What women (don't) want.

[russycarps]

Thatcher

The prime minister of the UK is nowhere near the top of the hierarchy!

edit, nor's the queen

You think if hillary clinton becomes president women will all of a sudden be in charge? Did a black president change anything whatsoever for blacks place in society?

the power is not with these political figureheads.

Edited February 13, 2015 by russycarps

[feral chile]

I was far more concerned about patriarchy in the 80s, when wives could get raped, women could get sexually harassed in work, rape victims had to be teetotal virgins wearing full body armour in order to get justice, before equal pay legislation, when men thought that no woman could get raped because they must have asked for it/not clenched themselves tight enough etc. and victims of domestic violence were ignored by police because it was a 'domestic' until either they got killed, or they killed their abuser, and then got convicted of murder.

We do have laws and a culture now that promotes equality, so the main areas are looking at where people feel this is still falling short.

For me, the stigma around mental health, the benefits sanctions etc. are now my main focus, these groups are truly under-represented.

Because few people care or are interested.

We've had masses of discussion on women showing their boobs, and women feeling intimidated and bullied by getting put down by men, and I've posted something about a man with learning difficulties dying because the DWP stopped his benefits for being 4 minutes late.

Where's the outrage about that?

Or cases like this?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/28/man-starved-to-death-after-benefits-cut

What a sad reflection on our true values

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

The prime minister of the UK is nowhere near the top of the hierarchy!

edit, nor's the queen

You think if hillary clinton becomes president women will all of a sudden be in charge? Did a black president change anything whatsoever for blacks place in society?

the power is not with these political figureheads.

Good, where is it then?

[eFestivals]

And you can't see what a tautological argument that is.

Or alternatively, you can't see how much of an anti-intellectual argument that ^ is.

There's no point me attempting to try to have a sensible discussion with you when you'll default back to that angle as a way you think you win argument, but when you're unable to actually offer any argument.

[russycarps]

Good, where is it then?

Where the money is. Corporations. You cant really think politicians are top of the pile?

Edited February 13, 2015 by russycarps

[feral chile]

Or alternatively, you can't see how much of an anti-intellectual argument that ^ is.

There's no point me attempting to try to have a sensible discussion with you when you'll default back to that angle as a way you think you win argument, but when you're unable to actually offer any argument.

No, everything's controlled by patriarchy.

every attempt to break free is controlled by patriarchy.

everything that contradicts patriarchy is controlled by patriarchy.

every alternative perspective is controlled by patriarchy.

every person who believes in patriarchy is controlled by patriarchy.

every person who doesn't believe in patriarchy is controlled by patriarchy.

every person who doesn't care is controlled by patriarchy

every person who argues that patriarchy exists is controlled by patriarchy. (and extremely actively perpetuating it, ironically)

etc. etc. etc. for eternity.

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Where the money is. Corporations. You cant really think politicians are top of the pile?

Not really, but patriarchy is supposed to be everywhere - politics, business, family, social institutions, etc. etc.

Therefore, why would a patriarchal hierarchy allow female power figureheads?

Bit dangerous, that, isn't it? Women might get ideas!

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[ThomThomDrum]

Isnt the CEO of PepsiCo a woman?

The biggest oil company in Brazil, Petrobas, also has a woman as their CEO.

Today there is a fair few ladies at the top of the very biggest companies. Those companies that weld true power over politicans.

In fact I would say there is far more examples of woman at the top in business then there is probably in politics............(BTW im not saying that business is still not dominated in the majority by men)

[eFestivals]

etc. etc. etc. for eternity.

There's defo eternity in here somewhere, but I'm seeing it in a different place to you.

[feral chile]

There's defo eternity in here somewhere, but I'm seeing it in a different place to you.

ok give me an escape route from patriarchy then

[feral chile]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/584431/tautology

tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied without inconsistency. Thus, “All men are rational” is held to assert with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is a man or it is not rational. But this universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted about real men but only from the actual use (or one such use) of “man” and “rational” and is thus purely a matter of definition. The statement cannot but be true because it asserts every possible state of affairs: it is true whichsoever of its constituents are true, and it is also true whichsoever are false

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

ok give me an escape route from patriarchy then

by working thru it.

It can't be thrown off in an instant, but it can be thrown off over generations. Because it's not an idea, it's a culture.

Pretending it's not there doesn't make it go away.

[eFestivals]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/584431/tautology

tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied without inconsistency. Thus, “All men are rational” is held to assert with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is a man or it is not rational. But this universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted about real men but only from the actual use (or one such use) of “man” and “rational” and is thus purely a matter of definition. The statement cannot but be true because it asserts every possible state of affairs: it is true whichsoever of its constituents are true, and it is also true whichsoever are false

You're saying that because I'm a man my opinion on a woman's issue isn't valid - but you have no problem chummying up with men whose opinions match yours. Odd that, eh?

Perhaps tautology wasn't what it was? Just a thought.

[feral chile]

No, I'm saying that every attempt I've made to challenge patriarchy, you've said is an example of patriarchy.

And that's because, as far as I can tell, you're arguing that everything is controlled by patriarchy, even the resistance to it, in whatever form that resistance tries to take.

So, to me, by denying that there's an alternative, you're perpetuating the very thing you hate.

Just as you're telling me, that by thinking I'm challenging it, I'm perpetuating it, by trying to deny it (its power, by my thinking).

It's very 1984.

In more ways than one.

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

And every time I've asked you or midnight what would be an acceptable alternative, one that you'd recognise that's not controlled by patriarchy, I've been met with silence.

And that's why the concept is a tautology.

[feral chile]

Behaviourism, for instance, is also a tautology - deliberately, because of the narrow definitions involved.

but that's intentional, because it only wanted to concentrate on observation and measurement.

And why it's not enough.

[feral chile]

Now this bothers me. and I don't care a fig whether the abuser is male or female.

And I don't think it can be blamed on patriarchy, unless you're going to claim that all dominance is also conditioned by patriarchy (which I deny)

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic_violence_topic.asp?section=0001000100220008

Physical abuse: pushing her onto the floor when she is unable to get back up, hitting her when she cannot get away, ignoring her care needs.

Sexual abuse: disabled women are twice as likely to be raped or assaulted.

Psychological abuse: control of contact with the outside world, telling her that no one else would want her because of her impairments, locking her in a room, refusing to take her to the bathroom (if she cannot get there without assistance), hiding her possessions including the aides she needs to be independent.

Financial abuse: not allowing her to have any financial independence, having to beg for everything she needs, having her disability benefits taken from her, taking money from her without her permission or knowledge.

Getting away from abuse is often harder for a disabled woman because access to help and support is often controlled by the abuser.

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

From the same article:

What the report is about
The report examines existing service provision, and identifies gaps in provision and associated support – highlighted both by service providers and by disabled women themselves.


The main findings
The researchers show that disabled women experience a greater need for services – based on the nature and extent of the abuse they experience – but this is accompanied by far less provision than is generally available for non-disabled women; therefore the barriers facing disabled women who try to escape from abuse are often almost insuperable


THIS is how you define inequality.

Invisibility.

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

No, I'm saying that every attempt I've made to challenge patriarchy, you've said is an example of patriarchy.

Yep, that's my take on it too.

Perhaps I should just take the easy option of agreeing that you're right, and via that agreement prove that you must be wrong because as man I cannot be right?

Or perhaps I'm not challenging your ideas because I'm a man driven by patriarchy, but because from as neutral a standpoint as it's possible to get I can clearly see the logical flaws in your own arguments, and know these have been more than adequately addressed by brains much better than mine (and female, as that's important to you too)?

[feral chile]

so do you accept that patriarchy is a tautology then?

because you've just agreed that's your take on it.

if you do, fine.

I haven't abandoned behaviourism outright because it's a tautology, because I find it useful.

The difference to me is, you can use behaviourist techniques to change the way your environment controls you.

Patriarchy doesn't seem to allow for that.

[feral chile]

What would count, then, as a challenge to/erosion of patriarchy?

You won't even recognise the societal changes to our culture and legal system in the last few decades.

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile

[lost]

these have been more than adequately addressed by brains much better than mine (and female, as that's important to you too)?

I think the problem here and the discussion isn't moving on is your treating sociology as a hard science and it isn't, your taking writings you have read from a specific point in time and from a certain group of women, arguing from the point that they are fact rather than opinion. Social theory changes as society changes.

I mentioned in the other thread that the youngsters coming though think about things differently. There is almost a punk for feminism movement going on where all the traditional ideas are being challenged. You may disagree with them but it needs to be in the back of your mind that your idea about society is probably about as relevant to them as the "for king and country" generation was relevant to you.

[feral chile]

https://theumlaut.com/2013/04/16/the-problems-with-patriarchy/

She accuses patriarchy of being unscientific, neil.

which of course, it is, because it's completely value-ridden.

[feral chile]

I think the problem here and the discussion isn't moving on is your treating sociology as a hard science and it isn't, your taking writings you have read from a specific point in time and from a certain group of women, arguing from the point that they are fact rather than opinion. Social theory changes as society changes.

I mentioned in the other thread that the youngsters coming though think about things differently. There is almost a punk for feminism movement going on where all the traditional ideas are being challenged. You may disagree with them but it needs to be in the back of your mind that your idea about society is probably about as relevant to them as the "for king and country" generation was relevant to you.

thanks, lost, I think this is why I'm confused with your stance here neil, too, because it's not like you to adhere to ideological standpoints.

[feral chile]

They're the top of their hierarchy

And no, I don't think everything would change. If anything, Thatcher just made things worse

Thatcher is a bit like 50 Shades of Grey, but without the eroticism.