The Power (Amazon, 2023)

[shevek]

Superpowers (technically) but not superheroes, so I put it here. It debuts on March 31.

The book this is based on a fourth-wave feminist screed (the author *says that it is*, so I'm not just 'interpreting') taken to its foregone conclusion: there's nothing "special" about women because they are equal to men in every possible way (not just in the legal sense, as second-wave feminism prescribes) and they will abuse power to the extreme just like men. This is not a small handful of individuals gaining or injecting themselves with powers, like The Boys or...uh...Heroineburgh. All women, across the world (first the teenagers, then they convey it to the older generations) evolve a new organ called a "skein" which allows them to generate large amounts of electricity. How the older women even get this power, when they don't possess the organ, is not explained outright (maybe it is in the book, but I'm not going to read it).

Several major characters in the book became power-hungry madwomen:
- One uses her power to secede part of an Eastern European country from her husband and then wantonly commit mass genocide and oppression
- Another uses her power to forcibly win an election in the U.S. and basically become a political despot
- A third retreats into a convent where women are being 'trained' to use the power, but then decides it's best to destroy civilization
It's interesting that none of the book's plots have anything to do with the majority of the world's population located in the East or the "Global South" as the anti-colonialists love to call it. I imagine that could be remediated in the series, or maybe not. If I was going to do the diversity flipping, I'd place the murderous dictatrix somewhere in Africa or Asia, but they're probably not going to do that.

Another thing I haven't seen explained: the fact that *all* women get this same power (and not even different powers) turns this story into something political rather than personal (about character developments) because everything is lumped into the same identity. But my question is: if every single woman has this power, why are only *some* of them in charge? Does the power level differ in various women? Are some women just way more behaviorally aggressive than others, and they're the dominant ones? And if the power levels and/or aggression levels both differ, doesn't that simply establish a *new hierarchy*, in which the women with the strongest bolts of electricity and the most ruthless personalities rise to the top, and those with the weakest powers are 'marginalized'?

Anyway - the result, five thousand years afterwards, is a world-spanning absolute matriarchy with men as 2nd class citizens.
(Not sure why they didn't figure out a technology to eliminate men entirely in five millennia? Parthenogenesis and genetic manipulation to maintain
phenotypical diversity is easy enough. I saw that in an Outer Limits episode.)

If you think this is a lot like Handmaid's Tale, that's because it is: the author was 'mentored' by Margaret Atwood. If you think it's going to fail precisely like Y: The Last Man - well, join the club, because I believe that, too. Once the viewership sees that this is a female power revenge fantasy, the vast majority of them will tune out, and there'll be only a handful of angry activists left to watch. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it won't get renewed - it's produced in the UK, and they've got plenty of government funding to prop up efforts like this.

Trailer song is by Santigold - not surprised, as they had to find a 'vibe' to connect with the millennials and zoomers. I probably would have used a track from MIA (the two singers are rather similar) but she's probably too politically incorrect at this point (she became a devout Christian).

[Dazzle1]

The creator probally got the idea reading literotica

[helstar]

(maybe it is in the book, but I'm not going to read it).

I'm sorry, but if you haven't readed it, how come do you go and write a (I'd say quite imprecise) synopsis of the whole book, with even your thoughts on it ?
I assume you are basing your whole critic on what you have read on the web, such as partial summaries and hints, etc. ... ?

[shevek]

(maybe it is in the book, but I'm not going to read it).

I'm sorry, but if you haven't readed it, how come do you go and write a (I'd say quite imprecise) synopsis of the whole book, with even your thoughts on it ?
I assume you are basing your whole critic on what you have read on the web, such as partial summaries and hints, etc. ... ?

Yes. I actually just read a summary of the *entire* book on a site called "Biblio-File."

I was merely just wondering how the teenagers (who have the new "skein" organ) pass on their power to all the older women who don't. That's all.
The Biblio-File says that the teenage girl somehow "inspires" her mother, the political candidate, to acquire powers, but it's not at all clear
how that happens: can older women spontaneously grow a "skein" if they're around a powered-up teen? That seems a bit too 'magical' for my liking.

The summary also says that the "skeins" can be transplanted into male subjects, and that the male subjects do possess powers after the transplant (there's a male character who displays these powers). If so, then doesn't the premise of these powers being 'unique' to females get undermined? Why would only females evolve this organ, when both sexes obviously have the capability to do so? Not well thought-out, I'd say.

Another thing that I read in the summary is that there's a "Cataclysm" caused by a war between several parties, including Saudi Arabia and Moldova, but somehow none of these combatants are from the major military nations of the world? (US, EU, Russia, China, India etc). Not sure how that makes any sense. And somehow, this Cataclysm results in a world where 5000 years later, the sex roles have entirely reversed. Why would what sounds like a relatively small-scale war cause all of that? The interim 5000-year period where this change happens is not really fleshed out.

Is it 'imprecise' to say that the writer of the book "The Power" was trying to write a fourth-wave feminist drama, with a heavy influence from the Handmaid's Tale, but wound up conveying a cautionary tale about the abuse of extreme power, no matter what the sex of the wielder? Because if that's an accurate summary of the book, then that's pretty much what I said.

What remains to be seen is how much this basic premise will be changed or altered by British TV producers for the modern young demographic they are attempting to target. For example, will the diversity quotients get ramped up for the live-action production, the way they were in (for example) Y The Last Man, which introduced entirely new characters who weren't in the comic book at all, simply for the sake of representation?

Other than the fact that the series is definitely going to be about an entire world of female Electros, I would say, no point in much further speculation until this thing comes out in a month.

[helstar]

Yes. I actually just read a summary of the *entire* book on a site called "Biblio-File."

I see. No surprise then, that you know almost nothing about the book, especially what it really means.

All the questions that you are wondering, are perfectly explained in there.

Go read it, there's plenty of time until 31 March. It's (relatively) short, fast paced, and a page turner (I readed it in just 1 day back in 2017).

There is a good short sypnosis I can offer you, to give you more incentive to read it, under the spoiler button.

Spoiler

First, it has to be said that the book is actually a meta (a book within a book). The male author of said book lives in a world dominated by women on every level (pretty much like men in our own one, right now), and he brings his last work to a top business woman, in order to be evaluated.

In this book, the author theorizes that before the apocalypse (a cataclysmic event that happened 5000 years before, but nobody knows exactly what happened) men were in charge, and women did not have the ''power'' so they were the weaker sex.

In the book, the characters are the fictional ones that you see in the youtube trailer. So when the power starts to manifest in teenage girls (and later, as a metaphor for ''feminism'', also in all adult women by a simple basic jolt, awakening their until then dormant electric organs), the change is very quick, and he imagines (also based on archeological items) that it was just 10 years from the "day of the girls" (the day the entire world acknowledge the existence of the ''skein'', the female organ located in the collarbones, source of the electric power) to the apocalypse... which turns out to be a worldwide nuclear war !

Since the world is reset to stone age by said war, those who had more physical strenght/power (women) would subsequently dominate mankind, and 5000 years later this is the world where these 2 characters live, in which women are on top of society (politics, big companies, religions etc.) while men are the oppressed sex.

Needless to say, the business woman is very amused by this book (she is actually excited to imagine that male soldiers existed !), laughs at the male author's face because she is 100% convinced that women always had the power, so she's very condescending towards him and disputes most of his thoughts, and ultimately suggests him that it would be a wise idea to publish his book under a fake woman name if he wants to obtain some attention (else nobody would consider his work because he is a male, so not believable enough for a matriarchal society).

Simply, it's easy to understand that this book is a parody-social commentary of men/women dynamics, in our world... but just inverted (not fully, because then again women are the ones ending up pregnant anyway, big difference for me) !
By the author (Naomi Alderman) own words - obviously she explains the concept better: "Nothing happens to a man in this book that is not happening right now to a woman somewhere in the world. If my novel is a dystopia then we are living in a dystopia right now. [cut] Men are more horrified by this book than women. Which is as it should be, and is part of the point I think. Men look at me like a monster for writing these things and I have to point out that I wasn't the one who invented the ideas of rape, of sexual slavery, of imprisoning the physically weaker gender, of genital mutilation to stop the physically weaker gender from enjoying sex, of selective abortions of one gender. I didn't invent any of those things, I just picked them up and turned them over like an hourglass, to see how they looked upside down. And the answer is: it just feels different when the gun is pointed between your eyes than it does to watch it being pointed at someone else. It just does feel more real and more horrifying when you're the one at risk."

[shevek]

Yes. I actually just read a summary of the *entire* book on a site called "Biblio-File."

I see. No surprise then, that you know almost nothing about the book, especially what it really means.
All the questions that you are wondering, are perfectly explained in there.
Go read it, there's plenty of time until 31 March. It's (relatively) short, fast paced, and a page turner (I readed it in just 1 day back in 2017).
There is a good short sypnosis I can offer you, to give you more incentive to read it, under the spoiler button.

Nope.
I knew about the "meta" nature of the book. That's part of the summary on Biblio-File, and the meta context is mentioned in other places as well.

I also think that what the writer intended to convey in the book is not going to be what comes through in the TV series.
Almost nobody who watches the TV show is going to realize that the narrative is supposed to be "fictional" and "speculative" with relation to the actual world in which the book takes place. All of the actions and stories in the TV show will be taken at face value.

Thus, the unintentional "women can be as bad as men" message is what will come through.

[helstar]

As weird as it can sound, it can mean both things in the same time.

1 - Whoever holds the power, will abuse it.

2 - It's also an inverted represention of the current world genders dynamics.

We don't know the outcome of the tv-serie, we can only speculate. It's possible that we will never see the meta-book author and the top business woman interacting, but I hope we will (even if in the last episode). Would be just the icing on the cake, because, if you ask me, the parts with them are the best of the book. Again, if you don't want to read the whole book, then just these two small parts where they talk (through emails), at the beginning and at the very end (pages 10-11, and 319-324).

[shevek]

As weird as it can sound, it can mean both things in the same time.

1 - Whoever holds the power, will abuse it.

2 - It's also an inverted represention of the current world genders dynamics.

We don't know the outcome of the tv-serie, we can only speculate. It's possible that we will never see the meta-book author and the top business woman interacting, but I hope we will (even if in the last episode). Would be just the icing on the cake, because, if you ask me, the parts with them are the best of the book. Again, if you don't want to read the whole book, then just these two small parts where they talk (through emails), at the beginning and at the very end (pages 10-11, and 319-324).

Well, I don't know if I'll be able to take a whole season of an "inverted representation of the current world's gender dynamics" just to find out if they include the meta parts. But I'll give it a shot

But yes, of course, it can mean both things at the same time, that's called *nuance*. Unfortunately, fourth-wavers who see things in black-and-white on a strict scale of Oppression Olympics aren't very good at nuanced approaches.

[helstar]

A ton of people won't understand this tv-serie and that's foregone (more and more if the meta narrative is not explained), it already happened with the book and on average, book readers are smarter than tv watchers...

So yes, I don't think this will have a second season, I'd be surprised ! But then again, if they cover the whole book with the first season, there's not much more to add.

[Femina]

Wait... People are too stupid to see that the show is just a 'through a scanner darkly' of a world in which women are the 'power' in the world and men are their objects? I wish I was surprised.

I mean... it's NOT really that though is it. Men don't actually have SUPERPOWERS to compel anything. I suppose the idea was to give women that little 'edge' over men that men traditionally had... the problem is guns exist now... so it doesn't really matter if you are a little bit stronger than someone, or have lightning powers... you can still just get shot. Physical strength hasn't mattered spectacularly to the power dynamic of developed countries social structures much anymore beyond just remaining a facet of why men built a SYSTEMIC global empire (so to speak), and just women overtaking that VERY SLIGHT edge of 'whose actually more physically dangerous and might kill a bit more easily' wouldn't have centuries and centuries of the systemic global behavior built on it.

So surprising no one with two brain cells to rub together, there's no question in anyone's mind that women, with the same power and authority as men in an unequal social structure, can and ARE (factually in practice even as we speak in many places) absolutely as bad as men. Feminisms, despite popular male opinion, hasn't ever been about 'usurping' the throne from men to make y'all our obedient little but boys. The trouble is, and has always been, simply with power IMBALANCE. Proper feminism hasn't ever been about 'tipping' the balance.

[Mr. X]

Wait... People are too stupid to see that the show is just a 'through a scanner darkly' of a world in which women are the 'power' in the world and men are their objects? I wish I was surprised.

I mean... it's NOT really that though is it. Men don't actually have SUPERPOWERS to compel anything. I suppose the idea was to give women that little 'edge' over men that men traditionally had... the problem is guns exist now... so it doesn't really matter if you are a little bit stronger than someone, or have lightning powers... you can still just get shot. Physical strength hasn't mattered spectacularly to the power dynamic of developed countries social structures much anymore beyond just remaining a facet of why men built a SYSTEMIC global empire (so to speak), and just women overtaking that VERY SLIGHT edge of 'whose actually more physically dangerous and might kill a bit more easily' wouldn't have centuries and centuries of the systemic global behavior built on it.

So surprising no one with two brain cells to rub together, there's no question in anyone's mind that women, with the same power and authority as men in an unequal social structure, can and ARE (factually in practice even as we speak in many places) absolutely as bad as men. Feminisms, despite popular male opinion, hasn't ever been about 'usurping' the throne from men to make y'all our obedient little but boys. The trouble is, and has always been, simply with power IMBALANCE. Proper feminism hasn't ever been about 'tipping' the balance.

Nice post!

I would add however that power imbalance is not a bad thing if arrived at through non-aggressive means. Trying to make everything equal will result in initiation of force for something that does not need rectifying. This obsession with equal outcomes is irrational. No, people are not "equal" in the sense we all have the same pursuits and goals and abilities.

As for modern feminism. I see its modern manifestation as more of a Cat in the Hat methodology.

[Damselbinder]

Wait... People are too stupid to see that the show is just a 'through a scanner darkly' of a world in which women are the 'power' in the world and men are their objects? I wish I was surprised.

I mean... it's NOT really that though is it. Men don't actually have SUPERPOWERS to compel anything. I suppose the idea was to give women that little 'edge' over men that men traditionally had... the problem is guns exist now... so it doesn't really matter if you are a little bit stronger than someone, or have lightning powers... you can still just get shot. Physical strength hasn't mattered spectacularly to the power dynamic of developed countries social structures much anymore beyond just remaining a facet of why men built a SYSTEMIC global empire (so to speak), and just women overtaking that VERY SLIGHT edge of 'whose actually more physically dangerous and might kill a bit more easily' wouldn't have centuries and centuries of the systemic global behavior built on it.

So surprising no one with two brain cells to rub together, there's no question in anyone's mind that women, with the same power and authority as men in an unequal social structure, can and ARE (factually in practice even as we speak in many places) absolutely as bad as men. Feminisms, despite popular male opinion, hasn't ever been about 'usurping' the throne from men to make y'all our obedient little but boys. The trouble is, and has always been, simply with power IMBALANCE. Proper feminism hasn't ever been about 'tipping' the balance.

Systemically perhaps not, but I think the fact that there's a big physical power discrepancy still affects the lives of men and women a great deal - mostly, I wager, negatively.

[Mr. X]

Systemically perhaps not, but I think the fact that there's a big physical power discrepancy still affects the lives of men and women a great deal - mostly, I wager, negatively.

There's a reason there are more men in prison than women and are sentenced vs house arrest. There are inherent differences.

[helstar]

I mean...

You are forgetting two things. First of all, the statistics.

Women are abused/assaulted/beated/raped/killed by men, every day, with really worrying numbers, in the world. While the opposite is almost non existent, compared to that. How many times have you heard on the news about a woman killing a man ? Not often, right ? Same goes for women killing other women, even more rare. But it seems this needs to be underlined, for some reasons ? Like it's not obvious at all.

Second, the stats are even worse in the other non-western countries (and that population is WAY bigger). Think about women oppressed by default because of religion too (cannot go to school, cannot even read ! Just seen as baby factories).

The author (Naomi Alderman) in the first book drafts gave women just bigger muscles. But she wanted to be less intuitive and more subtle (also, wordplay, "Power", you know), because in the book the electric power is not just used to give pain and sometimes even death, it's a lot of other stuff ... women discover how to make many tricks with it, for example it can be used to excite men sexually even if they don't want to (this is a reference to rape from men to women, because the rapists often say ''oh but i could tell my so-called victim was wet so she was consensual afterall !'', not considering that the sexual organs excitement is a mechanical reaction of the body, even if the mind doesn't want that !).

Give the book a try, the only problems: it's a little bit rushed at the very end and there are very graphic scenes ... but if you have an high tolerance, go for it. As Naomi Alderman (author) herself said, those scenes were necessary. If you want to make people know the horror that happens every day, you need to show it, even if you don't like it.

[shevek]

Proper feminism hasn't ever been about 'tipping' the balance.

That's second-wave feminism, Femina. Equality of opportunity, and equality under the law.

Fourth-wave feminism (which Alderman openly admits in The Guardian is the philosophy behind her book) is definitely about 'tipping over' the balance.

It's interesting to hear from Helstar that Naomi Alderman's first draft involved women just getting bigger muscles and getting really strong,
because I think that, very interestingly, that would have been a development both those on SWM *and* SHF (oppositional they might be in the scenario department!) could agree on.

However, every woman on Earth hulking out, bursting through their tight clothes while attaining an orgasm, and strapping on some spandex might also have risen the ire of Marvel Comics, who owns She-Hulk. But I really wish Alderman had written that instead of the electric shock thing, and I bet that almost everyone else on here would agree, even if it sounds a bit too much like a fetishistic FMG story (which has probably already been written somewhere, I'm sure) rather than a sci-fi novel adaptable to a mainstream streaming service.

It also sounds like almost every panel that the famous Manic has ever drawn! Oh well, if wishes were fishes.

[Ernie]

I guess no politics applies to everyone except shevek.

[Femina]

Proper feminism hasn't ever been about 'tipping' the balance.

That's second-wave feminism, Femina. Equality of opportunity, and equality under the law.

Fourth-wave feminism (which Alderman openly admits in The Guardian is the philosophy behind her book) is definitely about 'tipping over' the balance.

It's interesting to hear from Helstar that Naomi Alderman's first draft involved women just getting bigger muscles and getting really strong,
because I think that, very interestingly, that would have been a development both those on SWM *and* SHF (oppositional they might be in the scenario department!) could agree on.

However, every woman on Earth hulking out, bursting through their tight clothes while attaining an orgasm, and strapping on some spandex might also have risen the ire of Marvel Comics, who owns She-Hulk. But I really wish Alderman had written that instead of the electric shock thing, and I bet that almost everyone else on here would agree, even if it sounds a bit too much like a fetishistic FMG story (which has probably already been written somewhere, I'm sure) rather than a sci-fi novel adaptable to a mainstream streaming service.

It also sounds like almost every panel that the famous Manic has ever drawn! Oh well, if wishes were fishes.

*Yawn*

There are no actual waves of feminism. What you're talking about is ENTIRELY theory, it doesn't change what real feminism is or has been since the march of the suffragettes. There's no grand conspiracy for men's 'throne'. All anybody wants is stark naked equality, an impossible aim to a certain degree, but one which becomes more manageable the nearer to true equality we come. If you have groups of feminists shooting to 'TAKE' things, then by and large they are small pockets... and adopted into the larger conversation most probably simply because many understand that to push for balance from a place of imbalance sometimes you shoot 'further' than you expect to actually reach... it's the ol 'barter' and bargaining strategy you know? You always ask for more, because you'll always be given a return offer with less... that sort of thing. Obviously INSANE feminists exist too, but I will not entertain the fantasy that because some crazy feminists exist, all of modern feminism is tainted as 'fourth-wave' feminism because some dumbass wrote a book bitching about how her feminism was better than ours. Anne Rand wrote a lot of books, she was still a sociopath.

Systemically perhaps not, but I think the fact that there's a big physical power discrepancy still affects the lives of men and women a great deal - mostly, I wager, negatively.

There's a reason there are more men in prison than women and are sentenced vs house arrest. There are inherent differences.

I'm just taking this whole block cause I'm responding to both of you in a way.

Yeah, I specifically noted 'developed' countries in my initiating post on this digression because obviously when you peel away enough levels of traditionally 'civilized' cultures the power dynamics can be more visibly attributed to the classic causes. Additionally, there's the ol' 'testosterone' thus ensuring that men more commonly dump their better judgment in order to get physical... but I tend to think this is less of a slam dunk than most give it credence, I simply know far to many men who have no inclination toward violence in any way shape or form, thus I can't but think it's still an element of social structure wherein men are more violent where they are EXPECTED to be and allowed to be culturally.

The other great element of equality is... MENS equality! True equality takes the onus off men to be the sole providers and nonsense shit like that... I'm not historian enough to know how much this sort of thing has been harming men since the dawn of time vs early America (as I do speak from the American perspective... sorry other cultures, I simply speak from the position I'm in is all), but certainly the larger the wealth gap grows between the very few ultra rich and the rest of us peasants, that EXTRA sense of responsibility heaped on men to be somehow responsible for the whole family unit all on their own is ONLY damaging to them, and results in a whole flood of violent outbursts of its own. When you aren't ultra rich, you need the help of your collective family unit PERIOD... and that's something true equality would allow to unfold naturally.

The author (Naomi Alderman) in the first book drafts gave women just bigger muscles. But she wanted to be less intuitive and more subtle (also, wordplay, "Power", you know), because in the book the electric power is not just used to give pain and sometimes even death, it's a lot of other stuff ... women discover how to make many tricks with it, for example it can be used to excite men sexually even if they don't want to (this is a reference to rape from men to women, because the rapists often say ''oh but i could tell my so-called victim was wet so she was consensual afterall !'', not considering that the sexual organs excitement is a mechanical reaction of the body, even if the mind doesn't want that !).

Aww it's too bad she didn't go with that... In this case, I'm not sure subtlety matters so much... the whole exercise is what it is, not like she's writing an epic fantasy saga where blunt mirrors tend to be over the top. It's just a mildly sci-fi political commentary sorta novel right? She ought to have just done what was clear and evident... on the other hand I guess I can see how abusing the electricity power to do a whole host of things could potentially act as a means to counteract the CULTURAL dynamics of the power imbalance moreso than just being the marginally stronger gender... I've not read it so I certainly can't in any way shape or form deride how effective an allegory it may or may not be. In this, I shall defer to you're interpretation as you clearly HAVE read it, and I've no reason to doubt your take.

[Mr. X]

The other great element of equality is... MENS equality! True equality takes the onus off men to be the sole providers and nonsense shit like that... I'm not historian enough to know how much this sort of thing has been harming men since the dawn of time vs early America (as I do speak from the American perspective... sorry other cultures, I simply speak from the position I'm in is all), but certainly the larger the wealth gap grows between the very few ultra rich and the rest of us peasants, that EXTRA sense of responsibility heaped on men to be somehow responsible for the whole family unit all on their own is ONLY damaging to them, and results in a whole flood of violent outbursts of its own. When you aren't ultra rich, you need the help of your collective family unit PERIOD... and that's something true equality would allow to unfold naturally.

Sure. I have no issue with expanding liberty for men. If women can walk away, so can men. Now we eliminate the welfare system so women can't bypass men and use government to pay the bills and we can talk about true equality. If that doesn't happen then its simply back to men being the providers only now its a proxy and against their will.

But then I ask are you punching holes in the bottom of a boat that probably SHOULDN'T sink and that it actually benefits women. Unbridled liberty without responsibility = hedonism. And are you punching holes in that boat in earnest or out of mere rebellion - wreck cause you can.

Note that most of these change ONLY hurts women for the most part like WOMEN losing any private spaces.

[Femina]

But then I ask are you punching holes in the bottom of a boat that probably SHOULDN'T sink and that it actually benefits women. Unbridled liberty without responsibility = hedonism. And are you punching holes in that boat in earnest or out of mere rebellion - wreck cause you can.

Note that most of these change ONLY hurts women for the most part like WOMEN losing any private spaces.

Um... WHAT? No, I'm not worried about that boat at all. The proclivity for hardship amidst change does not invalidate the necessity of change or the advantages achievable once change has occurred and surpassed said hardship. (You know... in a system that encourages change, which ours doesn't... but that's half of the point isn't it?)

I mean Jesus Christ is this the argument now? "Women have been held back by men for centuries, and their lives are a certain way now because of it, so don't rock the boat of how things are cause there may be some difficulties along the way? Don't rock the boat!" Really? THATS THE ARGUMENT!? Don't rock the boat!? That's the sort of argument someone would put forth in the 40's! 'Oh poor Mary NEEDS the system as it is! Her gentle soul couldn't HANDLE being anything but my housewife!?'

It's not our boat. That's what the problem's been and always has been. Better to build a new boat that belongs to everyone. I mean we don't have to SINK it first? I'm not an anarchist, just build a new one and start loading people onto it, then once the old boat is empty we blow it up with fireworks or something?



P.S. Women don't get put on welfare for 'no reason' anymore than men do. The reason you have more women on welfare than men is because women don't abandon their children half as much. That's basically the entire reason. The government isn't incentivized to just give women free money, or force their ex-husbands to continually pay them in perpetuity for no reason. There would very likely be ZERO changes to the current welfare system as is, because currently the inverse remains valid, a man who chooses to raise their child with a woman who abandons the kid, is free and clear to demand welfare from the mother. The only reason you don't hear about this happening very often is just because it's less common... but there are, have always been and will always be men who are on welfare as well. The rules and regulations which maintain the system aren't 'favored' toward women. Just single parents (which majorly are women) and the underprivileged (which are 'VERY minutely' more women primarily due to the gender inequality)

In an equal society there's NO reason to consider that each parent does not still retain equal responsibility for a child's upkeep and wellbeing. We can anticipate no significant changes in this system whatsoever just because a world has full equality... you both still retain equal responsibility toward ensuring the human being you both forced into the world isn't left to starve and die just because one of the parents chose to bounce.

[Mr. X]

Women have been held back by men for centuries

No you have not. Women are 50% of human history. I could easily argue women propped men up like human meat suits of armor to insulate and protect them. All societies exist as protection for women and children.

I owe you exactly ZERO.

[Damselbinder]

Women have been held back by men for centuries

No you have not. Women are 50% of human history. I could easily argue women propped men up like human meat suits of armor to insulate and protect them. All societies exist as protection for women and children.

I owe you exactly ZERO.

You're insane. Like, seek help. What unbelievably patronizing, sexist tripe. "Oh, it was the MEN who were the victims all along!" What screeching, childish narcissism.

[argento]

I mean...

You are forgetting two things. First of all, the statistics.

However, if we were to focus on infanticides we would find that the sex balance of the perpetrators changes, women are more perpetrators of infanticides, especially infants, than men. Women are more perpetrators of infanticide, especially infant infanticide, than men. The explanation seems easy: they are the ones who are in charge of their care". I will cite a recent event that shocked Argentina. Two women murdered a 5-year-old boy. The autopsy confirmed: The victim suffered a polytraumatism due to blows that caused his death. In addition, he presented "injuries in several parts of the body", among them, "blows, bites and cigarette burns". The doctor confirmed that Lucio was a victim of "recent and old sexual abuse". "He presented a strong blow that affected his hip, buttock and leg, with a date of 7 or 8 days". In addition, she had a broken hip and "her genitals were mutilated before her death".
Here is the autopsy.
https://www.cronista.com/informacion-gr ... a-autopsia

[Mr. X]

You're insane. Like, seek help. What unbelievably patronizing, sexist tripe. "Oh, it was the MEN who were the victims all along!" What screeching, childish narcissism.

When did I say that? YOU are the one hearing voices in your head or not reading english. I don't subscribe to group guilt. Its irrational. Just offering an example that women may have used men and in exchange for power they got protection and insulation.

Women are 50% of history. They weren't hostages at the back of a bus for 50,000 years.

[Damselbinder]

You're insane. Like, seek help. What unbelievably patronizing, sexist tripe. "Oh, it was the MEN who were the victims all along!" What screeching, childish narcissism.

When did I say that? YOU are the one hearing voices in your head or not reading english. I don't subscribe to group guilt. Its irrational. Just offering an example that women may have used men and in exchange for power they got protection and insulation.

Women are 50% of history. They weren't hostages at the back of a bus for 50,000 years.

Who said be guilty? Not me, and not Femina. You just imagined that someone had said it and argued with that, you lunatic.

[helstar]

However, if we were to focus on infanticides we would find that the sex balance of the perpetrators changes, women are more perpetrators of infanticides, especially infants

Yeah, and let's also add the mature teacher-little schoolboy trope, while we're at it.
Because, you know, women get a free ticket for that too (sarcasm warning... they actually all end up in JAIL ! As it should be, of course).
And no, the numbers are not even remotely comparable. It's like for 1 children killed or abused sexually by a woman, there are 10000 women abused or killed by men (probably it's a lot more than that). Yours is a quite childish attempt to benevolentism ("But women are bad too sometimes ! See ?") and projecting to the other gender.

No you have not. Women are 50% of human history. I could easily argue women propped men up like human meat suits of armor to insulate and protect them. All societies exist as protection for women and children.
I owe you exactly ZERO.

What ... the ...

Oh, by the way, historically speaking, from WHOM they were protecting women and children ? Yep, from other MEN

[Mr. X]

Oh, by the way, historically speaking, from WHOM they were protecting women and children ? Yep, from other MEN

And who backed those other men wanting those men to protect heritage, lineage and children? Who wanted other peoples' stuff? And if women were such harmless angels why didn't they put an end to this, they were 50% of the population. Your explanation is far more outlandish that 50% of the population sat like a bump on a log while bad things occurred around them including the death of their own children. And we have praxeology today. We can examine how women act today. Plenty of war monger women. You should read up on the white feather brigade in Britain during WW1, feminists who put white feathers of cowardice in men's hats because those men would not go fight to protect women and country from the Huns. Please go read that.

If women are not responsible for bad things they can't take credit for any good things. But yeah you keep thinking women were 50% of the poplation sitting idly by while everything occurred around them like helpless bunny rabbits.

It's like for 1 children killed or abused sexually by a woman, there are 10000 women abused or killed by men (probably it's a lot more than that).

Wow! What great reason NOT TO PUT TRANS WOMEN IN A WOMAN'S PRISON OR IN YOUNG GIRLS' LOCKER ROOMS! Good observation! Or are the rules going to now magically change cause a man who just SAYS he's a woman magically becomes a non-lying angel... you know, the same men you said 1000 times more grape women and murder women and start wars.... those men.

I love how you lefties will right away point out how dangerous men are but then magically get amnesia when that same dangerous man puts a wig on and goes into a woman's locker room cause... men never lie... or have mental health issues... or do bad stuff.... nah...

[argento]

Yeah, and let's also add the mature teacher-little schoolboy trope, while we're at it.
Because, you know, women get a free ticket for that too (sarcasm warning...

Evil derives from the intentions or negligence of the agents. Thus, they include those actions or events considered morally despicable which harm the other. Evil has NO gender.

[helstar]

And who backed those other men wanting those men to protect heritage, lineage and children? Who wanted other peoples' stuff?

Sorry if i try to understand this deranged thought of yours better, but are you just saying that it was women who ''suggested'' men to go and start wars, kill people, conquer lands.... because they "wanted stuff" ? Seriously ?

For the rest, nobody said that women cannot be evil... but there is a huge discrepancy in numbers. Maybe it's due to testosterone or something in the DNA (the desire to conquer and subjugate the others ? Whatever it is ?)... historically, how many armies were made by just women ? Or even lead by them ?

Wow! What great reason NOT TO PUT TRANS WOMEN IN A WOMAN'S PRISON OR IN YOUNG GIRLS' LOCKER ROOMS! Good observation! Or are the rules going to now magically change cause a man who just SAYS he's a woman magically becomes a non-lying angel... you know, the same men you said 1000 times more grape women and murder women and start wars.... those men.
I love how you lefties will right away point out how dangerous men are but then magically get amnesia when that same dangerous man puts a wig on and goes into a woman's locker room cause... men never lie... or have mental health issues... or do bad stuff.... nah...

What does this have to do with the dynamics of men-women and women-children that we were talking about, above, I don't know... but ok if you want to go there, let's go there.
If trans women kill or abuse somebody (regardless of who's the victim), they will be jailed as EVERYBODY else. Isn't this the law (and common sense, but I disgress) ? Or they get a free pass and avoid being condemned ? Is this what you are saying ?

Evil derives from the intentions or negligence of the agents. Thus, they include those actions or events considered morally despicable which harm the other. Evil has NO gender.

And who said the opposite ? Besides, one of the point of the book, is that power corrupts. Go read it, or keep swimming in your misogyny.

[Mr. X]

If trans women kill or abuse somebody (regardless of who's the victim), they will be jailed as EVERYBODY else. Isn't this the law (and common sense, but I disgress) ? Or they get a free pass and avoid being condemned ? Is this what you are saying ?

Ok then men should have unlimited access to women's rest rooms cause... what could go wrong... and AFTER the grape the guy MIGHT go to jail... ok. In fact why bother with male and female bathrooms or locker rooms cause... after the severe grape and beating the guy might go to jail. Ok no sweat off my brow.

[helstar]

What ?

I have a hard time following your train of thoughts... really. Maybe what has been said earlier in a post about you, wasn't so wrong.

[Femina]

Women have been held back by men for centuries

No you have not. Women are 50% of human history. I could easily argue women propped men up like human meat suits of armor to insulate and protect them. All societies exist as protection for women and children.

I owe you exactly ZERO.

I didn't ask for anything from you, I wouldn't WANT anything from you, that's the sort of response I'd expect from someone who seems to believe that I should be afraid of 'rocking the boat' of all the great things men provide me for the small price of my subservice! I simply noted the absurdity of the argument you were putting up, and then never imagined that you could put up anything EVEN MORE absurd beyond it.

I mean... wow... so like, all those years where men were like 'women can't vote' women weren't being held back? All those monarchies in which a woman couldn't rule unless absolutely, positively EVERY single man connected to the bloodline of the throne was dead, and if she ever married she was immediately succeeded as ruler by the man she married women weren't being held back? History is just LITTERED with women being held back by men who've decided themselves that they need to be or... as you're last argument seemed to imply, that they WANT to be protected in a delicate glass box where they can be raped and pillaged in the next war, with little to no regard as to what the women actually and truly wanted to do. Societies didn't and DON'T 'exist' to protect women and children.

History is NOT 50% women, that's an ABSURD statement to make. Yeah, 50% of the human race are women, but vastly more than 50% of our characters in recorded history are male. Historically speaking, women are basically insignificant, because women were never allowed to WRITE history.

[Femina]

Women have been held back by men for centuries

No you have not. Women are 50% of human history. I could easily argue women propped men up like human meat suits of armor to insulate and protect them. All societies exist as protection for women and children.

I owe you exactly ZERO.

I didn't ask for anything from you, I wouldn't WANT anything from you, that's the sort of response I'd expect from someone who seems to believe that I should be afraid of 'rocking the boat' of all the great things men provide me for the small price of my subservice! I simply noted the absurdity of the argument you were putting up, and then never imagined that you could put up anything EVEN MORE absurd beyond it.

I mean... wow... so like, all those years where men were like 'women can't vote' women weren't being held back? All those monarchies in which a woman couldn't rule unless absolutely, positively EVERY single man connected to the bloodline of the throne was dead, and if she ever married she was immediately succeeded as ruler by the man she married women weren't being held back? History is just LITTERED with women being held back by men who've decided themselves that they need to be or... as you're last argument seemed to imply, that they WANT to be protected in a delicate glass box where they can be raped and pillaged in the next war, with little to no regard as to what the women actually and truly wanted to do. Societies didn't and DON'T 'exist' to protect women and children.

History is NOT 50% women, that's an ABSURD statement to make. Yeah, 50% of the human race are women, but vastly more than 50% of our characters in recorded history are male. Historically speaking, women are basically insignificant, because women were never allowed to WRITE history.

If trans women kill or abuse somebody (regardless of who's the victim), they will be jailed as EVERYBODY else. Isn't this the law (and common sense, but I disgress) ? Or they get a free pass and avoid being condemned ? Is this what you are saying ?

Ok then men should have unlimited access to women's rest rooms cause... what could go wrong... and AFTER the grape the guy MIGHT go to jail... ok. In fact why bother with male and female bathrooms or locker rooms cause... after the severe grape and beating the guy might go to jail. Ok no sweat off my brow.

They DO, technically, in a lot of places nowadays, they merely must indicate to any who might question them that they identify as women, and so long as they don't abuse anyone inside, nothing comes of it. This is the thing J.K. Rowling is so afraid of that she won't shut up about, and doesn't seem to understand that we retain the same response for this that we do with EVERY human being who infiltrates a space in bad faith to abuse someone... I.E. they go to jail. Now sometimes they DON'T go to jail, because certain elements like to cover up sexual abuse and pretend like its no big deal, but that's an argument for another topic, the law remains the same regardless of if a man pretends to be a woman to infiltrate a restroom and rape a woman as a man who pretended to be a family member to infiltrate a wedding and rape ANYONE there. If you go to a place, and you abuse someone there, you go to jail.

There. The firewall exists. Who knew.

[Mr. X]

I mean... wow... so like, all those years where men were like 'women can't vote' women weren't being held back?

99% of men ALSO COULD NOT VOTE. Mostly ONLY property owners or royalty voted IF voting was a thing. The vast majority of human history was a small oligarchy ruling EVERYONE ELSE including the men. Yes WOMEN dictated to men in that fashion. Who built the pyramids? Most of the structures? Wasn't oppressed women.

Did you know that the men conscripted in WW1 did NOT have the right to vote? So property owners could vote to send men who could not vote off to war and yes female property owners could vote. And the insulting thing was women could not be conscripted BUT women demanded the vote. So theoretically women could vote on sending men who could not vote.

You have a very twisted and biased and "convenient" view of history.

[Mr. X]

They DO, technically, in a lot of places nowadays, they merely must indicate to any who might question them that they identify as women, and so long as they don't abuse anyone inside, nothing comes of it. This is the thing J.K. Rowling is so afraid of that she won't shut up about, and doesn't seem to understand that we retain the same response for this that we do with EVERY human being who infiltrates a space in bad faith to abuse someone... I.E. they go to jail. Now sometimes they DON'T go to jail, because certain elements like to cover up sexual abuse and pretend like its no big deal, but that's an argument for another topic, the law remains the same regardless of if a man pretends to be a woman to infiltrate a restroom and rape a woman as a man who pretended to be a family member to infiltrate a wedding and rape ANYONE there. If you go to a place, and you abuse someone there, you go to jail.

There. The firewall exists. Who knew.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... isons.html
By all means you go right ahead and open up the doors for men to enter women's spaces. No sweat off my brow.

So then we don't need women's divisions right? Why does a guy have to impersonate a woman to play on a woman's team? Why have women's teams? Can't Thomas just swim on the girl's team as a man?

Hey here's a thought? If men and women are so damned equal HOW DID MEN OPPRESS WOMEN FOR ALL OF HISTORY IF WOMEN ARE 50% OF THE POPULATION?

Let me repeat that

If men and women are so damned equal HOW DID MEN OPPRESS WOMEN FOR ALL OF HISTORY IF WOMEN ARE 50% OF THE POPULATION?

[Damselbinder]

They DO, technically, in a lot of places nowadays, they merely must indicate to any who might question them that they identify as women, and so long as they don't abuse anyone inside, nothing comes of it. This is the thing J.K. Rowling is so afraid of that she won't shut up about, and doesn't seem to understand that we retain the same response for this that we do with EVERY human being who infiltrates a space in bad faith to abuse someone... I.E. they go to jail. Now sometimes they DON'T go to jail, because certain elements like to cover up sexual abuse and pretend like its no big deal, but that's an argument for another topic, the law remains the same regardless of if a man pretends to be a woman to infiltrate a restroom and rape a woman as a man who pretended to be a family member to infiltrate a wedding and rape ANYONE there. If you go to a place, and you abuse someone there, you go to jail.

There. The firewall exists. Who knew.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... isons.html
By all means you go right ahead and open up the doors for men to enter women's spaces. No sweat off my brow.

So then we don't need women's divisions right? Why does a guy have to impersonate a woman to play on a woman's team? Why have women's teams? Can't Thomas just swim on the girl's team as a man?

Hey here's a thought? If men and women are so damned equal HOW DID MEN OPPRESS WOMEN FOR ALL OF HISTORY IF WOMEN ARE 50% OF THE POPULATION?

Let me repeat that

If men and women are so damned equal HOW DID MEN OPPRESS WOMEN FOR ALL OF HISTORY IF WOMEN ARE 50% OF THE POPULATION?

Wow.

[Mr. X]

And lets give you one more example of how you women hold yourselves back. Leftist women had 4 women in 2020 to pick from for president, Gabbard, Klobochev(sp?), Warren and Harris and they voted for the OLDEST WHITE MAN. Leftist women could have also put Hillary in. NOTHING STOPPED WOMEN from voting in a woman OTHER THAN WOMEN. And you want me to believe I am holding YOU back?

[Damselbinder]

And lets give you one more example of how you women hold yourselves back. Leftist women had 4 women in 2020 to pick from for president, Gabbard, Klobochev(sp?), Warren and Harris and they voted for the OLDEST WHITE MAN. Leftist women could have also put Hillary in. NOTHING STOPPED WOMEN from voting in a woman OTHER THAN WOMEN. And you want me to believe I am holding YOU back?

You're officially venturing into "manifesto scrawled on the back of 10 million vintage stamps" territory.

[Femina]

And lets give you one more example of how you women hold yourselves back. Leftist women had 4 women in 2020 to pick from for president, Gabbard, Klobochev(sp?), Warren and Harris and they voted for the OLDEST WHITE MAN. Leftist women could have also put Hillary in. NOTHING STOPPED WOMEN from voting in a woman OTHER THAN WOMEN. And you want me to believe I am holding YOU back?

Systemic oppression stopped them. You're literally just describing and ranting about the behaviors of the systemically oppressed as though that systemic oppression didn't/doesn't exist. You clearly DONT believe it exists cause your arguments come from a place that 'it doesn't exist'=therefore men superior cause only men succeeded. And I KNOW you haven't said that directly, I'm not trying to 'strawman' you here, but that's where the LOGIC of what you're saying leads. 'Historically women ALLOW themselves to be controlled'=Historically men are stronger willed/better leaders etc. etc. etc... and that line of thinking ONLY works, if you can't empathize with the systemically oppressed.

Dare I even touch it in this topic already, but this is the VERY reason African American rights activists commonly work alongside feminist rights activists, because the ROOT CAUSE is very similar in nature.

SYSTEMIC oppression. If the truth was that women just 'Never' succeeded cause they didn't want to as hard as men do or whatever... nonsense... you're arguing, then WHY would that have begun changing as hard as it has the closer we come to equilibrium. If HISTORICALLY nothing's changed, then why are women suddenly more active and important than they've historically EVER BEEN?

[tallyho]

Ok this out of hand I'm gonna lock the thread to avoid bloodshed

(However I would just point out that after the black death killed a third of Europe women were of necessity running businesses, farms, estates, trading companies, tanneries, mills, Smithy's etc and that was clearly their most historically active and important time, not today).