In this post you begin by saying that feminism came first because women are complainers (by nature mind you) and for men complaining is “seen as “unmanly” and as something that will expose one’s weakness.”

So to follow your logic, if women are (by nature) complainers complaining is unmanly ( a synonym for weak), then women are weak (by nature) complainers therefore they never had anything to complain about and you aren’t guilty. You aren’t guilty. You are innocent!

Is this basically the thrust of your argument (without the sarcasm)? I am alternatively impressed/depressed by your thinking/writing.

How about admitting that women were oppressed and starting from there. You’re not going to get anywhere with this line of logic because it does not square with historical facts and it only inflames the need for people to prove the obvious to you. Denying that women have been shit on for roughly 10,000 years does nothing to contribute to gender reconciliation. It might make you feel better, in which case, more power to you, but it’s out of touch with reality, intellectually dishonest, and accomplishes nothing.

When you’re ready to admit that patriarchy was wrong, that it limited women to one life option, that the option was less valued than all the multiple options available to men, that it was legal to beat and murder your wife, that she was your PROPERTY like your bike is your PROPERTY, that millions of women were murdered for worshiping goddesses, that fat ankles are bad for female politicians but not males, that women are not seen as suitable to represent the all male God, than last names continue to be passed down through fathers, that millions of little girls are sex slaves right now, that women are bad and dirty for all kinds of things for which men are glorious and studly, that … that… that… then maybe you can get somewhere.

Most of your work has merit. This, however, is simply dishonest intellectual contortion in order to make yourself feel better when you look in the mirror. There is another way you could go and it would start by making a simple admission: Men have and do oppress women.

The system of genderrollsociety is just a system. The balance of power within the system is reliant on the individual characteristics of those involved. Are they equally strong of will, or is one more meek than the other? That is a weakness of the genderoll dynamics.

Ideally both are equally strong, this is when it turns into a teamwork, both taking and giving in a respectful manner. I do actually believe that this was the most common relation, even though this seems hidden today.

Feminism is describing a situation where the woman is always meek and the man always the strongwilled, putting it forth as a norm with few exceptions, yet the otherway around was probably as common. Swedish popular culture have alot of references to these kinds of relationsships, Lilla Fridolf, Kronblom, Åsa-Nisse etc.

Who is the slave, who is the master? Its not dependent on the specific roll, but on wether you do it of your own will our under the demanding influence of your partner.

We have come to learn that women where the “slaves” since they where stuck at home, raising children and taking care of homework, becoming isolated and disconnected from the public sphere.

On the other hand, the man could just aswell be described as the “slave”, forced to be the breadwinner, beeing the beast of burden for the family and the queen bee waiting at home with her demands.

Its all dependent on character, not society. And since I believe men and women are essentially alike, I believe a dominant character versus a meek one where more or less equally common in both sexes.

The subordination theory is just a spin of a halftruth.

I believe men and women were valued equally back then, but for different reasons. Women were valued simply for having female bodies, since that was a major contribution to have offspring. Men were valued for their performance, since that provided the necessary resources to raise a child.

Feminism has worked hard to address the female asset (her body) in various ways, for example by passing laws concerning abortion and sexual harassment - and by claiming that women shouldn’t be judged on their looks, etc

Men have yet to address the performance loop that men are stuck in…

This is indeed an interesting thought. Isnt that an indication of status aswell? Complaining as a method of requiring resources can only be attempted sucessfully by those in high regard or with high statuses, higher value. Those answering to those complaints may be concidered of lower status, lower regard, lower value. This might be yet another hint that the femenistic description of the history of genders might just be a bit skewed. Keyword; subordination.

“If my choices are “Damned if you and damned if you don’t.”, I’ll take “Damned if you don’t.” because there is less wasted effort.

I open doors for men and women alike, and I expect them to say thank you. If a woman suddenly were to get angry because I’m doing her a favor, then I would probably get angry back at her, or at the very least let her know that her reaction is unacceptable to me. She doesn’t have the prerogative to get angry in that situation, as I see it.

Another nice quote.

As far as what to do about it I started practicing what Andrew says:
So I say, do what’s right on top without thinking about it, that you feel or sense, or just do, and live with the consequences with humor. People will have their responses. And we can use that situation to learn, teach, grow, and have fun.

As for me personally I just don’t do anything til asked for help and if she has enough of a problem to question why I didn’t just offer assistance I’ll plain and simple tell her, “Because I’m tired of offering assistance and getting grilled for assuming a woman can’t open a door while carrying a heavy object. So I figure it’ll save me a lot of headache if I just do nothing. If its going to be “Damned if I do and damned if I don’t” I’ll take “Damned if you don’t” because there’s less wasted effort.”