You need to google what "complete power over the subject" means. That's the part I am bristling against.
Bristle all you want. It's still true.
Of course it's not true. It's one of the most misogynistic things I can imagine you could say.
Wait... is it misogynistic, or misandrist? Even your accusations are incoherent and contradictory.
Yet the thing is, I believe you. You really have the starting assumption that you have complete control and power over women.
Me personally? No, I don't.
Men as a class? We do, if we choose to exert it. In developed western societies, we do not, and that's a good thing. In places like Afghanistan, they do. The results of exerting that power are worse for everyone (though not equally so), so I'm very glad we don't do that, but you're kidding yourself if you don't understand what it is that distinguishes us from such societies.
It fits right in to the rest of your narrative, with you assuming that women are your property that you are protecting from another man's gaze.
That's nothing like my narrative. I don't
want women to be my property. In western societies, they
aren't men's property. And that's a good thing.
But the reason they aren't is because men choose not to make them their property, which is a good thing. Again, in places where men DO choose to make women their property, then they ARE their property. That's a bad thing, but that's what happens. And the women are powerless to resist that, and you've got to be ignorant or an idiot to deny it. Afghan women aren't oppressed because they want to be. It's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up narrative on
your part to blame them for their condition.
You say I am bad at communicating, and I am. But not in this debate. Here, your starting assumptions are so far removed from mine that you claim you can't make sense of them. So let's explore that a little.
You got my starting assumption completely wrong. As usual.
But maybe in this case it's not because of bad communication skills. Maybe it's just bad thinking.
"Complete control". Hm. Why do you assume men have complete control over women? Because we are generally stronger and more aggressive and violent? Ok.
Yes.
But that doesn't convey complete control. Like, if I walk past a smaller or weaker guy on the street, do I have complete power and control over him? You could argue that I could create a situation where I could introduce complete control, but I don't think even you, with your endless word games, would say I had that complete control as a given,
Again, you're confusing individual interactions with group interactions. You as an individual in this society don't have complete control over a weaker individual, because other individuals can and often will intervene if you try to forcefully exert that control.
When men as a class agree to forcefully exert that control over women as a class, who intervenes? Nobody. Because nobody can.
And that's what EC's post implies- that men are basically psychopaths.
It implies nothing of the sort. Quite the reverse: it demonstrates that most men AREN'T psychopaths (at least in western liberal countries) because we DON'T choose to exert such control. But that's a collective
choice we have made. It is both the morally and practically correct choice, but we can look around the world and see examples of societies which didn't make that same choice.
The fact that you got the implications of her claim completely backwards is yet another demonstration of how little actual thinking you've done on this subject.
Power is exerted in many different ways out here beyond your Stepford Wife imaginings
Physical force has always been, and will always be, the ultimate power. You may not like that state of affairs, but it's just reality, and nothing you or anyone else can ever do can possibly change that. It's dictated by the laws of physics, and it's delusional to deny that. Other forms of power ONLY exist by agreement. I'm in favor of their existence, I'm a fan of resorting to forms of power other than physical force, but none of these other forms can negate physical force, only marshal physical force to its side (again, by agreement). And physical force can negate any other form of power. There's nothing Stepford Wife about that. You could call it Hobbesian if you like, but it's still true.
