OF females, BY males, perplexed.

Sorry Arwen - I got that the wrong way round - you were trying to be funny ;)

If you look back in history, women have had very little political leverage until just recently as a result of their economic advancements in the job market.

Agreed. And I think Mr Bad isn’t far off the mark by saying the military had much stronger political influence in the past. I am from the UK, and in 2006 however, I honestly think women’s views are very well represented now in government.

Your comment about many women being afraid of success is something I’ve heard before.

Conventional thought in WS says that women are oppressed in the workplace and are discriminated against to the point where they are deliberately underpaid because of their sex, and denied good job roles in their work because of their sex (by and large).

I am self-employed, and men comprise of around two thirds of all self-employeds in the UK. Being self-employed means you stand or fall on your own wits - no glass ceiling, no discriminating boss. Your customers discriminate only by the quality of your work. Given that, I’m surprised there aren’t more self-employed women.

I wonder if being told you’re a victim of oppression has an inhibiting effect on a person? In 2006, in the UK, I’m seeing discrimination based mainly on good things : quality of work, price, reputation, friendliness. In short, survival of the fittest.

It may surprise you to know that a lot of feminists (like myself), are also frustrated about and vocal about the stigma attached to males who have been battered or abused by female partners;

With this earlier statement:-

Nor have you shown that domestic abuse of females (however exceedingly rare, *g*)

I don’t know if you’re just being obnoxious with the ‘exceedingly rare’ but I do know that many men are trapped by these myths that their predicament is rare so they won’t be believed - your attitude is contributing to the frustration you say you acknowledge in battered men.

Since you came out with that ‘exceedingly rare’ comment, I might as well present you with some of the latest research into domestic violence (well, you’re not really interested I know - facts and all that, but it is a rebuttal to your lazy comment):-

Men are More Likely Than Women to Be Victims in Dating Violence

Quote: A 32-nation study of violence against dating partners by university partners found that about a third had been violent, and most incidents of partner violence involve violence by both the man and woman, according to Murray Straus, founder and co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. The second largest category was couples where the female partner was the only one to carry about physical attacks, not the male partner.

Domestic violence isn’t one-sided

Quote: The reality, borne out by independent peer-reviewed studies as well as StatsCan, is that women commit more severe IPV (Intimate Partner Violence), and more IPV in general, than men. For all kinds of relationship types, females are unilaterally more violent than males to non-violent partners. More females strike first in IPV (men are conditioned not to strike first in our society) and, contradicting received wisdom, fear of their male partner is rarely a factor amongst violent women. Actually, both male and female victims of IPV report equal fear levels of “intimate terrorism”.

Family violence soars

Quote: When minor and major acts of violence were tallied, female-to-male violence accounted for 18.2 percent of overall violence and 7.5 percent of severe violence. Male-to-female violence accounted for 13.7 percent of overall violence and 8.6 percent of severe violence.

–

perplexed: I don’t think your facts say what you want them to say or prove. They don’t disprove that ->women are underrepresented in positions of power or that ->that is a suboptimal situation. Nor have you shown that domestic abuse of females (however exceedingly rare, *g*) is not a collaberative factor in the resultant societal power structure. If sexism is EQUAL TO domestic and familial relationships, and if sexism is what you’re arguing, then what you’re saying might mean something: I doubt many feminists would make such a claim. That’s a pretty traditionalist concept, actually.

I can absolutely understand that in a given person’s life women he’s had conflict with have seemed to hold all the cards; but academics isn’t therapy, and this is a much broader subject with a long history it is examining.

It may surprise you to know that a lot of feminists (like myself), are also frustrated about and vocal about the stigma attached to males who have been battered or abused by female partners; and are frustrated that men are often stereotyped into roles in which their nurturance, aesthetic ability, parenting, and ability to keep a home is considered abberent, unlikely, or is denigrated. I’m a big supporter of Stay-At-Home-Dads in families where that works; I’m a big supporter of having courts that recognize that sometimes men *are* the primary caregiver, and know full well that men love their kids too.

One person’s denied ‘right’ is another’s person’s dreaded telephone call. I think a lot of feminists have gotten the wrong idea as to why women aren’t automatically drafted into war - it’s a privilege to avoid the draft. If they want to participate in a war, well…..I’ve repeated myself enough here. It’s old-fashioned chivalry to force men into war - it’s certainly not a privilege.

I think Hugo might find some answers to his original question in the way WS has been defended here.