater Familias etc.)

CF Hankinson
CF Hankinson
1 year ago

Yes, basically because patriarchal power comes at the cost of the
‘other ‘ having to use every trick in the book to give herself some agency.

As for the power of the grandmother? Very diminished, the competition on mumsnet between female generations is toxic. Mother in law hate particularly, ‘how dare they imagine they have any rights of access over my children ’ etc etc. the latest craze is to ‘ghost’ them. Female generations are competing for the attention of the husband / son. The last thing they are doing is honouring the elder generation’s experience knowledge and wisdom.

In an age where everything is monetised, money rules, men have most access to that which fuels their power and feelings of superiority which many women willingly feed off. The majority of female pensioners have very little.
That grandmothers prioritise their attractiveness to men, over their valuable knowledge and experience is tragic indeed.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

Why is a patriarchy a patriarchy? Women throughout history have been in the position of influencing the younger generation. The Jesuits recognised the importance of influencing the thoughts of those under seven for a long term return. Why have women until very recently singularly failed to instil into the children in their charge a matriarchal ideology? Could it be that for many women a “patriarchal” society suited them fine? Perhaps most preferred to pull the strings out of sight and leave the illusion of patriarchy.

JOHN BINGHAM
JOHN BINGHAM
1 year ago

Phillipa, In my view we are living through a very indulgent time and that applies to men and women. The top comment does not reflect this. The “the refusal of responsibility” applies at least as much to men as to women – and probably more to men, who seem to be opting for a state of permanent adolescence. But what has driven this is the deification of the concept of personhood. The idea of self determination without reference to family or community.

Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
1 year ago

Absolute nonsense. I have no desire to be ‘protected’ by anyone. I have worked for the means to look after myself and that’s what I do.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago

I”m male, and i too live relatively comfortably, confident that I too worked for the means to look after myself. Yet I look at the world today and I hope that Orwell’s Rough Men are still rough and capable of ensuring I sleep in my bed soundly until the end of my days.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

Who are these “Rough men” you keep fantasising about protecting you FROM?

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Ever been in a street fight with weapons?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

So just other “Rough men”. In other words, ‘you need us because their are other blokes just like us’. Great.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

When people perceive weakness others will take advantage of it no matter which sex they are. I’m curious if your apparent male feminist stance has made you attractive to women?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Devastatingly, thank you.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

“Devastatingly”, as in, it has had a devastating effect on his chances with the opposite sex.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Is this actually the level of debate here? ‘You don’t hate women so you don’t get laid? Honestly? F@@@@@g h@@l.
I’ve had more interesting and challenging debates with a salad.

Andre Lower
Andre Lower
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Yet the salad probably did not failed abysmally to disguise its true gender, huh?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Andre Lower

You seem rather oddly obsessed with the thought that I’m a woman in drag, Andrea.
Is this a personal fetish with you?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Andre Lower

You seem rather oddly obsessed with the thought that I’m a woman in drag, Andrea.
Is this a personal fetish with you?

Andre Lower
Andre Lower
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Yet the salad probably did not failed abysmally to disguise its true gender, huh?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Is this actually the level of debate here? ‘You don’t hate women so you don’t get laid? Honestly? F@@@@@g h@@l.
I’ve had more interesting and challenging debates with a salad.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Yah sure it has…LOL

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Has the term “Yah LOL” ever been used online by anyone who isn’t an intellectual colossus?
I don’t know, but intensive research suggests not.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

By the way, Kat- I don’ think anyone I know prerceives me as a “male feminist”- I think they just percieve me as a ‘bloke who was born after c.1890 who doesn’t spend more time than is strictly healthy on ‘male-victim’ chatrooms’- not quite the same thing. Ask my wife.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Has the term “Yah LOL” ever been used online by anyone who isn’t an intellectual colossus?
I don’t know, but intensive research suggests not.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

By the way, Kat- I don’ think anyone I know prerceives me as a “male feminist”- I think they just percieve me as a ‘bloke who was born after c.1890 who doesn’t spend more time than is strictly healthy on ‘male-victim’ chatrooms’- not quite the same thing. Ask my wife.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

“Devastatingly”, as in, it has had a devastating effect on his chances with the opposite sex.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Yah sure it has…LOL

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Devastatingly, thank you.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You didn’t answer the question Mr Holland. To repeat, have you ever fought for your life in something akin to a street fight with lethal weapons?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Yes, Charlie- I took three out with a blunt machete, bludgeoned one to death with a rusty mallet and used a ratchet screwdriver to remove the eyeballs of the last. I then stamped repeatedly on the said eyeballs (just in case my enemy might have reinserted them), and set fire to the heaped bodies.
I hope that is sufficient for your enjoyment, Mr. Stanhope.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

That is a description by a man who secretly yearns to be a tough guy, but falls woefully short of such a status.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Er…yes. Look up the word ‘irony’ some time, Big Boy, and get back to me.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Er…yes. Look up the word ‘irony’ some time, Big Boy, and get back to me.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Calm down Mr Holland, you sound like an idiot, I’m sorry to say.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Sorry Charlie, I’ve clearly broken some Chaps’ rule here- was I actually meant to felate you with some realistic, non-ironic chap-on-chap slash-porn? I didn’t realise- it’s awfully hard here to negotiate between whining about horrible feminists slandering men as being inherently violent (boo!), and keeping up with the Lads when boasting about psychopathic acts of fun street-violence (hurrah!). I’m learning- cut me some slack.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I did once knock my brother out with a silage fork when he locked me into a boar pen as a child in the family pig styes- is that good enough? He was out for about ten minutes…

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

No.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

No.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You should have answered Mr Charles Hedges simple question with just one word, NO.
QED?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

But Mr. Hedges “simple question” was idiotic, so why bother giving it a serious answer Charles?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

But Mr. Hedges “simple question” was idiotic, so why bother giving it a serious answer Charles?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I did once knock my brother out with a silage fork when he locked me into a boar pen as a child in the family pig styes- is that good enough? He was out for about ten minutes…

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You should have answered Mr Charles Hedges simple question with just one word, NO.
QED?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Sorry Charlie, I’ve clearly broken some Chaps’ rule here- was I actually meant to felate you with some realistic, non-ironic chap-on-chap slash-porn? I didn’t realise- it’s awfully hard here to negotiate between whining about horrible feminists slandering men as being inherently violent (boo!), and keeping up with the Lads when boasting about psychopathic acts of fun street-violence (hurrah!). I’m learning- cut me some slack.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I was nearly blinded in one eye and cut in the head which bled profusely. Being blinded could have reduced my job opportunities.Luckily I was cut not on the carotid arteries, my parries stopped that but I was cut on the arms.Waiting in A and E was unpleasant.
What made it worse was that in was afternoon, daylight, sunny and people were walking past pretending nothing was happening.
They were not even trying to mug me, just slice me up for kicks. I tried to walk and talk my way out but it was likely they were on drugs, probably LSD and amphetamines. I learnt one cannot reason with the unreasonable.
The attack was close to my home. To conquer my fear, the next day I forced myself to walk to the location of my attack: my drops of blood were still on the street. What lasted for some time was the fear of being attacked again. The scar on my head only disappeared a few years ago.
Speak to any women who has been attacked, the fear invariably stays for years. How many women have been attacked and passsers by ignored the situation?
It was far worse than being kicked in the head playing rugby and going to A and E for stitches.
My advice is be very wary of people acting erratically as they could be on drugs and carrying knives. People on drugs can have very fast reactions.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Well you know the answer to such savagery?
Prior to 1964 very few feral scum would have contemplated such an assault because they knew the likely consequences if things went wrong!
‘Three clear Mondays’ as the expression went and then they’d “swing” to use the contemporary vernacular.

Besides the usual ‘shriekers’ of Quislington, and a large number of pathetic MPs, most of the country was quite content with Capital Punishment.
It was cheap and effective, and in some cases a deterrent, although that is rather hard to prove!

Either way the sort of wanton assault you were subject to was rare indeed.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

It was invaluable experience, coupled with that drug dealers operating outside the front door and a riot plus rumblings of ones that did not occur.
I do not believe in capital punishment. However crimes should result in decades of hard labour in prison and the same rigour the Glass House of pre WW2 army.
The Labour Party up to Callaghan a WW2 RN Petty Officer and Sunday School Teacher , knew from personal experience that crime and poor schools had the greatest detrimental impact on the honest hard working poor in reducing their opportunities for upward mobility to practically zero.
As this article is about women, the most adversely impacted by crime are women. When nine year old girls are offered white powders by men on their home from primary school, Mothers are terrified ,especially when they are reformed heroine addicts.
Where Methodism was prevalent; men worked in heavy industry; many had served in served in Armed Forces, boxed, played rugby, whether Union or League, lived in settled communities and such as S Wales and along M62, there was little killings, rapes and robberies .
Women were safe. Making an unacceptable comment to any women would have resulted in the forceful intervention of any passing man. Today, however, any man teaching some manners to the youth would result in them being prosecuted for assault. The male relatives of the woman would have then visted the Father of the you and given him a verbal warning.
The Left Wing Middle Class white Collar type brought up in safe suburbia, attended soft schools in such areas and only worked in offices; does not perceive gentleman going about their daily business who can intervene and are supported by society, are the most effective way of stopping street violence. This is not being a vigilante: it is an adult male accepting the responsibility to protect those who are unble to do so.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago

It was invaluable experience, coupled with that drug dealers operating outside the front door and a riot plus rumblings of ones that did not occur.
I do not believe in capital punishment. However crimes should result in decades of hard labour in prison and the same rigour the Glass House of pre WW2 army.
The Labour Party up to Callaghan a WW2 RN Petty Officer and Sunday School Teacher , knew from personal experience that crime and poor schools had the greatest detrimental impact on the honest hard working poor in reducing their opportunities for upward mobility to practically zero.
As this article is about women, the most adversely impacted by crime are women. When nine year old girls are offered white powders by men on their home from primary school, Mothers are terrified ,especially when they are reformed heroine addicts.
Where Methodism was prevalent; men worked in heavy industry; many had served in served in Armed Forces, boxed, played rugby, whether Union or League, lived in settled communities and such as S Wales and along M62, there was little killings, rapes and robberies .
Women were safe. Making an unacceptable comment to any women would have resulted in the forceful intervention of any passing man. Today, however, any man teaching some manners to the youth would result in them being prosecuted for assault. The male relatives of the woman would have then visted the Father of the you and given him a verbal warning.
The Left Wing Middle Class white Collar type brought up in safe suburbia, attended soft schools in such areas and only worked in offices; does not perceive gentleman going about their daily business who can intervene and are supported by society, are the most effective way of stopping street violence. This is not being a vigilante: it is an adult male accepting the responsibility to protect those who are unble to do so.

Wonder Walker
Wonder Walker
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Bad luck mate, sounds nasty. Was fascinated by the lack of responses from passers by. There are definitely people you should cross over the street to avoid!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Well you know the answer to such savagery?
Prior to 1964 very few feral scum would have contemplated such an assault because they knew the likely consequences if things went wrong!
‘Three clear Mondays’ as the expression went and then they’d “swing” to use the contemporary vernacular.

Besides the usual ‘shriekers’ of Quislington, and a large number of pathetic MPs, most of the country was quite content with Capital Punishment.
It was cheap and effective, and in some cases a deterrent, although that is rather hard to prove!

Either way the sort of wanton assault you were subject to was rare indeed.

Wonder Walker
Wonder Walker
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Bad luck mate, sounds nasty. Was fascinated by the lack of responses from passers by. There are definitely people you should cross over the street to avoid!

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

That is a description by a man who secretly yearns to be a tough guy, but falls woefully short of such a status.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Calm down Mr Holland, you sound like an idiot, I’m sorry to say.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I was nearly blinded in one eye and cut in the head which bled profusely. Being blinded could have reduced my job opportunities.Luckily I was cut not on the carotid arteries, my parries stopped that but I was cut on the arms.Waiting in A and E was unpleasant.
What made it worse was that in was afternoon, daylight, sunny and people were walking past pretending nothing was happening.
They were not even trying to mug me, just slice me up for kicks. I tried to walk and talk my way out but it was likely they were on drugs, probably LSD and amphetamines. I learnt one cannot reason with the unreasonable.
The attack was close to my home. To conquer my fear, the next day I forced myself to walk to the location of my attack: my drops of blood were still on the street. What lasted for some time was the fear of being attacked again. The scar on my head only disappeared a few years ago.
Speak to any women who has been attacked, the fear invariably stays for years. How many women have been attacked and passsers by ignored the situation?
It was far worse than being kicked in the head playing rugby and going to A and E for stitches.
My advice is be very wary of people acting erratically as they could be on drugs and carrying knives. People on drugs can have very fast reactions.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Yes, Charlie- I took three out with a blunt machete, bludgeoned one to death with a rusty mallet and used a ratchet screwdriver to remove the eyeballs of the last. I then stamped repeatedly on the said eyeballs (just in case my enemy might have reinserted them), and set fire to the heaped bodies.
I hope that is sufficient for your enjoyment, Mr. Stanhope.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Yes. That’s correct. It may be unpalatable, but we have to consider that, somewhere, someone (probably male) will want to do us harm, and societies have acted accordingly by creating things like police forces and armies.

We live in socieites that have become very good at delivering consequences to violent people. You need people capable of violence to contain violent people.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

There’s some truth in that. As a moral defence of men, and as a reposte to feminists, it’s dismal- essentially, it’s a mafia protection racket, pay us our dues and you won’t get hurt by the other gang- but there’s some truth nonetheless.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Okay John. Do you seriously think we could have a society without the armed forces and without the police. No prisons (institutions which deprive criminals of liberty through force). How do you quell disorder without controlled state violence? How do you collect tax? How do you ensure property rights? What if someone robs you?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

No, I don’t think this. Where did I say I did? Can you specify?
Although most of your dystopian scenarios are largely about male violence- the same male violence that half the commenters here are defending as both ‘natural’ and good, and the sort of thing that modern feminism has ruined for everyone
There’s a very wierd contradictory attitude here on this site- on the one hand, women should shut up and stop complaining about male violence, as this is a horrible “feminist” libel against decent masculine values, and on the other they should shut up or some other bloke will beat them, and it’ll serve them right. Which is it?
Frankly, it all seems a bit odd. The only consistent idea seems to be that whatever the problem is, it’s all bloody women’s fault. Awful people. Burn the witches, I say.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

No, I don’t think this. Where did I say I did? Can you specify?
Although most of your dystopian scenarios are largely about male violence- the same male violence that half the commenters here are defending as both ‘natural’ and good, and the sort of thing that modern feminism has ruined for everyone
There’s a very wierd contradictory attitude here on this site- on the one hand, women should shut up and stop complaining about male violence, as this is a horrible “feminist” libel against decent masculine values, and on the other they should shut up or some other bloke will beat them, and it’ll serve them right. Which is it?
Frankly, it all seems a bit odd. The only consistent idea seems to be that whatever the problem is, it’s all bloody women’s fault. Awful people. Burn the witches, I say.

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

“Mafia protection racket” might be more felicitously described as Reciprocity. It should of course fall short of the old definition of extortion as “demanding money with menaces”.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Okay John. Do you seriously think we could have a society without the armed forces and without the police. No prisons (institutions which deprive criminals of liberty through force). How do you quell disorder without controlled state violence? How do you collect tax? How do you ensure property rights? What if someone robs you?

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

“Mafia protection racket” might be more felicitously described as Reciprocity. It should of course fall short of the old definition of extortion as “demanding money with menaces”.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

There’s some truth in that. As a moral defence of men, and as a reposte to feminists, it’s dismal- essentially, it’s a mafia protection racket, pay us our dues and you won’t get hurt by the other gang- but there’s some truth nonetheless.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

When people perceive weakness others will take advantage of it no matter which sex they are. I’m curious if your apparent male feminist stance has made you attractive to women?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

You didn’t answer the question Mr Holland. To repeat, have you ever fought for your life in something akin to a street fight with lethal weapons?

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Yes. That’s correct. It may be unpalatable, but we have to consider that, somewhere, someone (probably male) will want to do us harm, and societies have acted accordingly by creating things like police forces and armies.

We live in socieites that have become very good at delivering consequences to violent people. You need people capable of violence to contain violent people.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

So just other “Rough men”. In other words, ‘you need us because their are other blokes just like us’. Great.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Ever been in a street fight with weapons?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

Who are these “Rough men” you keep fantasising about protecting you FROM?

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago

Our species (like many others) relies on inter-dependence. We all depend on each other in one way or another. On every level–physiological, psychological, economic, moral and so on–the goal of every culture is, and should be, to perpetuate and maintain itself as a society, not a collection of either competing or indifferent individuals. And what’s true on the personal level is true also on the collective level of groups within society.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

I think the decline in dangerous jobs where all those had to be responsible for themselves and each other plus decline in team sports, has led to the decline of emotionally mature responsible tough competent men men. The rugby playing miner, forester or trawlerman tends to be cheerful, tough, competent and emotionally mature and not panic in life or death situations which are the type of person one wants to create and maintain a civilisation.
Back stabbing effete ineffectual brittle office workers are not the type to create and maintain a civilisation
The death and injury rates in offices is minimal: commercial forestry( 154 per 100K),mining and trawling are higher than Law Enforcement and Armed Forces,check US Labour Statistics.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

“The rugby paying miner, forester or trawlerman tends to be cheerful…’
Good grief. I love this kind of crap. I mean, says who, Charles? What exactly is the point in just spouting this kind of arbitrary baseless drivel? What’s your experience of “cheerful`’ verses non-“cheerful” trawlermen, for Christ’s sake? How many moody foresters have you encountered, in proportion to jolly ones? Give a round number, based on your experience.
Then again, if you’re worried about the insufficient number of office deaths, we could always send out out some exploding pens in the stationary supplies…

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

When one is working out of doors in cold wet windy conditions,in winter at the end of day and especially at the end of the week people, who are tired, cold and moan about the conditions are not concentrating on the job adequately and are a risk to themselves and others. People who can make a cheerful quip brighten raise spirits and are assets, those who moan depress spirits and are libaility. The death toll as the USA labour Statistics show are forestry, trawling and mining are dangerous..
Boxing and rugby develop upper body strength which are needed to carry people( Fireman’s lift), pull them to safety or knock them out of the way of moving objects. Dragging someone to safety when one is on one’shands and knees such as in a collapsed mine or air duct on burning ship, requires very high upper body strength. An example is given below of the use of upper body strength.
The day a Welsh Lions star was saved from death by his English tour rival – Wales Online
From the 19th century it was recognised that there were many civilian acts of bravery and awards were commenced.
Civilian gallantry medals, honours and other awards – The National Archives
Many of the awards were those for working at sea, in the mines, docks railways ( crashes ); none for office work.
Much employment legislation from the early 19th century such as banning women and children from mines and reducing working hours was to reduce death and injury. Injuries go up at work when people are exhausted, thirsty, cold and hungry.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

They may have upper body strength, but are they “cheerful”?
I’m not questioning that trawling or forestry are dangerous. I’m wondering how you get from the fact that more trawlermen (or professional rugby players) die at work than office workers to the death of civilisation, with no rational explanation whatsoever.
If you simply think that work should be more exhausting, cold, dangerous, hungry and dangerous, then you might need to explain in more detail how this will make people’s lives better. At least I gave the suggestion of exploding pens for office workers- that might be a start. How about cholera in the water-fountain?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

They may have upper body strength, but are they “cheerful”?
I’m not questioning that trawling or forestry are dangerous. I’m wondering how you get from the fact that more trawlermen (or professional rugby players) die at work than office workers to the death of civilisation, with no rational explanation whatsoever.
If you simply think that work should be more exhausting, cold, dangerous, hungry and dangerous, then you might need to explain in more detail how this will make people’s lives better. At least I gave the suggestion of exploding pens for office workers- that might be a start. How about cholera in the water-fountain?

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

When one is working out of doors in cold wet windy conditions,in winter at the end of day and especially at the end of the week people, who are tired, cold and moan about the conditions are not concentrating on the job adequately and are a risk to themselves and others. People who can make a cheerful quip brighten raise spirits and are assets, those who moan depress spirits and are libaility. The death toll as the USA labour Statistics show are forestry, trawling and mining are dangerous..
Boxing and rugby develop upper body strength which are needed to carry people( Fireman’s lift), pull them to safety or knock them out of the way of moving objects. Dragging someone to safety when one is on one’shands and knees such as in a collapsed mine or air duct on burning ship, requires very high upper body strength. An example is given below of the use of upper body strength.
The day a Welsh Lions star was saved from death by his English tour rival – Wales Online
From the 19th century it was recognised that there were many civilian acts of bravery and awards were commenced.
Civilian gallantry medals, honours and other awards – The National Archives
Many of the awards were those for working at sea, in the mines, docks railways ( crashes ); none for office work.
Much employment legislation from the early 19th century such as banning women and children from mines and reducing working hours was to reduce death and injury. Injuries go up at work when people are exhausted, thirsty, cold and hungry.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

“The rugby paying miner, forester or trawlerman tends to be cheerful…’
Good grief. I love this kind of crap. I mean, says who, Charles? What exactly is the point in just spouting this kind of arbitrary baseless drivel? What’s your experience of “cheerful`’ verses non-“cheerful” trawlermen, for Christ’s sake? How many moody foresters have you encountered, in proportion to jolly ones? Give a round number, based on your experience.
Then again, if you’re worried about the insufficient number of office deaths, we could always send out out some exploding pens in the stationary supplies…

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

I think the decline in dangerous jobs where all those had to be responsible for themselves and each other plus decline in team sports, has led to the decline of emotionally mature responsible tough competent men men. The rugby playing miner, forester or trawlerman tends to be cheerful, tough, competent and emotionally mature and not panic in life or death situations which are the type of person one wants to create and maintain a civilisation.
Back stabbing effete ineffectual brittle office workers are not the type to create and maintain a civilisation
The death and injury rates in offices is minimal: commercial forestry( 154 per 100K),mining and trawling are higher than Law Enforcement and Armed Forces,check US Labour Statistics.

Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago

Excellent. Let’s hope you never get in the position where you realise a man might have made all the difference.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

Would “the position” needing “a man” involve yet another man, by any chance?
So- as a woman, she should be grateful for violent men, as they can protect her from…violent men. Right.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Uh women can be just as violent but they are generally unable to win. Been bullied and threatened by plenty of girls growing up, not so much by boys.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Then you must be happy about the annual number of women killed by their husbands and ‘lovers’. Serves the silly, feeble bitches right, yes?

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

With every rude comment you are showing your arse.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Except I’m not being “rude”- unless you are being ‘triggered’ by different opinions?
Yet another ‘snowflake’ who cannot accept an interurruption in their favoured echo-chamber, it seems. It’s remarkable how this supposedly “unHerd” site reacts to ‘un-correct’ opinions with such visceral, group-think anger. It would be funny, if it wasn’t so depressing.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Except I’m not being “rude”- unless you are being ‘triggered’ by different opinions?
Yet another ‘snowflake’ who cannot accept an interurruption in their favoured echo-chamber, it seems. It’s remarkable how this supposedly “unHerd” site reacts to ‘un-correct’ opinions with such visceral, group-think anger. It would be funny, if it wasn’t so depressing.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

With every rude comment you are showing your arse.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Then you must be happy about the annual number of women killed by their husbands and ‘lovers’. Serves the silly, feeble bitches right, yes?

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Uh women can be just as violent but they are generally unable to win. Been bullied and threatened by plenty of girls growing up, not so much by boys.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Rob N

Would “the position” needing “a man” involve yet another man, by any chance?
So- as a woman, she should be grateful for violent men, as they can protect her from…violent men. Right.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago

I”m male, and i too live relatively comfortably, confident that I too worked for the means to look after myself. Yet I look at the world today and I hope that Orwell’s Rough Men are still rough and capable of ensuring I sleep in my bed soundly until the end of my days.

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago

Our species (like many others) relies on inter-dependence. We all depend on each other in one way or another. On every level–physiological, psychological, economic, moral and so on–the goal of every culture is, and should be, to perpetuate and maintain itself as a society, not a collection of either competing or indifferent individuals. And what’s true on the personal level is true also on the collective level of groups within society.

Rob N
Rob N
1 year ago

Excellent. Let’s hope you never get in the position where you realise a man might have made all the difference.

Ed Carden
Ed Carden
1 year ago

“What does a woman want?” is an unanswerable question
because no 2 women are identical even if twins. A more apt question is as you pointed out what do most women expect and that depends on their generation. Millennial and younger women, most of whom have been poisoned by feminist ideology, expect nothing but the best of everything including a 10 for a man even when they aren’t even a 5 themselves. The majority believe they are perfect 10’s, the prize catch, that they deserve it all from only the best and this is why so many of them will be member of the BOBB (Bitter old Boss Bitcshes) club before long.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Ed Carden

I don’t know that many young women now but according to what I see online you appear to be accurate. My Gen X dating experience was that I tried to be nice even when I was rejecting but couldn’t understand the meanness of my girlfriends. That was before online dating took off.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Ed Carden

I don’t know that many young women now but according to what I see online you appear to be accurate. My Gen X dating experience was that I tried to be nice even when I was rejecting but couldn’t understand the meanness of my girlfriends. That was before online dating took off.

Phillipa Fioretti
Phillipa Fioretti
1 year ago

In a society like Freud’s the question was ‘What do men want from women?’ and so women were shaped accordingly, focussing on sexual attractiveness and marriagability. It was hammered home that this is how they should be by making it impossible to survive without a man’s protection.

To ask what it was a woman wanted was a question she couldn’t answer as she’d been schooled in meekness and obedience and was allowed little agency.

So Freud could find no answer in his time and was utterly puzzled by the woman that patriarchy had created and shaped. That he could not see the blindingly obvious- that women want to be seen as humans first and ‘women’ afterwards, is an indication of deeply ingrained patriarchy was in his time.

Now we ask what do men want? And if the Internet is any indication, they want to be back on top again, where they can dictate the terms then ridicule women for following them.

I

Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
1 year ago

Absolute nonsense. I have no desire to be ‘protected’ by anyone. I have worked for the means to look after myself and that’s what I do.

Ed Carden
Ed Carden
1 year ago

“What does a woman want?” is an unanswerable question
because no 2 women are identical even if twins. A more apt question is as you pointed out what do most women expect and that depends on their generation. Millennial and younger women, most of whom have been poisoned by feminist ideology, expect nothing but the best of everything including a 10 for a man even when they aren’t even a 5 themselves. The majority believe they are perfect 10’s, the prize catch, that they deserve it all from only the best and this is why so many of them will be member of the BOBB (Bitter old Boss Bitcshes) club before long.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago

Yes, dear old Siggi and “what do women want?”
He was wrong, as usual. The question is rather “what do women expect?”
And the answer is that “women expect to be protected,” by men, by mothers, by grandmothers, by government, by first-wave feminists, and Uncle Tom Cobbley.
And yes, when a woman has a baby she needs — expects — a lot of support. That is how to beat the odds on all the things that can go wrong.
I know a mother who says “my job is to keep these kids alive.”
I think she is probably right. But I don’t know if the lasses on Mumsnet would agree.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

I am surprised that anyone is surprised by this. The revolution always devours its mothers. Feminism is an ideology of the Left and the Left has always idealised and focused on the young as its favoured vanguard. It is also an individualist one which has seen families as oppressive. Yet left-wing ideologies have always assumed their adherents and people acting under them would act morally, an assumption which has never really been interrogated.

Feminism specifically has never had much of a concept of motherhood, other than it being an oppressive patriarchal construct invented by men to oppress all women. Why would a feminist show any family members loyalty or commitment? Bit too much emotional labour for the emancipated woman, dontcha think?

Why would a feminist show any deference to older women? I mean, think of all the things older feminists are guilty of that younger feminists are unhappy about. Older feminists are too white, too transphobic, too frigid, too bourgeois, didn’t abolish XYZ… New problems must be tackled, new grifts must be had, new heretics must be harvested. It is much easier to attack the older generation of any movement, as they have less energy and there are probably fewer of them. Even better if the old duffers are dead. They can’t defend themselves then. Ask Churchill.

The nuclear family has effectively been abolished. Feminism played a role in this, as any form of family life was oppressive to women. The result of this and other factors is that there is no moral or emotional impetus for anyone to have strong family relations now.

Ironically, male influence in families was wrecked first. Why would, for instance, men stick around to be fathers if men are seen as optional at best and harmful at worst? If a woman’s needs can be fulfilled by Big Daddy Government, then the man is just an inconvenience. A famous feminist slogan in the Sixties was “abolish the husband, abolish the father, abolish the patriarch”. Husbands and fathers have long been abolished. A majority of children now grow up in single-parent unmarried households. It does not take much to question how much women are expected to care about children under this arrangement in our indicidualistic, hedonistic age.

Why would mothers be any more loving than the often-absent fathers? If feminism regards motherhood as oppressive, then surely grandmotherhood is just as oppressive. Why, then, are we surprised at the antics of these grannies? In our individualistic society, other people are just an inconvenience to many, even if they are related.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago

Brilliant analysis! I would add that pregnancy was the invention of the nefarious patriarchy to deprive women of the best jobs, to make them less attractive to rivals, and to keep them imprisoned at home as cooks and personal sex slaves.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

It’s imposisble to guess, given the intellectual standard of the comments here, whether you’re being ironic or not. That’s the joy of the unHerd blogsite.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Personally, I find the intellectual standard here pretty good, and that is why my clearly ironic comment was not badly received.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I hate to break it to you, but as your comment closely echoes most of the comments here, I very much doubt if many saw it as ironic. Why would they?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I hate to break it to you, but as your comment closely echoes most of the comments here, I very much doubt if many saw it as ironic. Why would they?

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Personally, I find the intellectual standard here pretty good, and that is why my clearly ironic comment was not badly received.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

Many feminists have complained about pregnancy being a unique oppression borne by women. So while you tried to mock my analysis, you accidentally said something true.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

It’s imposisble to guess, given the intellectual standard of the comments here, whether you’re being ironic or not. That’s the joy of the unHerd blogsite.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

Many feminists have complained about pregnancy being a unique oppression borne by women. So while you tried to mock my analysis, you accidentally said something true.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

“The nuclear family has effectively been demolished”.
Utter cobblers. Seriously, have a look at the real world sometime- I live in a nuclear family, most of my friends do also, the great majority of people live in some variation of a nuclear family. The idea that the “husband as been abolished” exists only in some crazed online community ranting from their basements- it simply isn’t the real world. I had a dad. I am a dad. I will soon be a granddad.
Why don’t you just look at the actual world around you- of families, mothers, fathers, grandparents and children – instead of ranting in your wierd little online ideological fantasy construction?

Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

John Holland you live in realm of luxury beliefs coined by Henderson. It’s great you have this group of intact nuclear families around you. You will all be, especially your children, better off for it. The kicker is, the commenter you disagree with is correct in the aggregate. The nuclear family has been decimated over decades by various progressive and control movements and society is not better off for it. Data that supports this view is all over the place, but in the interest of conciseness all one has to do is look at birth rates globally and you learn all you need to about the state of the intact family. It’s important to speak your truth but here your ‘lived experience’, if I can borrow a truly obnoxious progressive moniker, is quite limited to a privileged group.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

You’ll have to explain how global birth rates (are they supposed to be too high at the moment, or too low- it’s hard to tell these days) justify the brainless, baying misogyny of half the comments here.
How has the “nuclear family”- never a universal fact of human society, whatever the historically-challenged blow-hards love to think- been “decimated” all over the globe by “progressives”? In China? In India? In Africa? No. “progressives”, whatever you think they are, have little to do with these social and economic changes. You’re indulging in simple, ideological explanations for complex changes in human societies.
If you want to invoke “data” or “aggregates”, you’ll need to be a little more specific than that.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

You’ll have to explain how global birth rates (are they supposed to be too high at the moment, or too low- it’s hard to tell these days) justify the brainless, baying misogyny of half the comments here.
How has the “nuclear family”- never a universal fact of human society, whatever the historically-challenged blow-hards love to think- been “decimated” all over the globe by “progressives”? In China? In India? In Africa? No. “progressives”, whatever you think they are, have little to do with these social and economic changes. You’re indulging in simple, ideological explanations for complex changes in human societies.
If you want to invoke “data” or “aggregates”, you’ll need to be a little more specific than that.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Recent figures show the majority of British children are raised by single parents.

Many sociologists have claimed that the nuclear family is as good as ancient history for the lower classes.

My analysis is entirely correct and no amount of bitchy whining from you will change that.

Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

John Holland you live in realm of luxury beliefs coined by Henderson. It’s great you have this group of intact nuclear families around you. You will all be, especially your children, better off for it. The kicker is, the commenter you disagree with is correct in the aggregate. The nuclear family has been decimated over decades by various progressive and control movements and society is not better off for it. Data that supports this view is all over the place, but in the interest of conciseness all one has to do is look at birth rates globally and you learn all you need to about the state of the intact family. It’s important to speak your truth but here your ‘lived experience’, if I can borrow a truly obnoxious progressive moniker, is quite limited to a privileged group.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Recent figures show the majority of British children are raised by single parents.

Many sociologists have claimed that the nuclear family is as good as ancient history for the lower classes.

My analysis is entirely correct and no amount of bitchy whining from you will change that.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago

Brilliant analysis! I would add that pregnancy was the invention of the nefarious patriarchy to deprive women of the best jobs, to make them less attractive to rivals, and to keep them imprisoned at home as cooks and personal sex slaves.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

“The nuclear family has effectively been demolished”.
Utter cobblers. Seriously, have a look at the real world sometime- I live in a nuclear family, most of my friends do also, the great majority of people live in some variation of a nuclear family. The idea that the “husband as been abolished” exists only in some crazed online community ranting from their basements- it simply isn’t the real world. I had a dad. I am a dad. I will soon be a granddad.
Why don’t you just look at the actual world around you- of families, mothers, fathers, grandparents and children – instead of ranting in your wierd little online ideological fantasy construction?

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

I am surprised that anyone is surprised by this. The revolution always devours its mothers. Feminism is an ideology of the Left and the Left has always idealised and focused on the young as its favoured vanguard. It is also an individualist one which has seen families as oppressive. Yet left-wing ideologies have always assumed their adherents and people acting under them would act morally, an assumption which has never really been interrogated.

Feminism specifically has never had much of a concept of motherhood, other than it being an oppressive patriarchal construct invented by men to oppress all women. Why would a feminist show any family members loyalty or commitment? Bit too much emotional labour for the emancipated woman, dontcha think?

Why would a feminist show any deference to older women? I mean, think of all the things older feminists are guilty of that younger feminists are unhappy about. Older feminists are too white, too transphobic, too frigid, too bourgeois, didn’t abolish XYZ… New problems must be tackled, new grifts must be had, new heretics must be harvested. It is much easier to attack the older generation of any movement, as they have less energy and there are probably fewer of them. Even better if the old duffers are dead. They can’t defend themselves then. Ask Churchill.

The nuclear family has effectively been abolished. Feminism played a role in this, as any form of family life was oppressive to women. The result of this and other factors is that there is no moral or emotional impetus for anyone to have strong family relations now.

Ironically, male influence in families was wrecked first. Why would, for instance, men stick around to be fathers if men are seen as optional at best and harmful at worst? If a woman’s needs can be fulfilled by Big Daddy Government, then the man is just an inconvenience. A famous feminist slogan in the Sixties was “abolish the husband, abolish the father, abolish the patriarch”. Husbands and fathers have long been abolished. A majority of children now grow up in single-parent unmarried households. It does not take much to question how much women are expected to care about children under this arrangement in our indicidualistic, hedonistic age.

Why would mothers be any more loving than the often-absent fathers? If feminism regards motherhood as oppressive, then surely grandmotherhood is just as oppressive. Why, then, are we surprised at the antics of these grannies? In our individualistic society, other people are just an inconvenience to many, even if they are related.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
William Jackson
William Jackson
1 year ago

In the world according to Disney, the perfect anything and everything exists, always existed. For example, Tom never catches Jerry, the abused sister becomes the princess, or the fairy etc. Combine Disney with, for example, Holywood’s often romantic claptrap, and senseless celebrity idealisation (as if an actor, or a pop singer knows any more than Joan or Jo Blogs), with marketing and advertising, then I suggest that that is what we, at least in the western world, have enveloped ourselves in. What I am describing is a child’s eye view of the world, of society, of family, of male and female, even, and for heaven’s sake, what makes a woman a female (may I suggest two X chromosomes, it is just that complicated). My question is, female or male, where did all the adults go? Someone else always has to be blamed, who, if anyone, is taking responsibility for anything any longer? (Definitely not the governing political class in the UK at least). Wishes of health and peace to all, William

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago

So true! I go shopping for my children and I see a tonne of Charlie Brown and Scooby Doo gear that I would love to buy for them but when I go to get their fit it’s only adult sizes available. We are living the horrible legacy of the boomer influence.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago

So true! I go shopping for my children and I see a tonne of Charlie Brown and Scooby Doo gear that I would love to buy for them but when I go to get their fit it’s only adult sizes available. We are living the horrible legacy of the boomer influence.

William Jackson
William Jackson
1 year ago

In the world according to Disney, the perfect anything and everything exists, always existed. For example, Tom never catches Jerry, the abused sister becomes the princess, or the fairy etc. Combine Disney with, for example, Holywood’s often romantic claptrap, and senseless celebrity idealisation (as if an actor, or a pop singer knows any more than Joan or Jo Blogs), with marketing and advertising, then I suggest that that is what we, at least in the western world, have enveloped ourselves in. What I am describing is a child’s eye view of the world, of society, of family, of male and female, even, and for heaven’s sake, what makes a woman a female (may I suggest two X chromosomes, it is just that complicated). My question is, female or male, where did all the adults go? Someone else always has to be blamed, who, if anyone, is taking responsibility for anything any longer? (Definitely not the governing political class in the UK at least). Wishes of health and peace to all, William

Edwin Blake
Edwin Blake
1 year ago

I find much of this discussion of a matriarchy that means a reversion to some delayed adolescent rebellion, very silly.

I come from a family, on all sides, run by a matriarchy as far back as can be traced. It was always the women who made the family while the men went off to war and often got themselves killed, or went off as missionaries or big game hunters. The women fled invaders and marshalled the family. Who do you think organised food and children? Who did the growing generation look up to?

And when peace returned they didn’t relinquish their power at home. It seems the men didn’t want them to either.

Edwin Blake
Edwin Blake
1 year ago

I find much of this discussion of a matriarchy that means a reversion to some delayed adolescent rebellion, very silly.

I come from a family, on all sides, run by a matriarchy as far back as can be traced. It was always the women who made the family while the men went off to war and often got themselves killed, or went off as missionaries or big game hunters. The women fled invaders and marshalled the family. Who do you think organised food and children? Who did the growing generation look up to?

And when peace returned they didn’t relinquish their power at home. It seems the men didn’t want them to either.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago

Boomer Feminism is destructive; they told my x generation to focus on career and give it away at every chance and now many are unhappily chasing late life fertility… if they ever even found a stable marriage. I now try to communicate those lessons to young women. But…I don’t see a conflict between doing maintenance to look great for your age and being there to help with the family.

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

A most sensible comment. Although my mum is a generationally part of the Boomer group, she thankfully does not subscribe to such destructive attitudes. I am well educated, professionally successful, married to my daughter’s father, and I believe that I have been a good mother to her just as mum taught me. My mum, who turned 70 today, looks great for her age, and is physically and mentally fit. It doesn’t have to be a conflict, and one can indeed accomplish both.

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

A most sensible comment. Although my mum is a generationally part of the Boomer group, she thankfully does not subscribe to such destructive attitudes. I am well educated, professionally successful, married to my daughter’s father, and I believe that I have been a good mother to her just as mum taught me. My mum, who turned 70 today, looks great for her age, and is physically and mentally fit. It doesn’t have to be a conflict, and one can indeed accomplish both.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago

Boomer Feminism is destructive; they told my x generation to focus on career and give it away at every chance and now many are unhappily chasing late life fertility… if they ever even found a stable marriage. I now try to communicate those lessons to young women. But…I don’t see a conflict between doing maintenance to look great for your age and being there to help with the family.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

I can only gape in wonder at how Mary is able to locate the pulses of so many societal impulses whilst caring for a young child. From observational experience, the amount of head- and heart-space, not to mention limb-space that being a mum of young children requires is phenomenal, and for many simply overwhelming. She epitomises the very essence of the selfhood, the personhood she describes as somehow newly characteristic of todays grannies whilst combining it with parenthood.

It’s absolutely a subject close to not just her own heart, but the heart of the ways we’re starting to transition from one generation to the next. It’s almost as if there’s some new factor at play which we can sense but can’t as yet fully grasp; a kind of mutation in our very humanity, with effects that are unknowable. For instance, it’s one thing for those young mums of today to espouse the view that they’ll take a different tack to their ‘glammies’ when in a position to do so, and to actually do so when the time comes, not least because society will have moved on again and their own daughters will have absorbed a whole new generations-worth of cultural influences which will go quite some way to how much scope their mums will have to fulfil their present-day intentions.

I’m inclined to think that railing against it (and i’m sure there will be plenty of posts doing so) does little except disable the requirement to start to try to understand, by harking back to something which is disappearing over the horizon behind us. Perhaps this feeling is unsettling – i feel it too, whilst also being responsible for initiating it in my own life, from a young teenager onwards, part of the post-war boomer generation. Mary seems to be doing the very same thing, which leads me to conclude that there may well be something going on here that is natural, in a literal sense. I suspect that’s why i find Mary’s articles so humane.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Adam Bartlett
Adam Bartlett
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

A most interesting post. Yup for some conscientious folk becoming a parent is overwhelming like you say. For others it grounds them into new sources of energy & can trigger a ‘sleeper must awaken’ effect. I’ve seen this with my friend Rowenna Davis who’s already phenomenal output (paid job, political work, civil society organising, director on a think tank etc) seemed to be boosted after she had her first child, and she takes being a good Mum very seriously.
 
As for this vital to understand new factor youre talking about, which is impacting our civilisation in all sorts of ways, often entwined with the excess individualism, Swarm activism & machine like thinking Mary often writes about, I’d hazard a guess it has its roots in some ancient tendencies. Firstly our propensity towards spiritual forgetfulness, which is millennial old (see ‘the Hymn of pearl’). And the centuries long ascendancy of Left brain thinking, well explained in Ian McGilchrists last two books.
As for why these tendencies seem to have recently metastasized into something new and more dangerous than before, this may be related to technology, most specifically to the smart phone that became so ubiquitous since 2011. An excellent short book about this is ‘The struggle for a human future’ by Jeremy Naydler. He connects it to both tech and the spiritual, including for example the Luciferean tendency which once contributed to beneficial individualisation but is now clearly going too far. There’s also Jean Twenge who is great on covering the psychic impact of the Smartphone from a more secular / mainstream science perspective.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam Bartlett

You’re clearly understanding the essence of my post (and Mary’s article) and have added to that with specific references. Thanks. It all remains very exploratory, but if there’s one thing that characterises human civilisation it’s the will to explore. Some will remain in their caves, no doubt, but having sighted a new horizon there’s no going back now. We have to plough on to see what lies beyond it.
I can understand why to many, this may not be either appealing or understandable. The simple fact is, it may be a wrong turning to disaster or it may be the beginnings of the next successful stage in our evolution. Uncomfortable, yes; but if one thing is for sure, standing still isn’t an option.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Adam Bartlett
Adam Bartlett
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Agree entirely. Yup an upswing is certainly possible, just wish any understanding I now have would let me see how to contribute to that. Instead it just makes me see how my younger more active self shares responsibility for making things worse, like you allude to in your first post. You’re reply reminded me of the Heidegger essays ‘The Question Concerning Technology and Other’ and ‘The turning’. These are easy to find online but let me quote a bit: There was a time when it was not technology alone that bore the name technē. Once that revealing that brings forth truth into the splendor of radiant appearing also was called technē. Once there was a time when the bringing-forth of the true into the beautiful was called technē. He argues that’s it’s art, aided by tech, that will be key in getting us to that next successful stage of evolution you mention. I’ve took a look at your pics, I really like your take on dualities like masculine /feminine & especially decadence / regeneration.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam Bartlett

Ah, thanks for researching them. I’m still very much in the early stages of exploration in this medium. It takes time and infinite patience, which i’m only just learning about, but all the better for facilitating the challenge.
I also see equivalence between 20th century claims that “painting is dead” and the nihilism that arose at around the same time. I make it my task to demonstrate otherwise; that we’re only just beginning, providing we don’t destroy ourselves first.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam Bartlett

Ah, thanks for researching them. I’m still very much in the early stages of exploration in this medium. It takes time and infinite patience, which i’m only just learning about, but all the better for facilitating the challenge.
I also see equivalence between 20th century claims that “painting is dead” and the nihilism that arose at around the same time. I make it my task to demonstrate otherwise; that we’re only just beginning, providing we don’t destroy ourselves first.

Adam Bartlett
Adam Bartlett
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Agree entirely. Yup an upswing is certainly possible, just wish any understanding I now have would let me see how to contribute to that. Instead it just makes me see how my younger more active self shares responsibility for making things worse, like you allude to in your first post. You’re reply reminded me of the Heidegger essays ‘The Question Concerning Technology and Other’ and ‘The turning’. These are easy to find online but let me quote a bit: There was a time when it was not technology alone that bore the name technē. Once that revealing that brings forth truth into the splendor of radiant appearing also was called technē. Once there was a time when the bringing-forth of the true into the beautiful was called technē. He argues that’s it’s art, aided by tech, that will be key in getting us to that next successful stage of evolution you mention. I’ve took a look at your pics, I really like your take on dualities like masculine /feminine & especially decadence / regeneration.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Adam Bartlett

You’re clearly understanding the essence of my post (and Mary’s article) and have added to that with specific references. Thanks. It all remains very exploratory, but if there’s one thing that characterises human civilisation it’s the will to explore. Some will remain in their caves, no doubt, but having sighted a new horizon there’s no going back now. We have to plough on to see what lies beyond it.
I can understand why to many, this may not be either appealing or understandable. The simple fact is, it may be a wrong turning to disaster or it may be the beginnings of the next successful stage in our evolution. Uncomfortable, yes; but if one thing is for sure, standing still isn’t an option.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Adam Bartlett
Adam Bartlett
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

A most interesting post. Yup for some conscientious folk becoming a parent is overwhelming like you say. For others it grounds them into new sources of energy & can trigger a ‘sleeper must awaken’ effect. I’ve seen this with my friend Rowenna Davis who’s already phenomenal output (paid job, political work, civil society organising, director on a think tank etc) seemed to be boosted after she had her first child, and she takes being a good Mum very seriously.
 
As for this vital to understand new factor youre talking about, which is impacting our civilisation in all sorts of ways, often entwined with the excess individualism, Swarm activism & machine like thinking Mary often writes about, I’d hazard a guess it has its roots in some ancient tendencies. Firstly our propensity towards spiritual forgetfulness, which is millennial old (see ‘the Hymn of pearl’). And the centuries long ascendancy of Left brain thinking, well explained in Ian McGilchrists last two books.
As for why these tendencies seem to have recently metastasized into something new and more dangerous than before, this may be related to technology, most specifically to the smart phone that became so ubiquitous since 2011. An excellent short book about this is ‘The struggle for a human future’ by Jeremy Naydler. He connects it to both tech and the spiritual, including for example the Luciferean tendency which once contributed to beneficial individualisation but is now clearly going too far. There’s also Jean Twenge who is great on covering the psychic impact of the Smartphone from a more secular / mainstream science perspective.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

I can only gape in wonder at how Mary is able to locate the pulses of so many societal impulses whilst caring for a young child. From observational experience, the amount of head- and heart-space, not to mention limb-space that being a mum of young children requires is phenomenal, and for many simply overwhelming. She epitomises the very essence of the selfhood, the personhood she describes as somehow newly characteristic of todays grannies whilst combining it with parenthood.

It’s absolutely a subject close to not just her own heart, but the heart of the ways we’re starting to transition from one generation to the next. It’s almost as if there’s some new factor at play which we can sense but can’t as yet fully grasp; a kind of mutation in our very humanity, with effects that are unknowable. For instance, it’s one thing for those young mums of today to espouse the view that they’ll take a different tack to their ‘glammies’ when in a position to do so, and to actually do so when the time comes, not least because society will have moved on again and their own daughters will have absorbed a whole new generations-worth of cultural influences which will go quite some way to how much scope their mums will have to fulfil their present-day intentions.

I’m inclined to think that railing against it (and i’m sure there will be plenty of posts doing so) does little except disable the requirement to start to try to understand, by harking back to something which is disappearing over the horizon behind us. Perhaps this feeling is unsettling – i feel it too, whilst also being responsible for initiating it in my own life, from a young teenager onwards, part of the post-war boomer generation. Mary seems to be doing the very same thing, which leads me to conclude that there may well be something going on here that is natural, in a literal sense. I suspect that’s why i find Mary’s articles so humane.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
James Wills
James Wills
1 year ago

Of course, Freud never heard the old joke:
A fellow stumbles across a lamp on a California beach, rubs it, and the requisite genie pops out.
“Oh, boy! Three wishes!”
“No. It’s been a long week and I’m tired. You get one wish.”
“OK. I love Hawaii, but I am afraid of flying. I want a personal road from here to Honolulu so’s I can just drive there.”
“Jesus, you don’t want much, do you? I told you I’m tired. Pick something else.”
So he thinks, scratches his head, thinks some more. “OK, I have it. Just answer one question: What do women want?”
“Would you like that road two lanes or four?”

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago
Reply to  James Wills

I see no reason to assume (as several comments do) that Freud understood men any better than he understood women. Freudian psychoanalysis has never been supported by empirical evidence and no longer has much influence among psychologists (not that the latter have anything like a good track record when it comes to understanding human nature). Nonetheless, some followers of Freud have turned his theory into something like an ideology. Others have used it as “evidence” to demonstrate their own rival ideologies.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

Is he taken very seriously now in professional circles? Not for a long time, I think.
It seems to me that his theories these days are taken more or less symbolically- as literature, in effect. That’s to say, not scientifically serious, but nonetheless useful as a source of ideas and ways of talking about ourselves. Obviously, he didn’t invent the idea of the unconscious, but his ways of talking about repression are basic to the way laypeople talk about themselves.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Freud was a complete fraud, a perfect product of Fin de siècle Vienna, and all that it stood for.

I cannot understand how his myth has endured for so long. Any ideas?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

All I know is he was a nutter and his daughters foundation Anna Freud Centre, is pushing all kinds of stuff in our schools.
Freud would have a field day analysing some of these comments…

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Spot on Ms Emery!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Spot on Ms Emery!

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

It’s alright Charlie, it’s not as if many people take his theories very seriously now as scientific fact. Almost no-one, in fact.
He’s really only taken that seriously by furious people complaining about how seriously he’s still being taken. Which, I’m sure you’ll agree, is quite funny.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

How much influence did he have on his daughters stuff though? I don’t really know tbh, but Anna Freud foundation seems to be behind all kinds of stuff in our schools. Not necessarily all stuff I approve of.
What do you make of:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DxIDKZHW3-E

Their web:
https://www.annafreud.org/

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I don’t know much about all that- it looks like the standard modern ‘touchy-feelly’ stuff. What in particular concerns you about it?
But regarding Freud, it’s quite funny how he was regarded for years by feminists as a patriarchal, misogynist old b****r, but lots of misogynist, patriarchal old buggers here regard him as the source of Man’s downfall.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I thought the video was a bit weird for want of the right words, they showed it to my daughters class, she’s only six, she was pretty upset by it when she came home.
I really don’t know much about the feminism Freud thing it’s coincidence that I came across the name again really because they send stuff out from school from the Anna Freud Centre. I checked it out after my daughter was upset by the video, it seems a bit heavy for six year olds.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I thought the video was a bit weird for want of the right words, they showed it to my daughters class, she’s only six, she was pretty upset by it when she came home.
I really don’t know much about the feminism Freud thing it’s coincidence that I came across the name again really because they send stuff out from school from the Anna Freud Centre. I checked it out after my daughter was upset by the video, it seems a bit heavy for six year olds.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I don’t know much about all that- it looks like the standard modern ‘touchy-feelly’ stuff. What in particular concerns you about it?
But regarding Freud, it’s quite funny how he was regarded for years by feminists as a patriarchal, misogynist old b****r, but lots of misogynist, patriarchal old buggers here regard him as the source of Man’s downfall.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

It’s really all over the place what I know about Freud but I think in America he had a big bad influence that still lingers, I’ve copy and pasted because it says it better than I can:

‘Freudian thought has been embraced, actuated, and exemplified in contemporary America. This essay explicates four features of the trans-Atlantic instantiation of Freudian thought’
‘(1) Freud’s discovery of the unconscious mind laid the foundation for a central tenet of Western modernity: we cannot know our deepest motives. (2) Freud’s recognition of repression as the unique aspect of the individual mind made possible the modern notion of individual identity whose basis is narrative. (3) Freud’s recognition of the impossibility of full knowledge of the mind set the stage for the tenet of uncertainty. (4) Freud’s discovery that consciousness is based not in rational thought about reality but in a turbulent effort to control the unconscious offered a way to re-animate a world emptied of magic. The essay concludes with a critical summary of the process by which Freudian thought came to be pervasive in social-scientific viewpoints on American culture’

https://parisinstitute.org/depictions-article-sigmund-freuds-america/

America. Home of the crazy.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

How much influence did he have on his daughters stuff though? I don’t really know tbh, but Anna Freud foundation seems to be behind all kinds of stuff in our schools. Not necessarily all stuff I approve of.
What do you make of:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DxIDKZHW3-E

Their web:
https://www.annafreud.org/

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

It’s really all over the place what I know about Freud but I think in America he had a big bad influence that still lingers, I’ve copy and pasted because it says it better than I can:

‘Freudian thought has been embraced, actuated, and exemplified in contemporary America. This essay explicates four features of the trans-Atlantic instantiation of Freudian thought’
‘(1) Freud’s discovery of the unconscious mind laid the foundation for a central tenet of Western modernity: we cannot know our deepest motives. (2) Freud’s recognition of repression as the unique aspect of the individual mind made possible the modern notion of individual identity whose basis is narrative. (3) Freud’s recognition of the impossibility of full knowledge of the mind set the stage for the tenet of uncertainty. (4) Freud’s discovery that consciousness is based not in rational thought about reality but in a turbulent effort to control the unconscious offered a way to re-animate a world emptied of magic. The essay concludes with a critical summary of the process by which Freudian thought came to be pervasive in social-scientific viewpoints on American culture’

https://parisinstitute.org/depictions-article-sigmund-freuds-america/

America. Home of the crazy.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Emmanuel MARTIN
Emmanuel MARTIN
1 year ago

A book “Le livre noir de la psychanalyse” may have been translated in English and contains all responses you need. A key element of Freud’s success is that it flatters the narcissism of every involved participant, while more modern methods can be dull.
In Freud’s world, your mind a subject of infinite complexity, worthy of nuanced exploration as it treasures untold secrets. While more clinical approach may tell you to move on and take some pills or practice some positive (but boring) reinforcement routines.

Last edited 1 year ago by Emmanuel MARTIN
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

All I know is he was a nutter and his daughters foundation Anna Freud Centre, is pushing all kinds of stuff in our schools.
Freud would have a field day analysing some of these comments…

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

It’s alright Charlie, it’s not as if many people take his theories very seriously now as scientific fact. Almost no-one, in fact.
He’s really only taken that seriously by furious people complaining about how seriously he’s still being taken. Which, I’m sure you’ll agree, is quite funny.

Emmanuel MARTIN
Emmanuel MARTIN
1 year ago

A book “Le livre noir de la psychanalyse” may have been translated in English and contains all responses you need. A key element of Freud’s success is that it flatters the narcissism of every involved participant, while more modern methods can be dull.
In Freud’s world, your mind a subject of infinite complexity, worthy of nuanced exploration as it treasures untold secrets. While more clinical approach may tell you to move on and take some pills or practice some positive (but boring) reinforcement routines.

Last edited 1 year ago by Emmanuel MARTIN
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Freud was a complete fraud, a perfect product of Fin de siècle Vienna, and all that it stood for.

I cannot understand how his myth has endured for so long. Any ideas?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

Is he taken very seriously now in professional circles? Not for a long time, I think.
It seems to me that his theories these days are taken more or less symbolically- as literature, in effect. That’s to say, not scientifically serious, but nonetheless useful as a source of ideas and ways of talking about ourselves. Obviously, he didn’t invent the idea of the unconscious, but his ways of talking about repression are basic to the way laypeople talk about themselves.

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago
Reply to  James Wills

I see no reason to assume (as several comments do) that Freud understood men any better than he understood women. Freudian psychoanalysis has never been supported by empirical evidence and no longer has much influence among psychologists (not that the latter have anything like a good track record when it comes to understanding human nature). Nonetheless, some followers of Freud have turned his theory into something like an ideology. Others have used it as “evidence” to demonstrate their own rival ideologies.

James Wills
James Wills
1 year ago

Of course, Freud never heard the old joke:
A fellow stumbles across a lamp on a California beach, rubs it, and the requisite genie pops out.
“Oh, boy! Three wishes!”
“No. It’s been a long week and I’m tired. You get one wish.”
“OK. I love Hawaii, but I am afraid of flying. I want a personal road from here to Honolulu so’s I can just drive there.”
“Jesus, you don’t want much, do you? I told you I’m tired. Pick something else.”
So he thinks, scratches his head, thinks some more. “OK, I have it. Just answer one question: What do women want?”
“Would you like that road two lanes or four?”

Suzanne C.
Suzanne C.
1 year ago

So much to say about this topic. I have so far succeeded in just what you describe here, both the matricide of a toxic, narcissistic mother and the creation and nurturing of a three generation family. It is possible, though the times that are coming will bring unimaginable challenges to every last bulwark of normalcy, we still have to try and bolster them.
My husband and I met at university at 17, in 1979. Both of us came from dysfunctional families, torn apart by adultery and alcoholism. We wanted something very different. There was a popular American television program in the 70’s, the Waltons, based on the true stories of a large Appalachian family during the depression. Silly as it seems, it stood for a shorthand way of expressing what we longed for, stability, faith, family. Our first child was born in 1983, her brother a year later. Homeschooling surfaced in the news soon after, just as we realized our second child, though gifted, would never fit in a classroom. 14 years later Asperger’s syndrome would be widely recognized, explaining why my son, and indeed myself, had so many social issues though verbally and intellectually fluent.
We went on to raise and homeschool our five children through high school. My husband worked as a consultant most of those years, working four days most weeks, leaving time for trips to museums, zoos, even grocery shopping was a group outing. They were wonderful years.My eldest child and only daughter has five sons, ten and under. We are very close, see each other most weeks though she lives about an hour away, and communicate daily. My grandsons visit often for days at a time and have their own room here with a basement full of toys, their uncle’s things augmented by new additions.
My eldest son married in China and brought his wife back to live with us while they established careers here. They lived with us for three and a half years. It turned out to be far easier than we expected until Covid made six adults living under one roof without leaving the house a little too much. Getting them into their own place months before prices skyrocketed turned out to be a huge blessing. When I say that they trust me to watch their precious two year old daughter I have said a lot about our relationship. I have always been very close to this son, but I love my daughter in law more than I thought possible. She is a wonderful mother, but she comes from a culture that hasn’t evicerated motherhood regardless of its other faults.
We have close relationships with our as yet unmarried younger sons and the entire family are often together, now numbering 16. We are blessed in that politics and religion has not driven a wedge as with so many, everyone leans right of center and identifies as Catholic whether fiercely practicing or not.
It has not been perfect. The rebellion so many experience with teens was delayed to the early 20’s with some, partially because of the sheltering, partially because intellectual kids living in their books are often socially immature and don’t feel the need to separate as early.
I was very influenced by Rudolph Steiner’s concept of home as a therapeutic place of refuge and shelter from the world, and that is what we have worked single-mindedly to build. Given the state of the world this may have been prescient. I could say a lot more about bad mothers, bad grandmothers, and the selfishness of the generation immediately preceding me, but I’ve already gone on too long. I am not Grammy either, but Nana, not because it’s cool but because my mother insisted on being called Grammy and the word is tainted forever. She never baked a cookie either, but I’ve made six dozen this morning with my granddaughter.
I wanted to delete this because it really sounds obnoxiously triumphalist, but Mary’s point seemed to me to say that there are young women who want this and wonder if it’s possible and I wanted to be encouraging. I have many regrets, made many mistakes, one or two that were huge and damaging. We have what we have in spite of making mistakes. One of our children has needs that we never seemed able to fully meet, and I’m sure each of the others can point to many similar instances in their lives, besides the obvious. It was a long way from our childhoods and I wish it could have been farther but old sins cast long shadows.

Last edited 1 year ago by Suzanne C.
B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago
Reply to  Suzanne C.

Sounds like a Wonderful Life (so to speak!).
What you describe might perhaps seems strange or foreign to many for whom family is a an equally foreign concept….but what you describe is the way most (?) families used to be. And perhaps many still are. I know several, but they are not the majority.
I suspect that a significant portion of this happy equilibrium you detail may be due to the fact that you “are blessed in that politics and religion has not driven a wedge as with so many, everyone leans right of center and identifies as Catholic whether fiercely practicing or not.” Ten years ago I would have thought that nonsense (how could a vote or an ideological preference interfere with family!!!)…now, not so much. The shallowness of the roots, I guess: too easily torn & twisted if tainted by the talking heads.
Best wishes for a similarly golden future!

Jennifer O'Brien
Jennifer O'Brien
1 year ago
Reply to  Suzanne C.

I hardly ever comment on here, but thanks for sharing this. I’m likewise a child of dysfunctional parenting trying to do better. I hope you have many more years of enjoying your family ahead!

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago
Reply to  Suzanne C.

Sounds like a Wonderful Life (so to speak!).
What you describe might perhaps seems strange or foreign to many for whom family is a an equally foreign concept….but what you describe is the way most (?) families used to be. And perhaps many still are. I know several, but they are not the majority.
I suspect that a significant portion of this happy equilibrium you detail may be due to the fact that you “are blessed in that politics and religion has not driven a wedge as with so many, everyone leans right of center and identifies as Catholic whether fiercely practicing or not.” Ten years ago I would have thought that nonsense (how could a vote or an ideological preference interfere with family!!!)…now, not so much. The shallowness of the roots, I guess: too easily torn & twisted if tainted by the talking heads.
Best wishes for a similarly golden future!

Jennifer O'Brien
Jennifer O'Brien
1 year ago
Reply to  Suzanne C.

I hardly ever comment on here, but thanks for sharing this. I’m likewise a child of dysfunctional parenting trying to do better. I hope you have many more years of enjoying your family ahead!

Suzanne C.
Suzanne C.
1 year ago

So much to say about this topic. I have so far succeeded in just what you describe here, both the matricide of a toxic, narcissistic mother and the creation and nurturing of a three generation family. It is possible, though the times that are coming will bring unimaginable challenges to every last bulwark of normalcy, we still have to try and bolster them.
My husband and I met at university at 17, in 1979. Both of us came from dysfunctional families, torn apart by adultery and alcoholism. We wanted something very different. There was a popular American television program in the 70’s, the Waltons, based on the true stories of a large Appalachian family during the depression. Silly as it seems, it stood for a shorthand way of expressing what we longed for, stability, faith, family. Our first child was born in 1983, her brother a year later. Homeschooling surfaced in the news soon after, just as we realized our second child, though gifted, would never fit in a classroom. 14 years later Asperger’s syndrome would be widely recognized, explaining why my son, and indeed myself, had so many social issues though verbally and intellectually fluent.
We went on to raise and homeschool our five children through high school. My husband worked as a consultant most of those years, working four days most weeks, leaving time for trips to museums, zoos, even grocery shopping was a group outing. They were wonderful years.My eldest child and only daughter has five sons, ten and under. We are very close, see each other most weeks though she lives about an hour away, and communicate daily. My grandsons visit often for days at a time and have their own room here with a basement full of toys, their uncle’s things augmented by new additions.
My eldest son married in China and brought his wife back to live with us while they established careers here. They lived with us for three and a half years. It turned out to be far easier than we expected until Covid made six adults living under one roof without leaving the house a little too much. Getting them into their own place months before prices skyrocketed turned out to be a huge blessing. When I say that they trust me to watch their precious two year old daughter I have said a lot about our relationship. I have always been very close to this son, but I love my daughter in law more than I thought possible. She is a wonderful mother, but she comes from a culture that hasn’t evicerated motherhood regardless of its other faults.
We have close relationships with our as yet unmarried younger sons and the entire family are often together, now numbering 16. We are blessed in that politics and religion has not driven a wedge as with so many, everyone leans right of center and identifies as Catholic whether fiercely practicing or not.
It has not been perfect. The rebellion so many experience with teens was delayed to the early 20’s with some, partially because of the sheltering, partially because intellectual kids living in their books are often socially immature and don’t feel the need to separate as early.
I was very influenced by Rudolph Steiner’s concept of home as a therapeutic place of refuge and shelter from the world, and that is what we have worked single-mindedly to build. Given the state of the world this may have been prescient. I could say a lot more about bad mothers, bad grandmothers, and the selfishness of the generation immediately preceding me, but I’ve already gone on too long. I am not Grammy either, but Nana, not because it’s cool but because my mother insisted on being called Grammy and the word is tainted forever. She never baked a cookie either, but I’ve made six dozen this morning with my granddaughter.
I wanted to delete this because it really sounds obnoxiously triumphalist, but Mary’s point seemed to me to say that there are young women who want this and wonder if it’s possible and I wanted to be encouraging. I have many regrets, made many mistakes, one or two that were huge and damaging. We have what we have in spite of making mistakes. One of our children has needs that we never seemed able to fully meet, and I’m sure each of the others can point to many similar instances in their lives, besides the obvious. It was a long way from our childhoods and I wish it could have been farther but old sins cast long shadows.

Last edited 1 year ago by Suzanne C.
Anthony Michaels
Anthony Michaels
1 year ago

Whenever people talk about “the patriarchy” in the modern west, the discussion immediately becomes quite theoretical and academic. It’s almost as if the patriarchy died several decades ago.

leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago

“It’s almost as if the patriarchy died several decades ago.”
Unfortunately, the roughly 3,000 women killed each year in the US alone by their male partners are still dying. Men commit almost all of the sexual violence in the world and most of the murders. The fact that men are murdered by other men doesn’t change that they also murder women at a ratio of about 100:1.

“Patriarchy” may have died, but systematic male violence against women certainly hasn’t.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago

You just also admitted of systematic male violence against men. Perhaps it is all down to biology?

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

No! Biology is a social construction.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

I thought it was supposed to be very mean of women to suggest that men were violent? Several blokes here have claimed to be insuted by the suggestion, as if it were a feminist smear- one even saying that lesbians are the worst perpetrators of domestic violence.
Are you saying, in fact, that men ARE inherently violent? I’m just trying to get this straight, as there are some wild contradictions here in the defenses of men against what seems to be seen as the oppression by women.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

No! Biology is a social construction.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

I thought it was supposed to be very mean of women to suggest that men were violent? Several blokes here have claimed to be insuted by the suggestion, as if it were a feminist smear- one even saying that lesbians are the worst perpetrators of domestic violence.
Are you saying, in fact, that men ARE inherently violent? I’m just trying to get this straight, as there are some wild contradictions here in the defenses of men against what seems to be seen as the oppression by women.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago

“Men” are not all the same. There are bad actors, and violent ones, that some women find very attractive, and they are responsible for many violent crimes against women. And despite all warnings and advice, they go back to them all the same.

Women have agency. They are able to make adult decisions about whom they frequent. Anyone – but especially men – who try to dissuade them are infringing upon their rights as women to choose their partners. But if it ends badly, then many will denounce their own agency in favour of victimhood at the hands of “men.”

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

People are complicated and contradictory. We have “agency”, but we are also subject to our history and psychology, and manipulative people know how to exploit these weaknesses.
To simply say, in effect, ‘you got what you asked for’ to a victim of domestic violence is both cruel and wildly simplistic. Of course, there’s often a grain of truth in it- but there’s also a huge and wilful blindness to the awkward truth of people’s lives, often starting with an abusive parent.
My Mother was physically abused as a child, and was physically abused by my Father; it must, even in courtship, have been fairly obvious that he was domineering, at the least. Would you say my Mother got was she asked for, and leave it at that?

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

By your line of reasoning then, should men benefit from the same defense that their lives are “complicated and contradictory,” and therefore deserve understanding when physically – or emotionally -abused by a domineering parent? There lies a slippery slope….

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Yes, obviously, in psychological terms- except there’s a clear ethical and practical difference between someone beating their partner, and the partner being beaten.
Do you agree?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Yes, obviously, in psychological terms- except there’s a clear ethical and practical difference between someone beating their partner, and the partner being beaten.
Do you agree?

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Not asked for it — as in the poor lady personally deserved it, but the majority of us, in many ways, prefer to seek a comfort level, and what is familiar does have, however grotesque, a comfort level. Life has a way of grooving game paths in our synapses. The more analytic we are, the greater self-determination we can achieve. Perhaps that is why the saying endures, “An unexamined life is not worth living.”

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

By your line of reasoning then, should men benefit from the same defense that their lives are “complicated and contradictory,” and therefore deserve understanding when physically – or emotionally -abused by a domineering parent? There lies a slippery slope….

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Not asked for it — as in the poor lady personally deserved it, but the majority of us, in many ways, prefer to seek a comfort level, and what is familiar does have, however grotesque, a comfort level. Life has a way of grooving game paths in our synapses. The more analytic we are, the greater self-determination we can achieve. Perhaps that is why the saying endures, “An unexamined life is not worth living.”

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

People are complicated and contradictory. We have “agency”, but we are also subject to our history and psychology, and manipulative people know how to exploit these weaknesses.
To simply say, in effect, ‘you got what you asked for’ to a victim of domestic violence is both cruel and wildly simplistic. Of course, there’s often a grain of truth in it- but there’s also a huge and wilful blindness to the awkward truth of people’s lives, often starting with an abusive parent.
My Mother was physically abused as a child, and was physically abused by my Father; it must, even in courtship, have been fairly obvious that he was domineering, at the least. Would you say my Mother got was she asked for, and leave it at that?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

America you have so many problems. Clearly evidenced by the crazy abounding on here again.

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago

Homicide is, indeed, a serious problem. But it’s always helpful to get the numbers right.
In 2020, about 4300 women & 17,000 men were murdered. Of those, it’s estimated that about 1800 of the women (41%) were murdered by male partners, and 1200 men by female partners (about 7%).
This would give us a ratio of women killed by intimate partners to men killed by intimate partners of about 3:2….meaning for every 3 women killed by a male partner, there are 2 men killed by a female partner.
These numbers vary by year and the degree of granularity also varies, but by almost any measure the intimate partner homicide ratio is significantly smaller than then 100:1 that you misleadingly quote. Nor can we say that this violence is systematic, meaning done methodically or according to some master plan.
As for whether it’s systemic….violence itself is systemic.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago

You just also admitted of systematic male violence against men. Perhaps it is all down to biology?

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago

“Men” are not all the same. There are bad actors, and violent ones, that some women find very attractive, and they are responsible for many violent crimes against women. And despite all warnings and advice, they go back to them all the same.

Women have agency. They are able to make adult decisions about whom they frequent. Anyone – but especially men – who try to dissuade them are infringing upon their rights as women to choose their partners. But if it ends badly, then many will denounce their own agency in favour of victimhood at the hands of “men.”

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

America you have so many problems. Clearly evidenced by the crazy abounding on here again.

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago

Homicide is, indeed, a serious problem. But it’s always helpful to get the numbers right.
In 2020, about 4300 women & 17,000 men were murdered. Of those, it’s estimated that about 1800 of the women (41%) were murdered by male partners, and 1200 men by female partners (about 7%).
This would give us a ratio of women killed by intimate partners to men killed by intimate partners of about 3:2….meaning for every 3 women killed by a male partner, there are 2 men killed by a female partner.
These numbers vary by year and the degree of granularity also varies, but by almost any measure the intimate partner homicide ratio is significantly smaller than then 100:1 that you misleadingly quote. Nor can we say that this violence is systematic, meaning done methodically or according to some master plan.
As for whether it’s systemic….violence itself is systemic.

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago

Whenever people talk about “the patriarchy,” they do not do so as cultural anthropologists or archeologists. They do so as feminists, for whom that word refers to a conspiracy theory of history–that men have conspired since the dawn of human history to oppress women. This is an ideological theory, a profoundly cynical one at that and no more verifiable than Marx’s “dialectical materialism” or Freud’s “Oedipus complex.” Our society is not a utopia. Women do have serious problems, and so do men. But this is hardly a patriarchal society, in which fathers rule.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

It’s not a patriarchy, in the technical sense. But it IS a society in which the most wealthy people are men, most political leaders are men, most corporate leaders are men, and the vast majority of violent acts are committed by men.
Now, it’s possible to argue that this is biological determinism- that this is simply how things should be. Plenty of angry (and probably single) men on this site say so. There’s no need at all to invoke a “conspiracy”- men were men, and women shut up or were belted, and quite right too, as my Dad used to say. The “verifiable” bits were the bruises. No need for theory, “cynical” or otherwise…

Last edited 1 year ago by John Holland
Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I never said that any form of social organization is more “natural” than any other. As for our own society, it’s not patriarchal even in a metaphorical sense. Neither is it a matriarchal one. (There have been a few of those, although they’re unstable.) Rather, it’s a gynocentric one. It is systemically preoccupied with the needs and problems of women and systemically ignores those of men (although the rise of wokism has now added a systemic focus on race). Until very recently, social scientists seldom bothered to measure those; now, many are afraid to do so for fear of woke vigilantes.
Nor have I ever invoked a conspiracy theory of history. Ideologically oriented feminists have done that (and so have wokers).
There are many kinds of power, moreover, and women have certainly wielded their own kinds throughout history. Now, increasingly, they wield also the kinds of power that have been associated with men. I’m not convinced that the number of men and women in legislatures says much about anything. If elected male officials could represent only men and elected female officials could represent only women, our democracies would be impossible. And the same thing is true of all people who speak and act in the public square: business executives, journalists, academics, judges, bureaucrats and so on. There are dissenters, but even they must be mindful of what women say and do.

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I never said that any form of social organization is more “natural” than any other. As for our own society, it’s not patriarchal even in a metaphorical sense. Neither is it a matriarchal one. (There have been a few of those, although they’re unstable.) Rather, it’s a gynocentric one. It is systemically preoccupied with the needs and problems of women and systemically ignores those of men (although the rise of wokism has now added a systemic focus on race). Until very recently, social scientists seldom bothered to measure those; now, many are afraid to do so for fear of woke vigilantes.
Nor have I ever invoked a conspiracy theory of history. Ideologically oriented feminists have done that (and so have wokers).
There are many kinds of power, moreover, and women have certainly wielded their own kinds throughout history. Now, increasingly, they wield also the kinds of power that have been associated with men. I’m not convinced that the number of men and women in legislatures says much about anything. If elected male officials could represent only men and elected female officials could represent only women, our democracies would be impossible. And the same thing is true of all people who speak and act in the public square: business executives, journalists, academics, judges, bureaucrats and so on. There are dissenters, but even they must be mindful of what women say and do.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

It’s not a patriarchy, in the technical sense. But it IS a society in which the most wealthy people are men, most political leaders are men, most corporate leaders are men, and the vast majority of violent acts are committed by men.
Now, it’s possible to argue that this is biological determinism- that this is simply how things should be. Plenty of angry (and probably single) men on this site say so. There’s no need at all to invoke a “conspiracy”- men were men, and women shut up or were belted, and quite right too, as my Dad used to say. The “verifiable” bits were the bruises. No need for theory, “cynical” or otherwise…

Last edited 1 year ago by John Holland
leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago

“It’s almost as if the patriarchy died several decades ago.”
Unfortunately, the roughly 3,000 women killed each year in the US alone by their male partners are still dying. Men commit almost all of the sexual violence in the world and most of the murders. The fact that men are murdered by other men doesn’t change that they also murder women at a ratio of about 100:1.

“Patriarchy” may have died, but systematic male violence against women certainly hasn’t.

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago

Whenever people talk about “the patriarchy,” they do not do so as cultural anthropologists or archeologists. They do so as feminists, for whom that word refers to a conspiracy theory of history–that men have conspired since the dawn of human history to oppress women. This is an ideological theory, a profoundly cynical one at that and no more verifiable than Marx’s “dialectical materialism” or Freud’s “Oedipus complex.” Our society is not a utopia. Women do have serious problems, and so do men. But this is hardly a patriarchal society, in which fathers rule.

Anthony Michaels
Anthony Michaels
1 year ago

Whenever people talk about “the patriarchy” in the modern west, the discussion immediately becomes quite theoretical and academic. It’s almost as if the patriarchy died several decades ago.

Caroline Ayers
Caroline Ayers
1 year ago

Love your writing Mary! Only one comment on the article itself; when we are born our eggs are all in our ovaries, not our uterus.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Caroline Ayers

Yes, i did wonder about that, but assumed on first reading that Mary meant the eggs of a woman’s grandchildren are in her uterus – in the ovaries of the female foetus she’s carrying. But i think you’re right, a strange anatomical error.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Caroline Ayers

Yes, i did wonder about that, but assumed on first reading that Mary meant the eggs of a woman’s grandchildren are in her uterus – in the ovaries of the female foetus she’s carrying. But i think you’re right, a strange anatomical error.

Caroline Ayers
Caroline Ayers
1 year ago

Love your writing Mary! Only one comment on the article itself; when we are born our eggs are all in our ovaries, not our uterus.

Daniel P
Daniel P
1 year ago

At 57 yrs of age, having grown up in a house with 3 sisters and my mother, having spent years in a female dominated sport (horse competition) with female coaches, having dated for 44 yrs, having a daughter and an ex wife, I STILL have only the barest clue what women want.
BUT….I think I have come to a reason for why that is. Women do not know what they want and when they do it is very likely to change before you can respond to it or change on a dime based on some context. I’ve just reached a point where I realize that the nature of most women is mercurial and that being in a relationship with one, wife, daughter, mother, cousin, any relationship, is like being a surfer. There are days with big, dangerous waves and days with slow rollers but there are always waves to navigate. Accept that you are never gonna be in control, that the best you can do is react and respond to the changing conditions in front of you and pray you do not fall off or that the curl doesn’t bury you and slam you into the bottom. Exciting and thrilling and simultaneously dangerous and terrifying.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

A human driven by emotion is as changeable as the weather.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

Absolutely. I, and most women, have found men to be still points in a raging ocean; never changing their minds, never getting emotional (anger is not an emotion so that doesn’t count). They can always be relied up on to be there, a rock in a storm, a beacon to guide us. I’ve run out of metaphors here, so – the end.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Ha ha! Yes- it’s ‘funny’ how a propensity to violence is seen as a manifestation of intellectual rigour and dispassionate cogitation by the misogynists.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

From what I have seen far too men have allowed themselves to be chained to a ROCK like Prometheus, and suffered the consequent fate.

I gather the technical term is “henpecked “.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Oh Charles, it really is TOO awful. Poor little chickens, how they suffer so….

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Indeed, mostly because of that poseur known to history as Sigmund Freud.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I’m confused- what is mostly because of Freud? Men suffering so?
Poor old Freud- he gets it in the neck from everyone. Which, of course, is exactly what his theories predicted, ironically.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

He was a ‘bluffer’ and got precisely what he deserved, even if posthumously sadly.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

That doesn’t answer the question. What did he do that has reduced contemporary males to snivelling chickens?
Also, you’re contradicting yourself- you’re complaining below that everyone still takes him seriously- make you mind up Charles.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

That doesn’t answer the question. What did he do that has reduced contemporary males to snivelling chickens?
Also, you’re contradicting yourself- you’re complaining below that everyone still takes him seriously- make you mind up Charles.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

He was a ‘bluffer’ and got precisely what he deserved, even if posthumously sadly.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I’m confused- what is mostly because of Freud? Men suffering so?
Poor old Freud- he gets it in the neck from everyone. Which, of course, is exactly what his theories predicted, ironically.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Indeed, mostly because of that poseur known to history as Sigmund Freud.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago

Harry Markle?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Oh Charles, it really is TOO awful. Poor little chickens, how they suffer so….

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago

Harry Markle?

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago

I can’t speak for women, but I can speak for myself as a man. If you think that men in general are “rocks in a storm,” then I suggest that appearance can be deceptive. (This applies to admiration for men in general no less than to contempt for men in general–which is what too many people on this blog express). Most men try to be whatever society tells them to be. And society uses both bribery and intimidation to make men men decisive, strong, brave, protective or whatever. But the degree of success varies considerably. (The same thing is true for women.) Sometimes, probably often, there’s a rough correspondence between what people try to be and what they actually want to be. But personal freedom is always limited to some extent, because no society could endure if it were otherwise. Children must learn that in order to grow up. (Dictators learn it the hard way–not only at their own cost but also at the cost of enormous suffering for millions of people.)

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Nathanson
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

Nice to read a comment here capable of nuanced thought. We don’t like that on unHerd.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Ha ha! Hence, 7 downticks.
Well, at least the the readership admit their dislike of “nuance thought’, which is honest. We all love an echo-chamber, after all…

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Ha ha! Hence, 7 downticks.
Well, at least the the readership admit their dislike of “nuance thought’, which is honest. We all love an echo-chamber, after all…

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

Nice to read a comment here capable of nuanced thought. We don’t like that on unHerd.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Ha ha! Yes- it’s ‘funny’ how a propensity to violence is seen as a manifestation of intellectual rigour and dispassionate cogitation by the misogynists.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

From what I have seen far too men have allowed themselves to be chained to a ROCK like Prometheus, and suffered the consequent fate.

I gather the technical term is “henpecked “.

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
1 year ago

I can’t speak for women, but I can speak for myself as a man. If you think that men in general are “rocks in a storm,” then I suggest that appearance can be deceptive. (This applies to admiration for men in general no less than to contempt for men in general–which is what too many people on this blog express). Most men try to be whatever society tells them to be. And society uses both bribery and intimidation to make men men decisive, strong, brave, protective or whatever. But the degree of success varies considerably. (The same thing is true for women.) Sometimes, probably often, there’s a rough correspondence between what people try to be and what they actually want to be. But personal freedom is always limited to some extent, because no society could endure if it were otherwise. Children must learn that in order to grow up. (Dictators learn it the hard way–not only at their own cost but also at the cost of enormous suffering for millions of people.)

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Nathanson
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

There is a good deal of truth in that. It also raises the spectre of male ‘controlling’ behaviour, from those who simply can’t take that on board so have to resort to the tactics they do to try to re-establish some control in their own lives. The inevitability of failure and breakdown can only be delayed.
On the other hand, it can also be immensely enjoyable!
Edit: Nietzsche identified something similar, just as Freud was floundering. The former’s solution (to take the whip to women) perfectly exemplifies that need to control by those unable to enjoy. I can’t recall which writer it was who made the observation that most women would probably be capable of taking the whip away from Nietzsche.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

> Women do not know what they want
My spin on this is that what women want is to have a whole lot of mutually exclusive things at the same time. They want to be foxes … but not be seen as ‘objects’. They want to spend hours a day beautifying themselves, … but not be ‘looked at’. They want a man who is a Bad Boy … but who will still take out the garbage and act like an obedient servant. They want everything men struggle for … but without the struggle and without the chance of failure. They want to be treated like Madonnas and behave like Whores at the same time. They want to be captain of the ship …. but still be first into the lifeboats.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

We want to be treated like Madonnas and behave like whores do we. How very liberating.
That what’s going on in your head has resulted in a comment involving Madonna and hookers, tells me… you need to get laid.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

So probably does Mr Holland, given his agitated state this evening.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

It’s a bit more lively isn’t it?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Charles, dear, if you really do want to know, I’m getting plenty right now.
Which might be why the various dribbling ‘Incel’ chums of yours here are irritating me more than normal- I think it might be them who you should concern yourself about- “getting laid”-wise- rather than me. I find it a reasonable rule of thumb that the more time a bloke spends on the internet spewling bile about the horrors of woman-kind, the fewer any real-life women are prepared to enter his ‘orbit’.
I can think of a couple at least who need to have a long, hard think about whether they’d be happier in a monastery, well away from the vile predations of the weaker sex.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Holland, old fruit,
I am glad to hear it! “Sex keeps a man alive” as Quintus Arius said.

You will have to translate what ‘incel chums’ means as I am unfamiliar with that particular
expression.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Ah- sorry. ‘Incel’ is a contraction of ‘involuntary celabate’, and it has become a bit of an ‘internet phenomenon’. It refers to (mostly) young men who cannot get laid who, instead of the traditional response to this of shameful and silent frustration, join groups of similarly-challenged individuals to rant about the hideous evils of females, and how they rule the world only to torture poor, spotty young men, who are the real victims of well, everything.
Some of them, if they have the misfortune to be American, underline this theory by wandering around threatening (and sometimes succeeding) to shoot people.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Holland
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Thank you!
Live and learn as they say!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Thank you!
Live and learn as they say!

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Ah- sorry. ‘Incel’ is a contraction of ‘involuntary celabate’, and it has become a bit of an ‘internet phenomenon’. It refers to (mostly) young men who cannot get laid who, instead of the traditional response to this of shameful and silent frustration, join groups of similarly-challenged individuals to rant about the hideous evils of females, and how they rule the world only to torture poor, spotty young men, who are the real victims of well, everything.
Some of them, if they have the misfortune to be American, underline this theory by wandering around threatening (and sometimes succeeding) to shoot people.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Holland
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Holland, old fruit,
I am glad to hear it! “Sex keeps a man alive” as Quintus Arius said.

You will have to translate what ‘incel chums’ means as I am unfamiliar with that particular
expression.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

It’s a bit more lively isn’t it?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Charles, dear, if you really do want to know, I’m getting plenty right now.
Which might be why the various dribbling ‘Incel’ chums of yours here are irritating me more than normal- I think it might be them who you should concern yourself about- “getting laid”-wise- rather than me. I find it a reasonable rule of thumb that the more time a bloke spends on the internet spewling bile about the horrors of woman-kind, the fewer any real-life women are prepared to enter his ‘orbit’.
I can think of a couple at least who need to have a long, hard think about whether they’d be happier in a monastery, well away from the vile predations of the weaker sex.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

So probably does Mr Holland, given his agitated state this evening.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Ray, dear- if you want to talk about your problems, specifically your apparent inability to attract a mate- then there are many professional people out there who might be able to help you. You just need to take that first step and reach out….

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

There’s a few on here that should take that advice.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

There’s a few on here that should take that advice.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

We want to be treated like Madonnas and behave like whores do we. How very liberating.
That what’s going on in your head has resulted in a comment involving Madonna and hookers, tells me… you need to get laid.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Ray, dear- if you want to talk about your problems, specifically your apparent inability to attract a mate- then there are many professional people out there who might be able to help you. You just need to take that first step and reach out….

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

Yes and it’s evidenced by the way democracies vote, guided by emotion more than other considerations.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

A human driven by emotion is as changeable as the weather.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

Absolutely. I, and most women, have found men to be still points in a raging ocean; never changing their minds, never getting emotional (anger is not an emotion so that doesn’t count). They can always be relied up on to be there, a rock in a storm, a beacon to guide us. I’ve run out of metaphors here, so – the end.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

There is a good deal of truth in that. It also raises the spectre of male ‘controlling’ behaviour, from those who simply can’t take that on board so have to resort to the tactics they do to try to re-establish some control in their own lives. The inevitability of failure and breakdown can only be delayed.
On the other hand, it can also be immensely enjoyable!
Edit: Nietzsche identified something similar, just as Freud was floundering. The former’s solution (to take the whip to women) perfectly exemplifies that need to control by those unable to enjoy. I can’t recall which writer it was who made the observation that most women would probably be capable of taking the whip away from Nietzsche.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

> Women do not know what they want
My spin on this is that what women want is to have a whole lot of mutually exclusive things at the same time. They want to be foxes … but not be seen as ‘objects’. They want to spend hours a day beautifying themselves, … but not be ‘looked at’. They want a man who is a Bad Boy … but who will still take out the garbage and act like an obedient servant. They want everything men struggle for … but without the struggle and without the chance of failure. They want to be treated like Madonnas and behave like Whores at the same time. They want to be captain of the ship …. but still be first into the lifeboats.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Daniel P

Yes and it’s evidenced by the way democracies vote, guided by emotion more than other considerations.

Daniel P
Daniel P
1 year ago

At 57 yrs of age, having grown up in a house with 3 sisters and my mother, having spent years in a female dominated sport (horse competition) with female coaches, having dated for 44 yrs, having a daughter and an ex wife, I STILL have only the barest clue what women want.
BUT….I think I have come to a reason for why that is. Women do not know what they want and when they do it is very likely to change before you can respond to it or change on a dime based on some context. I’ve just reached a point where I realize that the nature of most women is mercurial and that being in a relationship with one, wife, daughter, mother, cousin, any relationship, is like being a surfer. There are days with big, dangerous waves and days with slow rollers but there are always waves to navigate. Accept that you are never gonna be in control, that the best you can do is react and respond to the changing conditions in front of you and pray you do not fall off or that the curl doesn’t bury you and slam you into the bottom. Exciting and thrilling and simultaneously dangerous and terrifying.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago

It is curious that male discussion of females is so often derided now as the “manosphere”, as the writer has done, when forums discussing the attributes – but especially ills – of the male gender are presented as empowering.

The writer refers derisively to a male perception that the eggs of women are unsuitable for fertility into their thirties. I was under the mistaken (apparently) impression that this was a biological observation rather than another expression of “misogyny.” But perhaps a woman’s truth trumps male knowledge of science, and a simple attitude adjustment, or medical procedure will extend women’s fertility into the sixties.

Douglas McNeish
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago

It is curious that male discussion of females is so often derided now as the “manosphere”, as the writer has done, when forums discussing the attributes – but especially ills – of the male gender are presented as empowering.

The writer refers derisively to a male perception that the eggs of women are unsuitable for fertility into their thirties. I was under the mistaken (apparently) impression that this was a biological observation rather than another expression of “misogyny.” But perhaps a woman’s truth trumps male knowledge of science, and a simple attitude adjustment, or medical procedure will extend women’s fertility into the sixties.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

ACHTUNG everyone! Mr John Holland is on day-release!

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Are you alright, Charlie? I seem to have upset you in some way. None of the other, far more verbose, commenters have elicited this responce.
Do you want to talk about it? Is it a “trigger moment” for you as they say now?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Touché, I was just trying to wind you up! You certainly haven’t upset me in any way! Nor I you I trust?

Sadly I on GMT +2 at present so it’s off to bed with Ovaltine for me!

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Good night. I’m on gooseberry wine, you’ll be appalled to hear. Actually not nearly as bad as you might think.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Good night. I’m on gooseberry wine, you’ll be appalled to hear. Actually not nearly as bad as you might think.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Touché, I was just trying to wind you up! You certainly haven’t upset me in any way! Nor I you I trust?

Sadly I on GMT +2 at present so it’s off to bed with Ovaltine for me!

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Are you alright, Charlie? I seem to have upset you in some way. None of the other, far more verbose, commenters have elicited this responce.
Do you want to talk about it? Is it a “trigger moment” for you as they say now?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

ACHTUNG everyone! Mr John Holland is on day-release!

penny wright
penny wright
1 year ago

My reaction to the inter generational divide is complete non-surprise. I am a middle aged woman, believer in life, married, 6 kids, lawyer, master of laws, board member and business owner. I should have been able to embrace ‘feminism’ as that is how i live my life – not willing to be lesser because of my gender. Yet as a believer in life, i am not the right type of woman to be included as a feminist. It doesn’t at all surprise me that the ‘older’ feminists continue to hold the view that there are certain things they fought for and therefore are NOT a legitimate exercise of intelligent, free choice decision making for other women – fishnet stockings, stilettos, makeup, sex, not using birth control or considering abortion to be a consequence free liberation. This type of exclusion has played out from the beginning – stay at home mums and people of sincere faith have always been excluded. The exclusion has just moved on to the next group that doesn’t 100% subscribe to the version before.
Feminism has always been about a certain type of female ‘rights’, never about empowering and respecting all women to make their own choices. My choice, my body cuts one way in the feminist world to its great, great detriment.

Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago
Reply to  penny wright

Excellent post.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  penny wright

Are what we are aiming for is the ability to to achieve freedom of choice coupled with responsibility for decisions made, whether good or bad?

Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago
Reply to  penny wright

Excellent post.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 year ago
Reply to  penny wright

Are what we are aiming for is the ability to to achieve freedom of choice coupled with responsibility for decisions made, whether good or bad?

penny wright
penny wright
1 year ago

My reaction to the inter generational divide is complete non-surprise. I am a middle aged woman, believer in life, married, 6 kids, lawyer, master of laws, board member and business owner. I should have been able to embrace ‘feminism’ as that is how i live my life – not willing to be lesser because of my gender. Yet as a believer in life, i am not the right type of woman to be included as a feminist. It doesn’t at all surprise me that the ‘older’ feminists continue to hold the view that there are certain things they fought for and therefore are NOT a legitimate exercise of intelligent, free choice decision making for other women – fishnet stockings, stilettos, makeup, sex, not using birth control or considering abortion to be a consequence free liberation. This type of exclusion has played out from the beginning – stay at home mums and people of sincere faith have always been excluded. The exclusion has just moved on to the next group that doesn’t 100% subscribe to the version before.
Feminism has always been about a certain type of female ‘rights’, never about empowering and respecting all women to make their own choices. My choice, my body cuts one way in the feminist world to its great, great detriment.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

Feminism is seemingly an inexhaustible mine of disappointment for its adherents.

I wonder when they’ll learn?

Sue Frisby
Sue Frisby
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

I’m learning all the time.

leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Funny–the inexhaustible mine of disappointment most of us see is in expecting the majority of men to drop their sense of entitlement to unearned authority and to women’s bodies and free labor.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago

Then you pick the wrong men.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

Way to prove John’s point. Your response outlines why you will never succeed, but you’ll never learn.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

How does her response “prove” John’s witless and pompous point, exactly? Please explain.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

How does her response “prove” John’s witless and pompous point, exactly? Please explain.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

Actually that’s not a majority position, which you would understand if you were capable of taking your ideological blinkers off.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago

Then you pick the wrong men.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

Way to prove John’s point. Your response outlines why you will never succeed, but you’ll never learn.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

Actually that’s not a majority position, which you would understand if you were capable of taking your ideological blinkers off.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Being a feminist makes some people money.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Being a man makes some people money. Being anything whatsoever makes some people money.
Did you have a point?

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Yes I did. Points, plural. But they both went over your head.

If you calm down I might dumb them down for you.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I honestly don’t think you could dumb your points down any further, Galv, thanks anyway. They are pretty much at rock bottom,
As for your “points”, you said “being a feminist makes some people money”. That’s one point, and a remarkably inane one at that. Maybe there’s been a confusion about which thread is being followed, it does get complicated…

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

No. I am not confused. You are.

When I said “being a feminist makes people some money”, I was referring to the fact that people can monetise their ideological positions. Feminists are one such group. To do this successfully, it helps to conteibute somethong new to the field, to champion a new cause or to have a new take. Activist groups sustain their existence by fighting new foes, often in battles that have long been won.

I suppose you will say this is gibberish or some other midwit cop-out.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

What’s a “midwit”? I assume it’s a person of average intelligence- could be worse.
As for the rest- you said “being a feminist makes some people money”. Well, yes- I’m sure Germain Greer made a quite few quid from ‘The Female Eunuch’- we live in a Capitalist economy, and if you sell some books, you make some money. And Andrew Tate has made millions from his online ‘anti-feminist’ product, telling his legions of young male fans how nasty women are to blame for all their ills. (Although his recent arrest for sex trafficking might have damaged his business model a bit). Then again, Mr. Kellog made millions from his obsession with people’s bowels, and we are still eating his unpleasant breakfast cereals today.
So I’m still not sure of your point, with specific respect to feminism.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Oh dear. I knew you wouldn’t grasp it. Even though you seem to grasp it for a second, then claim not to understand.

In the modern media space, various feminists have, like Greer, garnered a following by writing articles, making videos, podcasts and the like. Feminism isn’t just a cause for these people. It is how they pay their bills. So they have to come up with new things to talk about.

I fail, however, to see how “being a man” in and of itself, makes people money. You will have to enlighten me on that one.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Everybody who wants to monetise anything can do so now. That’s how our consumerist culture works. Feminists can, anti-feminists can, people who tell us we should return to a pre-industrial hunter-gatherer society can.
“Being a man”, per se, doesn’t make money, but ranting online against horrible, frightening women can make a lot of money- Google your comrade in arms Andrew Tate. Everything makes money now.
This comment site makes money- we are both part of that.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Holland
Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Brilliant. You go from saying being a man makes people money to being a man doesn’t make people money. You are a human flip flop.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Err, yes. Well done. Look up the phrase “per se”…it might help.
Or, just try actually reading and properly understanding a comment. Just try, Galv. I know there’s lots of words and stuff, but really, give it a proper go.
What worries me is not your cluelessness, but the fact that you get ‘upticks’ here for it.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Err, yes. Well done. Look up the phrase “per se”…it might help.
Or, just try actually reading and properly understanding a comment. Just try, Galv. I know there’s lots of words and stuff, but really, give it a proper go.
What worries me is not your cluelessness, but the fact that you get ‘upticks’ here for it.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Brilliant. You go from saying being a man makes people money to being a man doesn’t make people money. You are a human flip flop.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Everybody who wants to monetise anything can do so now. That’s how our consumerist culture works. Feminists can, anti-feminists can, people who tell us we should return to a pre-industrial hunter-gatherer society can.
“Being a man”, per se, doesn’t make money, but ranting online against horrible, frightening women can make a lot of money- Google your comrade in arms Andrew Tate. Everything makes money now.
This comment site makes money- we are both part of that.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Holland
Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Oh dear. I knew you wouldn’t grasp it. Even though you seem to grasp it for a second, then claim not to understand.

In the modern media space, various feminists have, like Greer, garnered a following by writing articles, making videos, podcasts and the like. Feminism isn’t just a cause for these people. It is how they pay their bills. So they have to come up with new things to talk about.

I fail, however, to see how “being a man” in and of itself, makes people money. You will have to enlighten me on that one.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

What’s a “midwit”? I assume it’s a person of average intelligence- could be worse.
As for the rest- you said “being a feminist makes some people money”. Well, yes- I’m sure Germain Greer made a quite few quid from ‘The Female Eunuch’- we live in a Capitalist economy, and if you sell some books, you make some money. And Andrew Tate has made millions from his online ‘anti-feminist’ product, telling his legions of young male fans how nasty women are to blame for all their ills. (Although his recent arrest for sex trafficking might have damaged his business model a bit). Then again, Mr. Kellog made millions from his obsession with people’s bowels, and we are still eating his unpleasant breakfast cereals today.
So I’m still not sure of your point, with specific respect to feminism.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

No. I am not confused. You are.

When I said “being a feminist makes people some money”, I was referring to the fact that people can monetise their ideological positions. Feminists are one such group. To do this successfully, it helps to conteibute somethong new to the field, to champion a new cause or to have a new take. Activist groups sustain their existence by fighting new foes, often in battles that have long been won.

I suppose you will say this is gibberish or some other midwit cop-out.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

I honestly don’t think you could dumb your points down any further, Galv, thanks anyway. They are pretty much at rock bottom,
As for your “points”, you said “being a feminist makes some people money”. That’s one point, and a remarkably inane one at that. Maybe there’s been a confusion about which thread is being followed, it does get complicated…

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Yes I did. Points, plural. But they both went over your head.

If you calm down I might dumb them down for you.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

Being a man makes some people money. Being anything whatsoever makes some people money.
Did you have a point?

Sue Frisby
Sue Frisby
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

I’m learning all the time.

leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Funny–the inexhaustible mine of disappointment most of us see is in expecting the majority of men to drop their sense of entitlement to unearned authority and to women’s bodies and free labor.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Being a feminist makes some people money.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 year ago

Feminism is seemingly an inexhaustible mine of disappointment for its adherents.

I wonder when they’ll learn?

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago

Who is surprised that self-centred mothers make self-centred grandmothers? It would be interesting to hear about women who had looked after the kids but have decided that they have now other priorities above and beyond their grandchildren. I’m sure there are some but this article doesn’t mention them.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago

Who is surprised that self-centred mothers make self-centred grandmothers? It would be interesting to hear about women who had looked after the kids but have decided that they have now other priorities above and beyond their grandchildren. I’m sure there are some but this article doesn’t mention them.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

The prevailing narrative is that post menopausal women remain valuable members of society because they care for their grandchildren. If that’s no longer the case then we need to modify the narrative.

leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

I wonder why non combat-worthy men remain valuable members of society then. I sure hope we place greater value on human life than one’s reproductive or physical ability or attractiveness. Probably a cause of my perpetual disappointment in the human race.

Canada’s MAID law has just dispensed with around 12,000 unnecessary people. Perhaps they’ll ramp that up and take care of the problem for us.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

What makes you think non combat-worthy men are valued members of society?

Physical attractiveness and reproductive capability are massive assets to all people in any society. In an atheist, liberal society, we are driven by our desires and little else, so people are bound to judge people very harshly on looks and, to a lesser extent, fertility.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago

What makes you think non combat-worthy men are valued members of society?

Physical attractiveness and reproductive capability are massive assets to all people in any society. In an atheist, liberal society, we are driven by our desires and little else, so people are bound to judge people very harshly on looks and, to a lesser extent, fertility.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

But is it true?

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Family structures have atomised to the extent that many people in younger generations have never met some or any of their grandparents.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Must remember that there’s a whole other group that rejects the narrative.

leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

I wonder why non combat-worthy men remain valuable members of society then. I sure hope we place greater value on human life than one’s reproductive or physical ability or attractiveness. Probably a cause of my perpetual disappointment in the human race.

Canada’s MAID law has just dispensed with around 12,000 unnecessary people. Perhaps they’ll ramp that up and take care of the problem for us.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

But is it true?

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Family structures have atomised to the extent that many people in younger generations have never met some or any of their grandparents.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Must remember that there’s a whole other group that rejects the narrative.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

The prevailing narrative is that post menopausal women remain valuable members of society because they care for their grandchildren. If that’s no longer the case then we need to modify the narrative.

JOHN BINGHAM
JOHN BINGHAM
1 year ago

If it is to be said that women (in the generality) want just one thing, it would be children. Above all else. Men too but they are somewhat different in that regard. That our culture so obscures this truth under the false god of “personhood” (as if mothers are not persons or as if personhood is something which can only be secured outside of bonds) is perhaps the single worst thing about it.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  JOHN BINGHAM

Yes. This was my desire as a young woman but I chose poorly the first time and so it delayed my plan by decades.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  JOHN BINGHAM

Yes. This was my desire as a young woman but I chose poorly the first time and so it delayed my plan by decades.

JOHN BINGHAM
JOHN BINGHAM
1 year ago

If it is to be said that women (in the generality) want just one thing, it would be children. Above all else. Men too but they are somewhat different in that regard. That our culture so obscures this truth under the false god of “personhood” (as if mothers are not persons or as if personhood is something which can only be secured outside of bonds) is perhaps the single worst thing about it.

Paul Rodolf
Paul Rodolf
1 year ago

My wife always wished for our adult children to live nearby so she could be there to help raise her grandkids. I even made the down payment so my kids could afford homes close by, best money I’ve ever spent. I guess we’re just old fashioned.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Rodolf

Good on you! What a lovely gesture!

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Rodolf

Good on you! What a lovely gesture!

Paul Rodolf
Paul Rodolf
1 year ago

My wife always wished for our adult children to live nearby so she could be there to help raise her grandkids. I even made the down payment so my kids could afford homes close by, best money I’ve ever spent. I guess we’re just old fashioned.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago

Many women can’t cope with other women having different opinions. A daughter can’t cope with receiving advice from her mother if it goes against her own opinions and the mother can’t accept her daughter rejecting her advice. Its time for all women to feel comfortable with their own values, opinions and decisions without needing the validation of other women agreeing with them.

Suzanne C.
Suzanne C.
1 year ago

A lot of the drama can be taken out of offering advice if more grandmothers thought about how they felt as young mothers. Wait until asked, or gently poke your nose in while acknowledging something good about your daughter’s mothering skills goes a long way. There is a lot of help to be offered beyond advice-i.e. cleaning, laundry and cooking. Don’t act like the Delphic oracle, and fairly scrutinize your own children’s experience. They may not trust you for a reason,
I have found a few years and multiple children make old fashioned mothering advice much more palatable.

Last edited 1 year ago by Suzanne C.
Suzanne C.
Suzanne C.
1 year ago

A lot of the drama can be taken out of offering advice if more grandmothers thought about how they felt as young mothers. Wait until asked, or gently poke your nose in while acknowledging something good about your daughter’s mothering skills goes a long way. There is a lot of help to be offered beyond advice-i.e. cleaning, laundry and cooking. Don’t act like the Delphic oracle, and fairly scrutinize your own children’s experience. They may not trust you for a reason,
I have found a few years and multiple children make old fashioned mothering advice much more palatable.

Last edited 1 year ago by Suzanne C.
Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago

Many women can’t cope with other women having different opinions. A daughter can’t cope with receiving advice from her mother if it goes against her own opinions and the mother can’t accept her daughter rejecting her advice. Its time for all women to feel comfortable with their own values, opinions and decisions without needing the validation of other women agreeing with them.

Chris Milburn
Chris Milburn
1 year ago

Perhaps one issue at play here is that the current grandma generation sacrificed sleep, travel, money, and often careers for their children. My mom stepped away from teaching for almost 20 years before returning when the last of us was old enough to be independent.
Can we really blame them when their kids call them to babysit so that they can go to book club with their friends, or have a romantic weekend away with hubby or boyfriend? What if grandma wants to do the same things herself? She already paid her dues in the childcare realm a generation ago.
This issue is complicated by the massive increase in single-motherhood, which means a big chunk of the current generation of mom’s is ill-positioned to actually look after the children they’ve brought into the world.
I have a friend who got into a relationship just long enough to get pregnant. She works full time. She assumed her parents would step up and essentially parent her child. She was right, but I don’t think they are very happy about it. They had plans for retirement, volunteer obligations, and a life of their own. Now they are parents again.
The idea that “my parents don’t have anything better to do, so they should look after my kids” is a bit insulting to the older generation.

Chris Milburn
Chris Milburn
1 year ago

Perhaps one issue at play here is that the current grandma generation sacrificed sleep, travel, money, and often careers for their children. My mom stepped away from teaching for almost 20 years before returning when the last of us was old enough to be independent.
Can we really blame them when their kids call them to babysit so that they can go to book club with their friends, or have a romantic weekend away with hubby or boyfriend? What if grandma wants to do the same things herself? She already paid her dues in the childcare realm a generation ago.
This issue is complicated by the massive increase in single-motherhood, which means a big chunk of the current generation of mom’s is ill-positioned to actually look after the children they’ve brought into the world.
I have a friend who got into a relationship just long enough to get pregnant. She works full time. She assumed her parents would step up and essentially parent her child. She was right, but I don’t think they are very happy about it. They had plans for retirement, volunteer obligations, and a life of their own. Now they are parents again.
The idea that “my parents don’t have anything better to do, so they should look after my kids” is a bit insulting to the older generation.

Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
1 year ago

The main driving force behind everything I worked for as a teenager and young woman was to escape from my mother and be able to afford to live alone, in another part of the country, and stay away. I am happily child-free and one of the main reasons for that was because, whilst I could keep my mother at arms length on my own, I knew that trying to fight her pathological obsession with a grandchild would be exhausting and unrelenting. I was proved right when my sister had a child; my niece was badly damaged by my mother’s obsession and my sister, despite being in the same town, missed her own father’s funeral to avoid my mother and hasn’t spoken to her for over ten years.
I am grateful for the early twentieth century feminism that fought for education for girls and set up and staffed my girls’ grammar school, and for the trade union feminism that fought for the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. Women of my generation were the first who were able to reject family life and motherhood in their entirety and I have no regrets about that whatsoever.

William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

How depressing.

Francis Phillips
Francis Phillips
1 year ago

Were you not rejecting a pathologically obsessed mother rather than anything else? My mother was similar in some ways to yours – but I am different and have built a different relationship with my daughters and grandchildren.

leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago

As long as you decline services from anyone born 25 years after you, rail at motherhood as much as you like.

I sure hope you tried to communicate with your mother, perhaps through a professional intermediary, before cutting her off like that. Being abandoned by your two children is tragic. There are ways of “gray-rocking” wherein you maintain a relationship but w/ limits. I know all about narcissistic, abusive family members and work with others who do too, and it’s spiritually irresponsible to simply go “no contact” if you haven’t worked on yourself and attempted a range of communication styles and boundaries before you do. Learning to set and maintain appropriate boundaries makes us all better people and I sure as hell hoped you learned to do that but were still in serious danger before you abandoned your own mother.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago

So your whole life has been lived as a reaction to your mother? That is sad indeed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Kat L
William Shaw
William Shaw
1 year ago

How depressing.

Francis Phillips
Francis Phillips
1 year ago

Were you not rejecting a pathologically obsessed mother rather than anything else? My mother was similar in some ways to yours – but I am different and have built a different relationship with my daughters and grandchildren.

leculdesac suburbia
leculdesac suburbia
1 year ago

As long as you decline services from anyone born 25 years after you, rail at motherhood as much as you like.

I sure hope you tried to communicate with your mother, perhaps through a professional intermediary, before cutting her off like that. Being abandoned by your two children is tragic. There are ways of “gray-rocking” wherein you maintain a relationship but w/ limits. I know all about narcissistic, abusive family members and work with others who do too, and it’s spiritually irresponsible to simply go “no contact” if you haven’t worked on yourself and attempted a range of communication styles and boundaries before you do. Learning to set and maintain appropriate boundaries makes us all better people and I sure as hell hoped you learned to do that but were still in serious danger before you abandoned your own mother.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago

So your whole life has been lived as a reaction to your mother? That is sad indeed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Kat L
Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
1 year ago

The main driving force behind everything I worked for as a teenager and young woman was to escape from my mother and be able to afford to live alone, in another part of the country, and stay away. I am happily child-free and one of the main reasons for that was because, whilst I could keep my mother at arms length on my own, I knew that trying to fight her pathological obsession with a grandchild would be exhausting and unrelenting. I was proved right when my sister had a child; my niece was badly damaged by my mother’s obsession and my sister, despite being in the same town, missed her own father’s funeral to avoid my mother and hasn’t spoken to her for over ten years.
I am grateful for the early twentieth century feminism that fought for education for girls and set up and staffed my girls’ grammar school, and for the trade union feminism that fought for the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. Women of my generation were the first who were able to reject family life and motherhood in their entirety and I have no regrets about that whatsoever.

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

I remember from Sociology the increase in the nuclear family vs extended family in the western world. Work, mobility and relative wealth have scattered family to the winds. My own daughter, no feminist, mentally abused by her manic depressive narcissist husband, is thankfully on her own with her kids now but still wants him geographically close for access. We suspect Stockholm Syndrome. We also think he’d head off and give up on the kids if inconvenience became the order of the day.
She rejects moving closer to ‘family home’ for that moral and practical support we think she needs. I’ve told her, as the years go by, Mum and Dad don’t want to drive silly miles any more. The kids are predictably playing the parents off against each other. Some may say ‘good for her’. The offer is time dependent and the gap is closing rapidly. Apparently we are selfish.

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

I remember from Sociology the increase in the nuclear family vs extended family in the western world. Work, mobility and relative wealth have scattered family to the winds. My own daughter, no feminist, mentally abused by her manic depressive narcissist husband, is thankfully on her own with her kids now but still wants him geographically close for access. We suspect Stockholm Syndrome. We also think he’d head off and give up on the kids if inconvenience became the order of the day.
She rejects moving closer to ‘family home’ for that moral and practical support we think she needs. I’ve told her, as the years go by, Mum and Dad don’t want to drive silly miles any more. The kids are predictably playing the parents off against each other. Some may say ‘good for her’. The offer is time dependent and the gap is closing rapidly. Apparently we are selfish.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

I wonder if most Anglo women believe that virtually the entire animal kingdom has been subjected to a patriarchy through eons of time? I recently saw a documentary on female elephants and it was enlightening to see how fiercely loyal they are to the herd, especially with raising their own young and helping the other mothers with theirs. None of the herd’s females complained about being subjected to a patriarchy. Nor did they appear to think that their offspring were burdens. Their entire reason for living, from searching for food and water, to raising their young, was to keep their species from extinction.
For many decades now, we have been told by sociologists that humans are merely part of the animal kingdom, nothing more.
My view is that when the family breaks down and parents and grandparents of children no longer feel that raising their young is the primary reason for living, we have gone so far astray of what our Creator intended. And using the animal kingdom as a guide, how can the Anglosphere survive this?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

“None of the herd’s females complained about being subject to a patriarchy.”
That’s probably because elephant society is matriarchal.
Did you know that some male toads carry the fertilised eggs in pockets in their skin? Is that how we should also behave? Or should we, like male lions, frequently eat their young? Perhaps we should be like one of the estimated 500 species of fish that can change their sex? Which of these example do we use as “our guide”?

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

The trads will inherit the earth.

Last edited 1 year ago by Kat L
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

The trads wouldn’t appove of you speaking publically to men like this. They wouldn’t appove of you giving your opinions left right and centre at all, frankly.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I hope you become a more thoughtful person once you grow out of your teenage years.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Ah. Your wisdom is as profound as it is eternal.
My confusion lies in the fact that my dear old Dad- who was, as you put it, a “trad”- couldn’t bare women who gave their opinions in public. He said they were ‘henpeckers’ who should be feminine enough to keep their “shrill” opinions to themselves. and yet here you are, you- a ‘trad’ woman- telling me- a man- what to think.
Are you saying, as a women, that my father was wrong? I think I know what his responce to that would be, as a ‘trad’ man..

Last edited 1 year ago by John Holland
Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Holland is in his sixties and is trying to be hip I reckon.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Ah. Your wisdom is as profound as it is eternal.
My confusion lies in the fact that my dear old Dad- who was, as you put it, a “trad”- couldn’t bare women who gave their opinions in public. He said they were ‘henpeckers’ who should be feminine enough to keep their “shrill” opinions to themselves. and yet here you are, you- a ‘trad’ woman- telling me- a man- what to think.
Are you saying, as a women, that my father was wrong? I think I know what his responce to that would be, as a ‘trad’ man..

Last edited 1 year ago by John Holland
Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

Holland is in his sixties and is trying to be hip I reckon.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

I hope you become a more thoughtful person once you grow out of your teenage years.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Kat L

The trads wouldn’t appove of you speaking publically to men like this. They wouldn’t appove of you giving your opinions left right and centre at all, frankly.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

“None of the herd’s females complained about being subject to a patriarchy.”
That’s probably because elephant society is matriarchal.
Did you know that some male toads carry the fertilised eggs in pockets in their skin? Is that how we should also behave? Or should we, like male lions, frequently eat their young? Perhaps we should be like one of the estimated 500 species of fish that can change their sex? Which of these example do we use as “our guide”?

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

The trads will inherit the earth.

Last edited 1 year ago by Kat L
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

I wonder if most Anglo women believe that virtually the entire animal kingdom has been subjected to a patriarchy through eons of time? I recently saw a documentary on female elephants and it was enlightening to see how fiercely loyal they are to the herd, especially with raising their own young and helping the other mothers with theirs. None of the herd’s females complained about being subjected to a patriarchy. Nor did they appear to think that their offspring were burdens. Their entire reason for living, from searching for food and water, to raising their young, was to keep their species from extinction.
For many decades now, we have been told by sociologists that humans are merely part of the animal kingdom, nothing more.
My view is that when the family breaks down and parents and grandparents of children no longer feel that raising their young is the primary reason for living, we have gone so far astray of what our Creator intended. And using the animal kingdom as a guide, how can the Anglosphere survive this?

laura m
laura m
1 year ago

Some of us boomer grandmas are shut out not by our choice but our DILs pursuit of “personhood”. They demand full loyalty of our sons and withhold our grandchildren. They are women with high rates of anxiety and are motivated by external notions of identity and success.

Last edited 1 year ago by laura m
laura m
laura m
1 year ago

Some of us boomer grandmas are shut out not by our choice but our DILs pursuit of “personhood”. They demand full loyalty of our sons and withhold our grandchildren. They are women with high rates of anxiety and are motivated by external notions of identity and success.

Last edited 1 year ago by laura m
Berthine Ommensen
Berthine Ommensen
1 year ago

Life is a circle. Undoubtedly the Glammies will need their daughters (and granddaughters) soon enough. Interdependence is vital for successful, healthy ageing and longevity (even more so than Botox!).

Berthine Ommensen
Berthine Ommensen
1 year ago

Life is a circle. Undoubtedly the Glammies will need their daughters (and granddaughters) soon enough. Interdependence is vital for successful, healthy ageing and longevity (even more so than Botox!).

Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago

Meanwhile in the real world of ordinary people, where I live as a grandad with my wife, ‘Nanny’ – we just crack on with life helping out the kid and the grandkids as required, volunteering insights discreetly so no one sees it as advice and takes umbrage. Standing rule 1 – You never offer advice on how to raise the kids.

Its pretty straightforward and nowhere near as tortuous and overwrought as it appears to be for the ‘intellectual’ classes described in this article.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
Ian Stewart
1 year ago

Meanwhile in the real world of ordinary people, where I live as a grandad with my wife, ‘Nanny’ – we just crack on with life helping out the kid and the grandkids as required, volunteering insights discreetly so no one sees it as advice and takes umbrage. Standing rule 1 – You never offer advice on how to raise the kids.

Its pretty straightforward and nowhere near as tortuous and overwrought as it appears to be for the ‘intellectual’ classes described in this article.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian Stewart
Malcolm Knott
Malcolm Knott
1 year ago

If you are one of those people who skips to the comments …. don’t bother to go back and read the article. This is a strong recommendation.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Knott

Ironically, Mary Harrington is one of the few authors whose articles I always read without fail, without just skipping to the comments. She is a genuinely interesting writer, a very rare thing for a feminist.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Malcolm Knott

Ironically, Mary Harrington is one of the few authors whose articles I always read without fail, without just skipping to the comments. She is a genuinely interesting writer, a very rare thing for a feminist.

Last edited 1 year ago by Galvatron Stephens
Malcolm Knott
Malcolm Knott
1 year ago

If you are one of those people who skips to the comments …. don’t bother to go back and read the article. This is a strong recommendation.

richard baumgarten
richard baumgarten
1 year ago

a woman’s eggs are in the ovaries not the uterus

richard baumgarten

richard baumgarten
richard baumgarten
1 year ago

a woman’s eggs are in the ovaries not the uterus

richard baumgarten

tom carson
tom carson
1 year ago

Perhaps modern women, in there fight against body determinism, have simply forgotten that they age. I understand why they feel such a loss as beauty fades. Are grandchildren that deep call to get over yourself. As one comment mentioned, it is likely that Mary’s examples have been practicing selfishness for some decades. We get many chances in life to love more deeply. Grandchildren are some of the last chances available before we need the same care.
I think the dilemma for women is that so much of what is their ‘nature’ is designed not for them, but for someone else. It would seem that a feminism that embraced that would bring much good to the world.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  tom carson

Well that’s interesting but feminism is never going to embrace the idea that a lot of a woman’s nature is designed for someone else.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

That’s an interesting idea, evolutionarily speaking- that half the population’s “nature” was “designed” (not a word that makes any sense whatsoever in terms of genetics, or science in general) for the delight of the other half.
I think, Steve, you need to read more about evolutionary science.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Who is Steve?

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Who is Steve?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

That’s an interesting idea, evolutionarily speaking- that half the population’s “nature” was “designed” (not a word that makes any sense whatsoever in terms of genetics, or science in general) for the delight of the other half.
I think, Steve, you need to read more about evolutionary science.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  tom carson

Well that’s interesting but feminism is never going to embrace the idea that a lot of a woman’s nature is designed for someone else.

tom carson
tom carson
1 year ago

Perhaps modern women, in there fight against body determinism, have simply forgotten that they age. I understand why they feel such a loss as beauty fades. Are grandchildren that deep call to get over yourself. As one comment mentioned, it is likely that Mary’s examples have been practicing selfishness for some decades. We get many chances in life to love more deeply. Grandchildren are some of the last chances available before we need the same care.
I think the dilemma for women is that so much of what is their ‘nature’ is designed not for them, but for someone else. It would seem that a feminism that embraced that would bring much good to the world.

Bruce Metzger
Bruce Metzger
1 year ago

And yet, what a woman wants is always something else.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Metzger

Good job we have experts like you on what women really want, eh?!?!

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago
Reply to  Bruce Metzger

Good job we have experts like you on what women really want, eh?!?!

Bruce Metzger
Bruce Metzger
1 year ago

And yet, what a woman wants is always something else.

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago

“But if the ideal is to be unencumbered…”
But it’s not. It never has been. Of if, in some delusionary fantasy of ‘Zipless Whatevers’ some clueless few still entertain the dream of what Zevon called ‘Splendid Isolation’… they have yet to grow-up.
The ‘unbearable lightness of being’ is, in fact, unbearable: “The heaviest of burdens crushes us, we sink beneath it, it pins us to the ground. But in love poetry of every age, the woman longs to be weighed down by the man’s body.The heaviest of burdens is therefore simultaneously an image of life’s most intense fulfillment. The heavier the burden, the closer our lives come to the earth, the more real and truthful they become. Conversely, the absolute absence of burden causes man to be lighter than air, to soar into heights, take leave of the earth and his earthly being, and become only half real, his movements as free as they are insignificant. What then shall we choose? Weight or lightness?”
And what Ms. Harrington so clearly describes is the bone-deep pain borne of lightness, the tragedy of coldly deliberate disconnection driven by the idolatry of Self.
Freedom, this kind of so-called ‘freedom’, is a farce. It is, indeed, “nothing left to lose”. And those who embrace Unencumbrance have already discarded everything which matters.
Does it really need to be said? It’s not the Yoga, the Cruises, the Spa, the Golf, the Girls Club, or the PickleBall. It’s not the Smoothies and the BubbleTea, not even the Cinnamon Dolce Caffe Americano Grandes with Chocolate Croissants. It’s the wide-eyed smile from the 8 month old who reaches, sticky-fingered, for your hand. It’s the crying and soothing and reading and watching and changing and toting. What else? It is in the cauldron of the Everyday Grind in which Family is forged.
And neither is it the Internet….the “My Pediatrician Says”… ‘The Daycare Requires’… ‘Make sure you sterilize your hands’… ‘They don’t have to unless they want to’…. ‘No tickling…no teasing…no staying up past bedtime’…These are the RULES and YOU shall not pass!
For 50,000 years, generation to generation, mother to daughter to mother to daughter, father to son to son to son…this ‘Weight’ has been chosen, has been embraced: the golden thread which links and binds every family. Till now…and the blind and selfish and careless and cold Time of the Great Unencumbering.
Still we hope — the Woke will Awake, and all this will change. The alternative is madness.

B Davis
B Davis
1 year ago

“But if the ideal is to be unencumbered…”
But it’s not. It never has been. Of if, in some delusionary fantasy of ‘Zipless Whatevers’ some clueless few still entertain the dream of what Zevon called ‘Splendid Isolation’… they have yet to grow-up.
The ‘unbearable lightness of being’ is, in fact, unbearable: “The heaviest of burdens crushes us, we sink beneath it, it pins us to the ground. But in love poetry of every age, the woman longs to be weighed down by the man’s body.The heaviest of burdens is therefore simultaneously an image of life’s most intense fulfillment. The heavier the burden, the closer our lives come to the earth, the more real and truthful they become. Conversely, the absolute absence of burden causes man to be lighter than air, to soar into heights, take leave of the earth and his earthly being, and become only half real, his movements as free as they are insignificant. What then shall we choose? Weight or lightness?”
And what Ms. Harrington so clearly describes is the bone-deep pain borne of lightness, the tragedy of coldly deliberate disconnection driven by the idolatry of Self.
Freedom, this kind of so-called ‘freedom’, is a farce. It is, indeed, “nothing left to lose”. And those who embrace Unencumbrance have already discarded everything which matters.
Does it really need to be said? It’s not the Yoga, the Cruises, the Spa, the Golf, the Girls Club, or the PickleBall. It’s not the Smoothies and the BubbleTea, not even the Cinnamon Dolce Caffe Americano Grandes with Chocolate Croissants. It’s the wide-eyed smile from the 8 month old who reaches, sticky-fingered, for your hand. It’s the crying and soothing and reading and watching and changing and toting. What else? It is in the cauldron of the Everyday Grind in which Family is forged.
And neither is it the Internet….the “My Pediatrician Says”… ‘The Daycare Requires’… ‘Make sure you sterilize your hands’… ‘They don’t have to unless they want to’…. ‘No tickling…no teasing…no staying up past bedtime’…These are the RULES and YOU shall not pass!
For 50,000 years, generation to generation, mother to daughter to mother to daughter, father to son to son to son…this ‘Weight’ has been chosen, has been embraced: the golden thread which links and binds every family. Till now…and the blind and selfish and careless and cold Time of the Great Unencumbering.
Still we hope — the Woke will Awake, and all this will change. The alternative is madness.

Mark epperson
Mark epperson
1 year ago

Excellent journalism. My take on the Glammies is these ladies have ALWAYS been “self-actualized”, nothing has changed and they are as lonely and lost and clueless as to how to love their entire life.

Mark epperson
Mark epperson
1 year ago

Excellent journalism. My take on the Glammies is these ladies have ALWAYS been “self-actualized”, nothing has changed and they are as lonely and lost and clueless as to how to love their entire life.

Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago

Frankly, I think we’ve all just become too narcissistic to be good at family and extended family. So obsessed with our individual identity and freedom, how can we possibly provide the selfless and often thankless work that family requires? The highest order is to serve others but we’ve relegated that to the dustbin of life to serve ourselves through an unending orgy of participation in capitalism to reach some unattainable nirvana of ultimate individualism.

Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago

Frankly, I think we’ve all just become too narcissistic to be good at family and extended family. So obsessed with our individual identity and freedom, how can we possibly provide the selfless and often thankless work that family requires? The highest order is to serve others but we’ve relegated that to the dustbin of life to serve ourselves through an unending orgy of participation in capitalism to reach some unattainable nirvana of ultimate individualism.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago

Pre-20C feminists used to be more subtle – and often more successful. The hand that rocks the cradle …

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

You can’t beat a good, evidenceless, cliche, I find.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

You can’t beat a good, evidenceless, cliche, I find.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago

Pre-20C feminists used to be more subtle – and often more successful. The hand that rocks the cradle …

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

I have never understood the need for the word, “feminism”. The males don’t seem to bang on about “manism”. I always marvel at the assumption that a woman past the age of reproduction should let herself go. A woman, I think, remains herself, aside from the various family roles she might play. If she does not value her looks, her hobbies etc. then how will others value her? By the unpaid domestic services she provides? How sad. I am slightly too old to be a Boomer, but I hope I shall never be that old!

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
1 year ago

I have never understood the need for the word, “feminism”. The males don’t seem to bang on about “manism”. I always marvel at the assumption that a woman past the age of reproduction should let herself go. A woman, I think, remains herself, aside from the various family roles she might play. If she does not value her looks, her hobbies etc. then how will others value her? By the unpaid domestic services she provides? How sad. I am slightly too old to be a Boomer, but I hope I shall never be that old!

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

I remember from Sociology the increase in the nuclear family vs extended family in the western world. Work, mobility and relative wealth have scattered family to the winds. My own daughter, no feminist, mentally abused by her manic depressive narcissist husband, is thankfully on her own with her kids now but still wants him geographically close for access. We suspect Stockholm Syndrome. We also think he’d head off and give up on the kids if inconvenience became the order of the day.
She rejects moving closer to ‘family home’ for that moral and practical support we think she needs. I’ve told her, as the years go by, Mum and Dad don’t want to drive silly miles any more. The kids are predictably playing the parents off against each other. Some may say ‘good for her’. The offer is time dependent and the gap is closing rapidly. Apparently we are selfish.

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

I remember from Sociology the increase in the nuclear family vs extended family in the western world. Work, mobility and relative wealth have scattered family to the winds. My own daughter, no feminist, mentally abused by her manic depressive narcissist husband, is thankfully on her own with her kids now but still wants him geographically close for access. We suspect Stockholm Syndrome. We also think he’d head off and give up on the kids if inconvenience became the order of the day.
She rejects moving closer to ‘family home’ for that moral and practical support we think she needs. I’ve told her, as the years go by, Mum and Dad don’t want to drive silly miles any more. The kids are predictably playing the parents off against each other. Some may say ‘good for her’. The offer is time dependent and the gap is closing rapidly. Apparently we are selfish.

Sharon Bonney
Sharon Bonney
1 year ago

Poster gal for the “hot kooky unhinged Grandma” is the Meemaw character on TV sitcom “Young Sheldon,” played wonderfully by Annie Potts.

Mary Garner
Mary Garner
1 year ago

Wow the Comments seem to have nothing to do with an interesting article on some of these complex inter generational dynamics of love and hate and difficulty

Mary Garner
Mary Garner
1 year ago

Wow the Comments seem to have nothing to do with an interesting article on some of these complex inter generational dynamics of love and hate and difficulty

Douglas H
Douglas H
1 year ago

Thanks, Mary – your best article for quite a while

Katherine Finn
Katherine Finn
8 months ago

What the hell is the American obsession in online writing, sitcoms, dramas etc, with “washing up”? Where are you, the 1940s? Don’t any of you own dishwashers? I’m genuinely puzzled at how this outdated reference to “washing up” (referred to in the British Isles – again, not since the bloody 1950s, as “doing the dishes”) is seemingly incapable of being retired from US popular culture.

Vici C
Vici C
1 year ago

Childcare is boring and tiring. Floods of hormones carry you through with your own. When you are old it is even more boring and tiring. Men retire, women should be able to as well.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  Vici C

In my family that is a choice, and some have opted for it. Then again, I’m a male in a Matriarchy and we ALL know it. Like it too.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Vici C

Disagree. Children are maddening as well as delightful and amusing. I love hearing them attempt to converse like mini adults.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Vici C

Who says women can’t retire?

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Vici C

Perhaps if the kids are not your own? The obvious sub-text of your post is that you do not respect parents or parenting, and that you have little interest in nurturing new lives.
I am cheerfully guilty of abandoning singleton ex-friends. Here’s why:
1. They bore me. They’re not nearly as interesting as they think they are. I don’t want to hear about their boring self-indulgent closed-loop lives. All their juvenile narcissistic drivel about how drunk they were last weekend, about how interesting they are when they’re drunk, about the ‘exciting’ new nightclub and fancy restaurants etc. Grow up. One of the great things about being married with kids is that one no longer has to feign interest in such crap. For the record, I’ve lived in London, Dublin, New York, Hamburg and other ‘interesting’ places and by the time I hit my early 30s, I was utterly bored with the ‘wild nights out’ routine – stale, cynical people, everybody using everybody else, stale environments, same old rubbish every time – if life is a journey from A – Z, prior to marriage it was just a closed-loop journey from E – H, on a repeat-loop. I feel a mix of horror and pity when I encounter 30-somethings and 40-somethings, either still trapped in these arrested-development hedonistic lifestyles, or futilely pining to regress to them. Their sterile, tidy houses and their pets and their ‘social networks’. Sad, sad, sad. I loved that hedonistic stuff when I was 19 – 26, but it palls very rapidly on most normal people.  It’s like the line from that old Lou Reed song:  “You’re still doing things that I gave up years ago”.
2. I don’t respect them. They’re timid. They stay in steady jobs and do a boring 9-5 routine for no other purpose than to ‘have a good time at weekends’. I’ve lived in various places and tried all sorts of stuff and only settled down and got a job and do the 9-5 thing because it provides money and *location /schooling stability for my family*. If I was committed to childlessness, I’d be off round the world doing something different, probably charity work or manual labouring. It’s pathetic to live the workstyle of a settled family person when one has no family to justify it. If one is not into starting a family, for god’s sake do something else – don’t waste one’s life on a mere job and few nights out.
3. Parenting changes you. You become massively less selfish. I’d take a bullet to protect my kids. Their bright, honest company enthrals me. It’s a challenge and privilege to guide and teach them on their journey through life. I love it. At a certain age, you outgrow selfishness and your fun derives from service, not from self-indulgence. You have no idea about that yet – and probably you never will. But to me, all you ‘because I’m worth it’ people who live only for their jobs and their ‘friends’ are colossal bell-ends. You are adrift on a sea of navel-gazing b/s and you’re too self-obsessed even to see it. 

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

You seem remarkably angry and hateful to an awful of of people. I’m pleased that you’re happy (?) with your life choices, but blimey- you seem to be a great ball of resentment to everybody who hasn’t done as you have done.
If their lives really are the hellish and worthless, then maybe they will find their rightheous punishnment.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

You seem remarkably angry and hateful to an awful of of people. I’m pleased that you’re happy (?) with your life choices, but blimey- you seem to be a great ball of resentment to everybody who hasn’t done as you have done.
If their lives really are the hellish and worthless, then maybe they will find their rightheous punishnment.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  Vici C

In my family that is a choice, and some have opted for it. Then again, I’m a male in a Matriarchy and we ALL know it. Like it too.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Vici C

Disagree. Children are maddening as well as delightful and amusing. I love hearing them attempt to converse like mini adults.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Vici C

Who says women can’t retire?

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Vici C

Perhaps if the kids are not your own? The obvious sub-text of your post is that you do not respect parents or parenting, and that you have little interest in nurturing new lives.
I am cheerfully guilty of abandoning singleton ex-friends. Here’s why:
1. They bore me. They’re not nearly as interesting as they think they are. I don’t want to hear about their boring self-indulgent closed-loop lives. All their juvenile narcissistic drivel about how drunk they were last weekend, about how interesting they are when they’re drunk, about the ‘exciting’ new nightclub and fancy restaurants etc. Grow up. One of the great things about being married with kids is that one no longer has to feign interest in such crap. For the record, I’ve lived in London, Dublin, New York, Hamburg and other ‘interesting’ places and by the time I hit my early 30s, I was utterly bored with the ‘wild nights out’ routine – stale, cynical people, everybody using everybody else, stale environments, same old rubbish every time – if life is a journey from A – Z, prior to marriage it was just a closed-loop journey from E – H, on a repeat-loop. I feel a mix of horror and pity when I encounter 30-somethings and 40-somethings, either still trapped in these arrested-development hedonistic lifestyles, or futilely pining to regress to them. Their sterile, tidy houses and their pets and their ‘social networks’. Sad, sad, sad. I loved that hedonistic stuff when I was 19 – 26, but it palls very rapidly on most normal people.  It’s like the line from that old Lou Reed song:  “You’re still doing things that I gave up years ago”.
2. I don’t respect them. They’re timid. They stay in steady jobs and do a boring 9-5 routine for no other purpose than to ‘have a good time at weekends’. I’ve lived in various places and tried all sorts of stuff and only settled down and got a job and do the 9-5 thing because it provides money and *location /schooling stability for my family*. If I was committed to childlessness, I’d be off round the world doing something different, probably charity work or manual labouring. It’s pathetic to live the workstyle of a settled family person when one has no family to justify it. If one is not into starting a family, for god’s sake do something else – don’t waste one’s life on a mere job and few nights out.
3. Parenting changes you. You become massively less selfish. I’d take a bullet to protect my kids. Their bright, honest company enthrals me. It’s a challenge and privilege to guide and teach them on their journey through life. I love it. At a certain age, you outgrow selfishness and your fun derives from service, not from self-indulgence. You have no idea about that yet – and probably you never will. But to me, all you ‘because I’m worth it’ people who live only for their jobs and their ‘friends’ are colossal bell-ends. You are adrift on a sea of navel-gazing b/s and you’re too self-obsessed even to see it. 

Vici C
Vici C
1 year ago

Childcare is boring and tiring. Floods of hormones carry you through with your own. When you are old it is even more boring and tiring. Men retire, women should be able to as well.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

Lots of Andrew Tate type vibes from the incels – no great surprise there!

Last edited 1 year ago by Graeme McNeil
Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

You don’t know anything about Tate but just use his name as a cudgel.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

What a deeply silly comment, Galv; Tate makes his millions from his public rantings. His rantings are about his hatred of women (or “bitches”), and how he thinks they should shut up and suck his c*8K.
Saying this idiotic crap online, on a daily basis, is how he became famous, and how he makes his money from sad, lonely adolescent boys and commenters on unHerd. He does nothing but tell the world what he thinks- so saying someone “knows nothing” about him is, frankly, idiotic.
He’s also now being prosecuted for sex trafficking- which his fans think is cool.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

What a deeply silly comment, Galv; Tate makes his millions from his public rantings. His rantings are about his hatred of women (or “bitches”), and how he thinks they should shut up and suck his c*8K.
Saying this idiotic crap online, on a daily basis, is how he became famous, and how he makes his money from sad, lonely adolescent boys and commenters on unHerd. He does nothing but tell the world what he thinks- so saying someone “knows nothing” about him is, frankly, idiotic.
He’s also now being prosecuted for sex trafficking- which his fans think is cool.

Galvatron Stephens
Galvatron Stephens
1 year ago
Reply to  Graeme McNeil

You don’t know anything about Tate but just use his name as a cudgel.

Graeme McNeil
Graeme McNeil
1 year ago

Lots of Andrew Tate type vibes from the incels – no great surprise there!

Last edited 1 year ago by Graeme McNeil