Female Fury - Watch out!

dxhound2005

Raconteuse wrote: »

These threads always go so well. Good choice OP.

It's a bit of light relief after the serious topics of sandwiches, crisps and biscuits.

El_Duderino 09

Jmsg wrote: »

But this can't be the case as women were far calmer and composed in former eras.
The neurosis of today's women is due to their rebellion against their reproductive roles.

The bit in bold is something that stood out to me in the article (it was implied in the article). How could anyone know how angry women were in the past? And how could they compare today's anger with previous anger?

Seems like an obviously faulty premise.

Jmsg

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The bit in bold is something that stood out to me in the article (it was implied in the article). How could anyone know how angry women were in the past? And how could they compare today's anger with previous anger?

Seems like an obviously faulty premise.

Women's mental health has been plummeting continuously since feminism has been around, according to all the surveys.

El_Duderino 09

chuck eastwood wrote: »

Job for job in there in our case the above is almost spot on.

They would have been true enough for my parents and grandparents too. But I don't think it's accurate for young people now. Not in my experience anyway.

ollkiller

Maybe, just maybe both sexes are getting angrier due to technology. Looking at that phone screen for hours a day ain't benefiting the human race. Am i right? **** knows.

silverharp

Calm down dear

El_Duderino 09

Jmsg wrote: »

Women's mental health has been plummeting continuously since feminism has been around, according to all the surveys.

We're there loads of mental health surveys of women over 100 years ago? Really?

jam_mac_jam

Jmsg wrote: »

Women's mental health has been plummeting continuously since feminism has been around, according to all the surveys.

And because the cock crowed the sun came up.

FunLover18

Jmsg wrote: »

The feminist narrative was at least heavily implied; that women were collectively oppressed historically by being relegated to a subservient role to men and that it is the injustice of this which has built up anger in women throughout the generations. But this can't be the case as women were far calmer and composed in former eras. The neurosis of today's women is due to their rebellion against their reproductive roles. They have only fought to be "liberated" to go and live as male egos because of a delusional perception of what this actually entails and they're now totally misfitted.

Of course there was a feminist narrative but my point is that it didn't say a healthy way of dealing with anger or frustration was to take it out on men as one might assume judging by some of the reactions here.

Also, talk of women rebelling from their "reproductive roles" only helps the feminist narrative you described so succinctly.

Jmsg

How so? Their "reproductive roles" are hardly a diminished position to be in although in them they can't strive to be a CEO of a large corporation which feminists seem to think every man is.

FunLover18

Jmsg wrote: »

How so? Their "reproductive roles" are hardly a diminished position to be in although in them they can't strive to be a CEO of a large corporation which feminists seem to think every man is.

Well, for one thing it suggests that you believe a woman's role in society is to have children and carry out associated duties and that any deviation from this is an act of rebellion. This would fit into the "being oppressed into a subservient role to men" you mentioned, I'm not saying this is what you're doing or that it was your intent but that's how it reads. You may not view it as a diminished position but society tends to.

Jmsg

That only makes sense from the very modern perspective that work is something to self-actualise through and earn disposable income from, hence women would be missing out. Previously men's duties as provider looked much like men being oppressed into a subservient role to women than the reverse.

meeeeh

So according to this thread women can be only happy picking berries, baking pies and writing poems. Thanks for that, I never realized what was missing in my life.

I really do wonder how simple the answers are to the simple mind...

Sardonicat

meeeeh wrote: »

So according to this thread women can be only happy picking berries, baking pies and writing poems. Thanks for that, I never realized what was missing in my life.

I really do wonder how simple the answers are to the simple mind...

You forgot having babies and not having any income of our own!

Under his eye

jam_mac_jam

Jmsg wrote: »

That only makes sense from the very modern perspective that work is something to self-actualise through and earn disposable income from, hence women would be missing out. Previously men's duties as provider looked much like men being oppressed into a subservient role to women than the reverse.

Not really as women did not have the right to vote, own property in her own name, work after being married, to name a few. Work is more then disposable income. It means food and shelter and independence too.

jam_mac_jam

Sardonicat wrote: »

meeeeh wrote: »

So according to this thread women can be only happy picking berries, baking pies and writing poems. Thanks for that, I never realized what was missing in my life.

I really do wonder how simple the answers are to the simple mind...

You forgot having babies and not having any income of our own!

Under his eye

Yes our female brains which all think the same are only happy with it. We have all been fooled and don't really want to work outside the home.

nthclare

meeeeh wrote: »

So according to this thread women can be only happy picking berries, baking pies and writing poems. Thanks for that, I never realized what was missing in my life.

I really do wonder how simple the answers are to the simple mind...

I know it's a personal dig at my post, you've done it before.

According to your post that's my opinion on all women, but carry on regardless.

I was giving an example of someone I know who's given up the hectic lifestyle for a more simple life.

Why have you concluded that my post signifies how what's missing in your life ?

Jmsg

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Not really as women did not have the right to vote, own property in her own name, work after being married, to name a few. Work is more then disposable income. It means food and shelter and independence too.

One vote per household meant men as it's head would always vote in the interests of his family which included his wife. If a woman was married then she no longer had a need to work. Remember this was at a time where work was to secure subsistence.

Church on Tuesday

We all have our bad days sure.

Sardonicat

Jmsg wrote: »

One vote per household meant men as it's head would always vote in the interests of his family which included his wife. If a woman was married then she no longer had a need to work. Remember this was at a time where work was to secure subsistence.

Blessed be the fruitoops

jam_mac_jam

Jmsg wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Not really as women did not have the right to vote, own property in her own name, work after being married, to name a few. Work is more then disposable income. It means food and shelter and independence too.

One vote per household meant men as it's head would always vote in the interests of his family which included his wife. If a woman was married then she no longer had a need to work. Remember this was at a time where work was to secure subsistence.

Not all women are married

Portsalon

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Not all women are married

And that's all mens' fault too!

jam_mac_jam

Portsalon wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Not all women are married

And that's all mens' fault too!

Is there something wrong with you

Jmsg

But marriage and family have become to be perceived as optional rather than mandatory and upon which one's sanity depends, this is the root of the dysfunction.

Sardonicat

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Not all women are married

The poor things. Unable to fulfil their biological destiny without man to provide/protect and think for them

KathleenGrant

The only thing worse than the patriarchy is the woman who enables and supports the patriarchy in their submission of women.

How do I know this? My 19 year old niece said this to me when I told her she should get a job before she forms an opinion on women v men in the workplace.

FunLover18

Jmsg wrote: »

Previously men's duties as provider looked much like men being oppressed into a subservient role to women than the reverse.

That makes no sense from any perspective. Oppressed by who? Politics and business has been dominated by men, if they were in any way oppressed they were in the ideal position to reverse that.

bee06

What am I supposed to be angry about now?

Jmsg

FunLover18 wrote: »

That makes no sense from any perspective. Oppressed by who? Politics and business has been dominated by men, if they were in any way oppressed they were in the ideal position to reverse that.

It wasn't "oppresive" either way but co-operational.

Wibbs

Meh, it's in the Indo in the Health and Wellbeing section so aimed at and tailored to the narrow demographic of women who read the Indo. What else should one expect? As for the various experts lined up, maybe some of them should read a history book of the conditions they mention.

He cites the higher incidences of depression, binge-drinking and smoking amongst women as evidence of the damage internalised anger is wreaking.

"Depression - and of course there are different types of depression, is anger turned inwards," he explains. "When it comes to binge drinking. It's an opportunity to release the frustration of the day of the week of the month, and act that out. When it comes to smoking, where there's smoke there's always fire."

Repressed anger, he explains, is deeply self-destructive. "Women tend to self-harm more than men, have higher rates of suicidal thoughts and eating disorders than men," says Fisher.

We'll move past the: "Depression - and of course there are different types of depression, is anger turned inwards", I've read enough woo woo nonsense from some therapists, but that's a monumentally simplistic doozie if there ever was one. Though I suppose on a par with the oft medical approach of it being a "chemical imbalance"... As for the rest; A larger cohort of Women(tm) it seems have always suffered more from depression, anxiety and self harming. Eating disorders were described by ancient Greek/Chinese/Roman/Islamic doctors, as were the higher rates of anxiety and depression(melancholia etc). They also noted how men tended to lash outward with violence at much higher rates. As was noted earlier the very word "hysterical" was gender specific.* Pre "feminism" the number of women on "mother's little helper" pills was much higher than men, drinking was another one, the "mother's ruin" of the 18th and 19th centuries. Of the personality traits women rate higher for neuroticism(not to be confused with being neurotic BTW), across the board and across cultures.

In short at any one time there are going to be more women than men who are never quite comfortable in their own skin and lives and this is reflected in the stats. Did "feminism" increase it? I dunno about that. At all. Like I say this stuff didn't fall off a tree in the last three decades and both sexes are showing more and more conditions like anxiety, depression etc. That's down to the time poor, stressful and fractured modern life. I would say if anything some aspects of feminism have helped, though the part of "you can be everything, all at once" stuff aimed at women is often counterproductive.

But yeah, media aimed at and written by women journos are going to peddle this stuff forever, because it sells. Next week they'll likely have an article on leaf therapy, more mindfulness wrapped with added eastern woo woo and a piece on how the artichoke diet will stop you being fat. Rinse and repeat. Meh.






*they actually thought the uterus moved about in the abdomen and depending on where it was at any one time that could be positive and negative. Interestingly because this was the widespread belief they could apparently feel this with examination. Then again they also thought spunk came from a man's spine. Even Leo DaVinci bought into that and "found" the vessel involved and he had an eye like an eagle. God bless science based medicine today...

Wibbs

FunLover18 wrote: »

That makes no sense from any perspective. Oppressed by who? Politics and business has been dominated by men, if they were in any way oppressed they were in the ideal position to reverse that.

True, though what's left out is the part about politics and business having been dominated by a tiny minority of men, with the occasional woman. Men who in turn treated the average man and women as working assets. Heavy lifting bullet stopper tee shirts for the boys, babybearers of heavy lifting bullet stoppers and babybearers tee shirts for the girls. In most societies for most of human history most people below the top echelon were "oppressed" to one degree or other.

FunLover18

Jmsg wrote: »

It wasn't "oppresive" either way but co-operational.

"Oppressed" was the word you used.

What is the "it" we are now talking about though?

soups05

My wife and I have a fairly good system, I go out and work, she is a lady of leisure sitting around the house watching jerry kyle and loose women and other such female nonsense.
When a conflict does arise it is settled by some good, honest, down to earth man lovin.






















and if I catch him I will effing kill the git :P

FunLover18

Wibbs wrote: »

True, though what's left out is the part about politics and business having been dominated by a tiny minority of men, with the occasional woman. Men who in turn treated the average man and women as working assets. Heavy lifting bullet stopper tee shirts for the boys, babybearers of heavy lifting bullet stoppers and babybearers tee shirts for the girls. In most societies for most of human history most people below the top echelon were "oppressed" to one degree or other.

Class was 100% a factor, still is (just look at Britain) but talking specifically about gender, even within the different classes the men were clearly more dominant and had more power. I mean the whole thing gets more complicated when you bring race into it. There's never just one factor but the thread is dedicated to the gender factor (the XX factor )

Aceandstuff

Jmsg wrote: »

Women's mental health has been plummeting continuously since feminism has been around, according to all the surveys.

So has men's. Usually male suicide statistics are brought up in threads like this to tell us how hard men supposedly have it now compared to in the past.

meeeeh

nthclare wrote: »

I know it's a personal dig at my post, you've done it before.

According to your post that's my opinion on all women, but carry on regardless.

I was giving an example of someone I know who's given up the hectic lifestyle for a more simple life.

Why have you concluded that my post signifies how what's missing in your life ?

Because the rest of the post was about women in general and full of similar nonsense. Since I count myself as one the women that was fairly logical conclusion to make.

buckwheat

FunLover18 wrote: »

The interesting thing about the article is that I didn't think it tried to assign blame. It states and speculated on why women felt angry but there was far more focus on what they could do to address and cope with that anger and at no point did it suggest directing it at men. As some have pointed out men can feel as equally frustrated about gender bias in other areas and I think they could take as much from this article on how to deal with that frustration as the women it's aimed at.

The vast vast vast majority of men have better things to worry about than this ****e. In my opinion of course.

El_Duderino 09

Aceandstuff wrote: »

So has men's. Usually male suicide statistics are brought up in threads like this to tell us how hard men supposedly have it now compared to in the past.

I agree. But suicide rates are a serious symptom of something and its important to work to find the causes and solutions.

But someone blaming the dreaded feminism because they don't like it, is to trivialise a serious issue for men and everyone else involved.

Kumejima

I think the reason women are so angry is that, in the past, they basically had 2 jobs - run a household and raise kids. They took pride and fulfillment in both those tasks which were more than enough to keep them occupied bar the sizeable minority who were bored to tears by the whole thing.

Now they still have to do the majority of the household cleaning, cooking, etc while a host of new demands have been placed on them - acting as a taxi for kids hobbies, keeping in shape,etc. They're basically under way more pressure in their "traditional" role than the previous generations which is stressing them out.

Oh yeah, now they also have to do the traditional male role too - go out and earn a living, compete in the workplace, put a roof over their kids heads; basically a whole bunch of other responsibilities which society recognised as so burdensome enough on their own for men that nothing was expected of men once they came in the door of their house.

Women are basically like GAA players now - having a professional job and a second job that leaves them no time for themselves.
They aren't angry. They're just exhausted

Jmsg

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I agree. But suicide rates are a serious symptom of something and its important to work to find the causes and solutions.

Mental illness does seem to be more spread out among the female populous but more concentrated in the male populous. There are stronger sexual and aggressive forces in the male psyche than the female, and severe mental illness largely consists of where these impulses are maladjusted.

Sardonicat

Wow! Cryogenics works

Someone defrosted Freud and now he's a Boardsie!

nthclare

meeeeh wrote: »

Because the rest of the post was about women in general and full of similar nonsense. Since I count myself as one the women that was fairly logical conclusion to make.

Illogical from a not so logical poster, but you're entitled to post your superficial ideas.

So you're cherry picking anyone's post in order to get a hostile observation.

I suppose some people like instant more like it more roasted, and some like it sweet others like it mild...

I hear you, I'd say you're great conversation over a coffee lol

Reviews and Books Galore

Why should men be an emotional punching bag? Like, lads, if a woman is shouting at you or getting aggresive, imagine your a woman and think how a woman would react if another woman shouted at her :P

Portsalon

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Is there something wrong with you

Yes.

meeeeh

nthclare wrote: »

Illogical from a not so logical poster, but you're entitled to post your superficial ideas.

So you're cherry picking anyone's post in order to get a hostile observation.

I suppose some people like instant more like it more roasted, and some like it sweet others like it mild...

I hear you, I'd say you're great conversation over a coffee lol

I see you've been going through my post history. Interesting.

Allinall

After last couple of pages..... thread title checks out.

up for anything

Jmsg wrote: »

It's a cultural disease emanating from the postmodern "individualistic" societies in which gender roles have been abolished and the sexes are viewed as totally interchangable. This results in women becoming possessed by their masculine side and men their feminine. They're then unable to process their emotions and become highly neurotic.

My masculine side would enjoy shoving your archaic notions where the sun don't shine for you.

KathleenGrant wrote: »

The only thing worse than the patriarchy is the woman who enables and supports the patriarchy in their submission of women.

How do I know this? My 19 year old niece said this to me when I told her she should get a job before she forms an opinion on women v men in the workplace.

She's not wrong in what she said, and she doesn't need to get a job to form opinions. Opinions can be formed from the experiences of others.

Jmsg wrote: »

One vote per household meant men as it's head would always vote in the interests of his family which included his wife. If a woman was married then she no longer had a need to work. Remember this was at a time where work was to secure subsistence.

Ah yes, the good old days when the wife would have to waylay her husband before he got to the pub and coax some money from him for the rent and food before he drank it all. Or else she'd send the children to stand at the pub door to importune other patrons to send out their father. A lovely secure existence for all concerned.

Jmsg wrote: »

The feminist narrative was at least heavily implied; that women were collectively oppressed historically by being relegated to a subservient role to men and that it is the injustice of this which has built up anger in women throughout the generations. But this can't be the case as women were far calmer and composed in former eras. The neurosis of today's women is due to their rebellion against their reproductive roles. They have only fought to be "liberated" to go and live as male egos because of a delusional perception of what this actually entails and they're now totally misfitted.

Those calmer and composed women of bygone eras were self-medicating with laudanum and in more recent years were taking Valium, Librium and Xanax and the tablets that went before those in order to maintain their calmness so they wouldn't run the risk of being incarcerated in mental asylums for hysteria and the like.

Jmsg

up for anything wrote: »

Ah yes, the good old days when the wife would have to waylay her husband before he got to the pub and coax some money from him for the rent and food before he drank it all. Or else she'd send the children to stand at the pub door to importune other patrons to send out their father. A lovely secure existence for all concerned.



Those calmer and composed women of bygone eras were self-medicating with laudanum and in more recent years were taking Valium, Librium and Xanax and the tablets that went before those in order to maintain their calmness so they wouldn't run the risk of being incarcerated in mental asylums for hysteria and the like.

You must tumbled in here from tumblr with that level of tripe.

nthclare

meeeeh wrote: »

I see you've been going through my post history. Interesting.

Not really interesting to be honest.
I was just trying to see how you respond to others posts and my conclusive interpretation was precise.

Just another bored poster who likes winding people up and throwing a spanner in the works.

Sure we're all capable of it.

meeeeh

nthclare wrote: »

Not really interesting to be honest.
I was just trying to see how you respond to others posts and my conclusive interpretation was precise.

Well it's always nice to see I'm right.