What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

whether they give a stuff or not, it's given them a job and they're acting it out and they're reinforcing it - causing others to have to submit to it.

Has that never occurred to you?

then you have much less of a problem with patriarchy than I do, as you're happier to go along with it and for it to be reinforced within society than you are to condemn it.

But then some footballers act out patriarchy - fair enough, it's not part of their job description, but because the media picks it up it's a footballer stereotype - why is it only Page 3 that gets the flack, rather than other (in my opinion) misogynistic behaviour?

[eFestivals]

well that's cleared things up

I like midnights idea of "chipping away" at things

anything else seems to be divisive, and ultimately self-defeating.

I pointed out that chipping away at things was divisive, you said not, then you agreed, then you disagreed that you'd changed your mind over anything.

Got that? No, I'm guessing not. If you don't get your own words, why would you get mine?

[feral chile]

Is "stupid" an insult? Or is an opinion on another's view?

And so we're back to the problem some people have with the idea that another could ever think anything they said as stupid.

I'd prefer 'inconsistent'

[eFestivals]

But then some footballers act out patriarchy - fair enough, it's not part of their job description, but because the media picks it up it's a footballer stereotype - why is it only Page 3 that gets the flack, rather than other (in my opinion) misogynistic behaviour?

really, you need to do some reading.

[feral chile]

I have done some reading, I've read the feminist perspective originally, I've read about political emancipation, sexual emancipation, cultural emancipation, rights for men (to free themselves from the patriarchy myth) and now I'm onto diversity.

What's your opinion on the men's rights argument then?

[feral chile]

50 Shades Film Review:

http://www.mamamia.com.au/entertainment/fifty-shades-of-grey-review-2/

[eFestivals]

I think you've misinterpreted what I meant by chipping away.

Some people here were trying to have a reasoned discussion. You just resort to calling people names.

It's pointless when you're involved. There's never ending accusations from yourself that everyone else doesn't understand anything, and how stupid they are for not seeing things the way you do. Followed by garbled quotes from previous posts with no guidance as to what your point actually is

apart from to say how amazing you are for being the only one to see through the complications that exist

Nope, I've pointed out an idea that was being pushed that doesn't stand up to the most simple of scrutiny.

Challenging ideas requires divisions. Any other idea is a logical and literal impossibility.

Oh fuck that, let's do it the tony way....

and?

[eFestivals]

I have done some reading

less than you think you have. It's exceedingly clear to little-read me.

What's your opinion on the men's rights argument then?

Is there one?

Edited February 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

less than you think you have. It's exceedingly clear to little-read me.

Is there one?

YESSSS!

UP THERE!!!!!!

Suffragettes sending little 16 year old boys white feathers for failing their duty to go and die to protect the women, who had a right to be protected with the deaths of children who couldn't vote and she was denying the right to choose not to die to protect her!

The Myth of Male Power - arguing that male only drafts showed that men were worth less than the women they were expected to die to protect. And the breadwinner role pressured men into taking on high risk, high pressure jobs to bring in more money, at the sacrifice of intrinsic reward, which women only had the luxury to enjoy.

Patriarchy being used to oppress men, not (just?) women!

THIS ^^^^^^ is what I've been saying. I don't want feminism buying into the above as what women should want, because then women become part of the great big con that patriarchy really is!

I'm not denying patriarchy exists, but I have a very different idea of what it actually is!

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I've said what I think is a good way, it's not the only way. That's how discussions evolve.

Yep, and I've pointed out it's an impossible way, which you've now accepted. That's how discussions evolve.

As opposed to resorting to name calling and telling everyone they're wrong and stupid

Were you wrong? Yes you were.

As you now admit you're wrong, you must be aware of the stupidity.

[eFestivals]

YESSSS!

UP THERE!!!!!!

Suffragettes sending little 16 year old boys white feathers for failing their duty to go and die to protect the women, who had a right to be protected with the deaths of children who couldn't vote and she was denying the right to choose not to die to protect her!

The Myth of Male Power - arguing that male only drafts showed that men were worth less than the women they were expected to die to protect. And the breadwinner role pressured men into taking on high risk, high pressure jobs to bring in more money, at the sacrifice of intrinsic reward, which women only had the luxury to enjoy.

Patriarchy being used to oppress men, not (just?) women!

THIS ^^^^^^ is what I've been saying. I don't want feminism buying into the above as what women should want, because then women become part of the great big con that patriarchy really is!

I'm not denying patriarchy exists, but I have a very different idea of what it actually is!

is that an argument you're making, or is that some text nicked from elsewhere that you want me to have an argument with?

Either way I don't think you'll get what you were hoping for.

Edited February 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

is that an argument you're making, or is that some text nicked from elsewhere that you want me to have an argument with?

Either way I don't think you'll get what you were hoping for.

I said right at the start of the Page 3 discussion that I didn't have a problem with Page 3 (I've since elucidated personal and philosophical reasons why not) AND that it could be seen to be demeaning men as much as women.

It's about male sexuality as much as women. And dominance by either sex as much as sexuality.

And make your mind up - first you accuse me of not having read, and then you accuse me of nicking stuff I've read to use in my argument.

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Patriarchy only has power because we allow it to.

I keep getting accused of failing to acknowledge it - how can you resist it by not resisting it, and how can you do that without challenging the whole concept of it?

power is only power when you allow the powerful power over you.

And the ONLY resistance is to say 'tough shit, you're not telling me what to do'.

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

You're fucking mental Neil. Where did I accept that 'chipping away' is impossible?

you didn't. You accepted that no-division is impossible, after having originally said chipping away caused no division.

FFS.

Tony tries 50 different ways to have an argument about a different (in this case non-existent) argument. While believing his own approach to discussions is superior.

[feral chile]

When a man tries to dominate me, the first thought through my head isn't intimidation, it's that he's an inadequate trying to make himself feel important.

So most men DON'T have power over me, Because they can't undermine me.

Though I'd prefer not to be specifying men/women, as all can try to dominate.

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Patriarchy only has power because we allow it to.

that's not what the patriarchy argument says.

You've failed the exam on rule 1 of patriarchy.

Edited February 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

There is no debate with you

and?

[eFestivals]

there's only one?

Edited February 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

OK then. Patriarchy states that men hold primary power.

I've provided plenty of counter arguments to that, showing that women have alternative sources of power.

You then tell me I don't know what patriarchy is. And you can't see what a tautological argument that is.

How can you challenge a power base (and this is meant to be both within politics and the family) if you don't take that power away?

You can do that by:

getting hold of what's deemed as the source of power (equal pay, getting more women up the corporate ladder, sexuality etc.)

drawing attention to alternative power bases (matriarchy, female social authority etc.)

Drawing attention to other power inequalities (class, race, disability etc.)

Challenging the value structure that the power base represents in an attempt to undermine it/show it up to be a myth (redifining power as control over your own life, as The Myth of Male Power does).

Working with those in power who are also interested in a more egalitarian society (sympathetic males, prominent feminists etc.)

Changing minds. helping to promote a cultural shift towards valuing diversity, getting rid of gender specific roles, and having true equality.

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I could turn around and say that male power is a myth invented by women so that men take all the risks and women secretly rule, by influencing the figureheads.

We have had females at the head of the hierarchy, you know.

[kaosmark2]

I could turn around and say that male power is a myth invented by women so that men take all the risks and women secretly rule, by influencing the figureheads.

We have had females at the head of the hierarchy, you know.

I think old fashioned marriage laws that treated women as the property of their husbands disproves that claim.

Not that I think you were entirety serious about it.

[russycarps]

We have had females at the head of the hierarchy, you know.

like?

[eFestivals]

You then tell me I don't know what patriarchy is. And you can't see what a tautological argument that is.

That's because you're inventing that part of things.

You're back to doing all you condemn again.

[feral chile]

I think old fashioned marriage laws that treated women as the property of their husbands disproves that claim.

Not that I think you were entirety serious about it.

not entirely. just like my challenge to that old chestnut that men evolved to sow their seeds and women evolved t be faithful because men need to ensure as many offspring as possible and women need a bonding partner to raise their offspring.

My challenge is that women then, could be as promiscuous as they like, in order to get the best sperm. And then con the best prospective male that she's been faithful, that he's the master, and she needs him to go hunt down that tiger to keep the weak little female all nice and cosy and protected. And then her and the baby can put their feet up. While he risks death but goes to it feeling like the man.

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

like?

the royal figurehead and the witch.

(yes, I know the figurehead isn't supposed to have political power, but influence....)

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile