h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Men thinking of their partner as property may account for a few things:
1. Making a great deal of effort to acquire the property, woo, one might say.
2. Once acquired, sitting back on their @rses and carrying on their own merry way.

"Excellent, got myself a girlfriend/wife. Now I can get on with my life." (Guy speaking)

Maybe women are guilty of this too. I know I was, but I took on the male role in my relationship (ie. career, earning the money). And hey presto, it didn't work out.

Hmm. Good point. Woo, and indeed, hoo.

Would the tendency of men to treat women as property be less prevalent if we didn't, as a society, subscribe to a ritual in which a woman's father ceremonially gives her away to her husband? Just a thought...

H.

Nope, I don't think that has much to do with it. It's just complacency. It seems to happen to people whether they're married or not.

I don't mean you have to DO it. I mean we live in a society where that happens.

If we, as a society, didn't chattelise (is that a word? It is now...) women, but treated them in law and tradition as full, conscious, responsible adults, wouldn't things be better?

Maybe not

H.

Maybe it's more to do with when one gets singleminded about one's career or interests or hobbies, then the partner takes second place.

I'd say that's true, ice - as soon as complacency sets in then most relationships start falling apart. People *should* remember that, even having 'wooed and won' one's partner, that 'wooing' should be an ongoing thing, showing that you are not taking your partner for granted. This goes hand-in-hand with treating your partner with the respect they deserve and never simply thinking of them as some sort of 'emotional appendage'.


az

Exactly Azahar. I agree totally, with both of your points.

Regarding the train ticket issue, and having checked the rules they state quite explicitly that using the ticket for anyone other than the stated bearer will lead to INSTANT DISMISSAL - not sorry and here's the cash - but instant dismissal.

Regarding MPs morals, whilst he wsa the un-married one in the relationship, I wouls till suggest that deceipt is involved in the relationship - but when we did start expecting morality from politicians ? And maybe thereby hangs our problem - we wag our fingers and tut, but basically we expect it and tolerate it.

Even Martin Bell showed his colours by where he next chose to make his stand against 'dis-honesty' - was it against a corrupt Labour or Liberal MP ? No, it was not.

What he did wrong was to get caught at it.

You know what? A man has stood up and jeopardised his career in order to claim paternity for his offspring. How the hell can we condemn him? Men in public office have been villified in the past for shirking the responsibilities arising from their extracurricular activities. The only way his party can suffer is by asking him to resign - and no, I didn't vote for his party.

<>
! Woman as property - isn't that a view you would normally denounce as one he;d by the "superstitious" people you constantly decry?

<<(I use the pronouns deliberately because it's my experience that women simply don't feel this in the same way or to the same extent).>>

The same extent - oh, yes they do! Don't think that "continental all men have mistresses, so I'll turn a blind eye" is true, or you may get an unpleasant surprise. As for in the same way, I should hope not - people aren't property.

"Woman as property - isn't that a view you would normally denounce as one he;d by the "superstitious" people you constantly decry? "

Oh dear. I thought I'd made this as clear and simple as possible. However, as they say, "there's always one".

I never mentioned superstition in this context. I'm not surprised you bring it up, however, as you're so defensive of your own particular brand of delusion.

As I thought I'd explained in the simplest of terms, no, I do not think that "women as property" is a view having anything at all to do with religion. It is certainly a view espoused by many religious people, but they do not have a monopoly on it, any more than they have a monopoly on favouring capital punishment or the violent murder of those who disagree with them. "Women as property" is a view common to MEN (and a lot more common than many women might like to believe), be they religious or otherwise.

You've made a logical disconnect (again) Della.

You've taken your idea - "religious people believe women are property" - which, unusually for one of your ideas is actually quite accurate - and tried to pretend it means "people who believe women are property are religious."

You might equally have said "All rapists are men" is equivalent to "All men are rapists", and indeed I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear you say that.

Both mistakes are equally stupid.

"Don't think that "continental all men have mistresses, so I'll turn a blind eye" is true, or you may get an unpleasant surprise. As for in the same way, I should hope not "

Would you care to restate that, preferably this time in English? Thanks.

Arguing with the illiterate is so tiresome.

H.

AND as I have said, it is not necessarily only men who think this but people in the common position that men take or are given. When one has got one's sights on something other than a relationship, this may take over and be the be all and end all. Once partner has been acquired one can get on with the rest of one's quest in life.

I don't like 'one' by the way but it seems the only sensible subject for the sentence at the moment.

Hoo, dear, it has always been my policy to not let your abuse get to me, so I shall refrain as hard as I can from calling *you* a moron...

I was quoting you! I don't experience that "religious people regard women as property" I think that's a superstition *you* hold about religion...

<>

It's very simple. I was referring to the fact that women don't tend to regard men as property. It's so tiresome arguing with those who wilfully (as you always do) misunderstand..

"Hoo, dear, it has always been my policy to not let your abuse get to me"

It has also been your policy not to let logic or truth cloud your arguments. For example:

"I was quoting you!"

That is a lie. You were doing no such thing.

If you disagree, please, be my guest and tell me in which post I mentioned religion explicitly BEFORE you brought it up.

You cannot, because I did not. You were NOT quoting me.

"I don't experience that "religious people regard women as property""

Really? Presumably you have never experienced a Christian marriage ceremony then? Or were you too drugged up to understand the implications of the part where the clergyman asks "Who giveth this woman to this man?"

Also, and this is a really, really crucial point here Della so do please try to pay attention:

JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T EXPERIENCE IT DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

I'm sorry about the capitals but the sheer level of ignorance of the very concept of the outside world shown by that sentence is staggering. "I don't experience it, so it's a myth." Incredible.

You know what? I don't experience the rape of women. Therefore, women never get raped. I'm comfortable with that. Are you? Because that's the logic you're using above.

"I think that's a superstition *you* hold about religion..."

A superstition about another superstition? Kindofa superduperstition then...

Or possibly I actually have read Christian scriptures and know what the religion prescribes for women. Do you?

"I was referring to the fact that women don't tend to regard men as property."

Thank you. Why didn't you just say that? The meaning is far from clear from the confused non-sentence you posted.

Now I understand, I can disagree. Of *course* women regard men as property. If you think they don't, you must have a very limited circle of friends... oh, hang on.

Women, in my experience, most certainly do regard their partners as property. The gender difference is elsewhere - women's attitude to property in general is very different from men's. One need only look at any magazine rack to confirm this - how many women's magazine's are there titled "Girl's Toys", or "Stuff for Women"? But there is a proliferation of titles like "Boys Toys" and "Stuff for Men", because men have this primitive desire to accumulate shiny crap, compare it to their neighbours' shiny crap, then beat the crap out of anyone who tries to take it away from them. Women, or most women at least, do not think like that - and both genders think of their partner in the same way they think about their other property. To pretend otherwise is just delusional feminist wishful thinking.

H.

<>

Hullo!!? You don't think that women accumulate shiny crap and compare it with other women's shiny crap?? Which planet are you from?? Working in a girls' school, this behaviour is extremely evident.

You don't know many women then...

"Hullo!!? You don't think that women accumulate shiny crap and compare it with other women's shiny crap?? Which planet are you from?? "

How many women do you know who own more than one MP3 player? How many women do you know who spend more time tweaking their television for maximum performance than they do actually watching it?

How many women do you know who own more than a dozen model cars or other vehicles, models they have bought since the age of 25?

Of course women accumulate shiny crap - they call it jewellery. It is a qualitatively different business, though, from what men do.

H.

<>

And in my experience they don't.

So?


az

Quite, icecoldalex

*Possibly* when Hoo was talking about 'crap', he was thinking of the supposedly 'useful' stuff stereotyped men *tend* to go for - machines, tools, etc, compared to the supposedly 'decorative' things stereotyped women tend to go for - clothes, shoes, jewelery, cosmetics, etc.

Of course, the above are hugely simplified stereotypes, and not comments on specific people.

Maybe Hoo has just been lucky in the women he knows?

"Maybe Hoo has just been lucky in the women he knows"

I think I'm getting luckier...

H.