Stumbled across this while looking for something else...

Started by lkanneg, Sep 27, 2005, 07:42 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

The Biscuit Queen

Women and their mothers are like oil and water. Are you saying that feminism is just one whomping attempt to have a surrogate mother/daughter relationship?

Whoa.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

Roy

BQ--
Quote
Women and their mothers are like oil and water. Are you saying that feminism is just one whomping attempt to have a surrogate mother/daughter relationship?


I have observed that daughters have a love-hate relationship with their mothers. (And mothers seem to have a love-envy relationship with their daughters.... seeking to relive their glory adolescent days through their female children?)

So I accept the "oil and water" formula as just an unavoidable aspect of individuation.

But I don't understand the "surrogate" part of your reply.

Could you please explain more?

A surrogate suggests a substitute authority figure, yes?

So, is feminism the new abstract Mommie?

You have more authority in this department than I do....    :wink:
It's a terrible thing ... living in fear." (Roy - hunted replicant. "Blade Runner.")

Tigerman

Someone mentioned kerosene, Jung and the 'mother' archetype - well to add to the conflaguration I suggest that the 'animus' archetype is examined with particulr reference to both feminism and feminists.

The Biscuit Queen

I think that all women (or most) want a woman figure who will accept them for who they are, value them intrinsically, and watch out for them.

Feminism does all three. Feminism is a way to get everything you didn't get from mom. Acceptance, empowerment, value.

Quote
So, is feminism the new abstract Mommie?


Exactly.

I would bet that women who have really good, strong relationships with their mothers are far less likely to need a cult like feminism.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

Cysterhood

Quote from: "woof"
This is pretty long, but for those who are interested, this is the argument that is used to de-bunk the CTS using the CTS....LOL :shock:

Quote
Researcher James Nazroo conducted a survey of domestic violence, which was designed to consider the kind of contextual information the CTS leaves out. As Nazroo wrote:

Don't get me wrong - I know what my ex-girlfriend did was reprehensible. I'm not saying it's okay to hit men. I'm not denying that some individual men are badly abused, sometimes by girlfriends or wives who are much smaller than their victims. But for most male-female relationships, there's a big difference in physical power that benefits the male, and it's pointless to pretend it doesn't exist.
More excuses. "difference in physical power that benefits the male" Well the difference in physical power benefits the female if this point of view is alowed to prevail - immunity from prosecution!

I look forward to the day when small men can thus get off violence charges with the defence that, because they are smaller than their opponent, they can commit violence because they are less likely to cause injury!(Jockeys the new standover men!)
I'm mad.
I'm furious.
I've enough rage to fuel a thousand suns.

Men's Rights Activist

<i>"There are Nearly Three Times as Many Animal Shelters in the United States as There are Shelters for Battered Women and Their Children"</i>

...and do those shelters for women put them to sleep after 10 days???  Hardly apples and apples, eh?
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

Mr. Bad

Quote from: "woof"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Woof do you have a link for this article?

Not right off the top Dr E, I'll have to go look for it, it's somewhere on this site if it's still active. http://www.amptoons.com/blog/ This isn't Trish"s site like I said in my earlier post but rather Amanda's. I think I can find it later, but I don't have the time to look for it now though.


I get this from Google scholar:
Quote


Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 3, 475-494 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0038038595029003006
1995 BSA Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar
   
Uncovering Gender Differences in the Use of Marital Violence: The Effect of Methodology
James Nazroo

Since the publication of large, representative, structured questionnaire surveys suggesting that women were equally or more likely than men to hit their partners, there has been considerable debate over women's use of violence in marriage. This debate has focused on the methods used to study marital violence. On the one hand, it has been suggested that this female-perpetrated marital violence is a genuine problem which has been uncovered by the rigorous use of representative samples and quantitative methods of data collection. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the use of methods which simply measure acts of physical aggression and ignore the context and meaning of any violence results in the failure to demonstrate very obvious differences between male and female-perpetrated marital violence. This study uses a community sample of couples to show that, although women may hit their partners more often than men do, if context and meaning is included in the assessment of violence, male violence is considerably more likely than female violence to be dangerous and threatening. The data presented also demonstrate that male-perpetrated marital violence is likely to lead to serious injury and greatly increases women's risk of anxiety, whereas female-perpetrated marital violence has neither of these consequences for men.

Key Words: marital violence Conflict Tactics Scale anxiety gender differences methodology couples


Once again, they change the subject from violence to 'who gets hurt more' and/or 'who is more afraid.'  Baloney.  Men are bigger than women so of course women will stastically get hurt more often.  And men are more stoic, so even they aren't more brave (i.e., less afraid) they wouldn't report being afraid as readily or often as women do anyway.

This is BS.  Violence is wrong not matter who is hurt 'more' or who is more 'afraid.'  This is feminist spin-doctoring and has no place in civil discourse.
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

Go Up