What women (don't) want.

[kaosmark2]

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

I dunno, I think thatcherists fetishise abusing the helpless and training them to thank them for it.

[feral chile]

I dunno, I think thatcherists fetishise abusing the helpless and training them to thank them for it.

You might be right there.

[feral chile]

And old people. I did a test a few months back, and found out I have an unconscious bias against old people.

[feral chile]

Did some of these, they're quite interesting.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

[midnight]

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.

I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know what comes afterwards. I don't even know what will come after capitalism, and that will probably collapse and be replaced well before patriarchy.

It's a bit like your other question, what women's sexuality would be like - who knows, we can dream away. Men's would probably change too. The old chestnut He=agressive hunter, she=shy but manipulative prey might finally bite the dust.

I'm not interested in replacing patriarchy with matriarchy, I think that has been inferred a couple of times as the obvious alternative, I don't see why that should be the case. And I don't want the put down "you run like a girl" to be replaced by a "you run like a boy" put down. I don't want any put downs that are based on inevitable differences - I think I have said someting like that before. I've no desire whatsoever to domineer men.

I'd like to see male and female qualities being equally valued. So, if women should continue to do most of the caring jobs in society (they might not, but let's assume they would, for argument's sake), I'd like to see this to be a valued and rewarded activity, equal to repairing machinery (just to think of something stereotypical, something that more men than women do for a living). Stuff like that.

[midnight]

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

Is it? Why do you keep suggesting that people don't care about this? Is this a way of shaming?

And why this assumption that an interest in dealing with the effects of patriarchy takes away from the rights of disabled people? I've tried to point out several times that these things can be entwined. Disdain for the weak? Part and parcel of it, if you ask me.

But to give some of my background: my father's life's work was working with disabled children. I visted him at work, I helped out, my first job after uni was researching the needs of disabled people and working with disabled children (it was at a specialist rehab unit attached to a teaching hospital). I moved to London in 1992, and my first job was in a psychiatric hospital in Bow, East London, as a health care assistant. This was well before the East End was a gentrified place. I worked there full-time for one year, and part-time (some night shifts) for a few more years, to make ends meet, as my next full-time job didn't pay much, being day centre work with frail old people. Day centres being part of care in the community in the 90s and all that. These people were in wheelchairs following strokes or other age related problems, or had dementia. Severe dementia, some of them. I did that for 8 years, and in my mid 30s, realising that I was heading for a proper burn-out, I got myself another job, I'm now commissioning services for vulnerable people on behalf of a local authority. Well, I'm trying, anyway.

I've had diversity training. I am aware of the problems and campaigns of disabled people, and the politics that go with it, and lots of other disadvantages. I'm spending a good chunk of my life dealing with just that. None of that conflicts with my interest in equality for women. We have better legislation now, but that doesn't mean we've solved the problems.

Edited February 14, 2015 by midnight

[midnight]

50 Shades Film Review:

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

Yuk. Sounds worse than I thought it would be.

Particularly this bit:

http://www.mamamia.com.au/wellbeing/fifty-shades-of-grey-is-actually-physical-assault/

I agree with the the reviewer's conclusion, wouldn't be so bad if he'd get some proper comeuppance and she'd at least leave him for good.

[midnight]

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.

She uses Roy Baumeister's stuff, and the whole argument is based on the this (quote from article):

"Men want sex—and lots of it. Unfortunately for them, their demand far outstrips the supply of willing partners."

Falls at the first line, if you ask me. I think that's hogwash - I thought you did too? Men want sex and women don't, or only very little - just enough to get pregnant, perhaps?

I would agree that women have been conditioned into surpressing it better than men over many generations, as the social implications and punishments for them were so harsh if they got caught/got pregnant.

I'm much more in tune with this:

https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/

What do you make of the Kyriarchy definition? Better?

[midnight]

It was 100% jest.

Last night I was kicking myself at my choice of reply. What I really should have said was...

"oh, I've found another thing women don't want. Subtlety".

Perhaps that works for you a bit better?

In case you've missed it still....

Women want a man to do the DIY, and women don't want to be taken for granted.

While taking men for granted, as the DIY-er.

I'm merely pointing out that women do just about all of the same things as they spend their time condemning men for.

I'd say women do slightly different things, but probably equally annoying ones. And people in long-term relationships often take each other for granted.

Anyway, I've never claimed to be very subtle or perceptive, and I really wouldn't have worked it out without your explanation, and here is why:

Men do lots of DIY, TV adverts tell me that this is so - it must be true! But out of the 4 men I've had proper relationships with, only one ever did any DIY (and believe me, he got a lot of acknowledgement for it, from me, from his mother, from my parents, from my friends who came to visit and marvelled at the results...). The other 3 declared that they were no good at DIY, and never did any. Wasn't really something I felt a need to complain about, as I am ok with using a hammer & putting up a shelf myself, and I was able to pay someone to do the more complicated jobs. Very few of my female friends are coupled up with men who do lots of DIY, and those who are mention it quite frequently (otherwise I wouldn't know about it); I've no reason to believe that they take it for granted. So my anecdotal experience is that men do get acknowledged for the DIY they do (and that they are usually better at it than countless Homer-Simpson-style parodies make them out to be, but that is besides the point here). Therefore the joke completely passed me by - I never made the connection and I thought you were referring to some women having lots of expectations, something I can relate to and have experienced (I've come across women with whole lists of desirable traits their future partner should have - very odd), hence the silly random figure I picked.

Phew. I'll give it a rest. 14th February and all that. Hope everyone is having a nice day.

[eFestivals]

so do you accept that patriarchy is a tautology then?

Nope.

I accept that you know you've lost the argument when you use that as a way of avoiding the argument.

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

No, I'm saying you're talking bollocks by taking the tautology line. It's your own admission of defeat.

After all, you have no intellectual argument against what I said, you only have a word game.

[eFestivals]

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

an actual challenge, just perhaps?

Rather than saying "everything about it is groovy, and women should get their tits out for the lads".

[eFestivals]

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.

Or perhaps some just haven't understood patriarchy, and think it's just a theory to be rejected as a matter of opinion?

Feral rejects it, and yet she still lives in a patriarchal society. How can that be?

[eFestivals]

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.

Call it what you like, reject it all you like.

And yet you're still sat in world defined by men. Funny that, eh?

[eFestivals]

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.

I adhere to evidence.

Care to show me the non-patriarchal society that you must think you live within?

[eFestivals]

Anyway, I've never claimed to be very subtle or perceptive, and I really wouldn't have worked it out without your explanation

I didn't say that you were subtle. I made a general comment to the thread which you replied back on - having missed what I was getting at (which I'm happy to admit wasn't the clearest; even my missus didn't get it).

It was meant as a light-hearted interjection, as well as a healthy reminder that whatever gender we are we're still the same species and so subject to many of the same failings - because nothing is addressed for the better by women making the same mistakes as men.

[feral chile]

She uses Roy Baumeister's stuff, and the whole argument is based on the this (quote from article):

"Men want sex—and lots of it. Unfortunately for them, their demand far outstrips the supply of willing partners."

Falls at the first line, if you ask me. I think that's hogwash - I thought you did too? Men want sex and women don't, or only very little - just enough to get pregnant, perhaps?

I would agree that women have been conditioned into surpressing it better than men over many generations, as the social implications and punishments for them were so harsh if they got caught/got pregnant.

I'm much more in tune with this:

https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/

What do you make of the Kyriarchy definition? Better?

I'll get back to you on this one, when I've got time to give it the consideration it deserves.

But yes, making assumptions about men being the ones who want sex is something I wouldn't agree with, so I probably need to have a rethink

[feral chile]

I didn't say that you were subtle. I made a general comment to the thread which you replied back on - having missed what I was getting at (which I'm happy to admit wasn't the clearest; even my missus didn't get it).

It was meant as a light-hearted interjection, as well as a healthy reminder that whatever gender we are we're still the same species and so subject to many of the same failings - because nothing is addressed for the better by women making the same mistakes as men.

I've agreed with you twice in the last 2 days - how are you getting at my food?

[feral chile]

I adhere to evidence.

Care to show me the non-patriarchal society that you must think you live within?

It's down to interpretation, though, isn't it?

And values.

Some people think evolution is evidence for God, (design) and Stephen Fry et al thinks it's evidence for the absence of God.

A few decades ago, we had real gender issues, women weren't protected by law. Much as disabled people, in my opinion, are being discriminated against right now, because we're not really following our own protection laws. To me, benefits sanctions is a tangible example of this.

Now - this could only be decided by a tribunal. BUT - the EA states that it's indirect discrimination if a protected group is placed at a disadvantage because of a policy that's designed to apply to everyone.

I believe sanctions to this to some disabled people. But is it easy for them to obtain redress? Unlikely.

So that, to me, is a genuine failing.

I'm trying to change y perspective to think of patriarchy in terms of gender roles, social control etc., because it's easier for me to accept those concepts (less threatening/challenging) that thinking in terms of gender generalisations, power and dominance.

Because I'm kneejerk anti authority, and anti in-group out-group philosophy.

So I'll get back to this as well.

Edited February 14, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Or perhaps some just haven't understood patriarchy, and think it's just a theory to be rejected as a matter of opinion?

Feral rejects it, and yet she still lives in a patriarchal society. How can that be?

It IS a theoretical construct, just as determinism, empiricism, libertarianism etc. all are.

It's a particular perspective. I don't agree that all power lies with men. I do think that we bring up children differently, as in gender specific, and that this causes problems.

[feral chile]

an actual challenge, just perhaps?

Rather than saying "everything about it is groovy, and women should get their tits out for the lads".

OK, so how can a woman challenge patriarchy sexually?

I hesitate to say this, because I know radical feminists hate being stereotyped by this, and I want to make it clear that this is my conclusion, and I'm not speaking for them.

it seems to me, if heterosexual sex is defined by men, and women can't escape because whether they express their sexuality by culturally accepted means (certain body parts eroticised) and repressing it is also conditioned by patriarchy....

The only option would be to leave men out of the equation.

But I'm presuming breasts, bottoms and vaginas are still the erotic zones?

Are they determined by men?

This is what I'm struggling to understand. No matter how women choose to express their sexuality, if all their choices are already a lost cause - where's the possibility for change?

[feral chile]

I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know what comes afterwards. I don't even know what will come after capitalism, and that will probably collapse and be replaced well before patriarchy.

It's a bit like your other question, what women's sexuality would be like - who knows, we can dream away. Men's would probably change too. The old chestnut He=agressive hunter, she=shy but manipulative prey might finally bite the dust.

I'm not interested in replacing patriarchy with matriarchy, I think that has been inferred a couple of times as the obvious alternative, I don't see why that should be the case. And I don't want the put down "you run like a girl" to be replaced by a "you run like a boy" put down. I don't want any put downs that are based on inevitable differences - I think I have said someting like that before. I've no desire whatsoever to domineer men.

I'd like to see male and female qualities being equally valued. So, if women should continue to do most of the caring jobs in society (they might not, but let's assume they would, for argument's sake), I'd like to see this to be a valued and rewarded activity, equal to repairing machinery (just to think of something stereotypical, something that more men than women do for a living). Stuff like that.

If you look at the above post, this is a question of logic, not trying to predict the future.

If everything is by default determined by patriarchy, so is all change.

Now, I could well be failing to understand you and neil's views on this, but that's what it feels like you're saying. Every challenge I've tried to make, you've both said is simply a failure to acknowledge patriarchy.

So what I'm getting at, is what challenge, logically, would be accepted as outside the patriarchal straitjacket?

In principle, not as a prediction of what in fact will happen.

I personally think patriarchy is already a lot weaker than it used to be, just from living so long and knowing that most of society now doesn't think that women should be secondary.

I think we've already won the major premise, now we're looking at how to define genuine equality - and of course, patriarchy affects that.

I'm sorry to pick on a persona comment you made, neil, but when you referred to me as a screaming harpie - can you see how gender specific that comment was, and how it was a condemnation of behaviour you saw as aggressive in a female?

And also accusing me of using my feminine wiles to garner support for my argument - it's a patriarchal way of interpreting behaviour.

I'm not unaware of gender bias, I'd just prefer to call it that, and look at the ways it affects both sexes, since it disadvantages men too.

More men commit suicide than women because of depression, because they're socially conditioned to hide their feelings and be strong.

So, I'm not denying gender bias, if that's what you want to call it, but to me it's a cultural bias that can be challenged by undermining the concept itself.

So, my failure to acknowledge it as a physical reality, rather than as a concept that can be undermined, IS my challenge to it. (think about it, there has to be an implicit acknowledgement before a challenge can happen).

I think, subjectively for me, I feel like I'm trying to defy patriarchy, and you and neil are telling me Big Brother is still inside my head. So subjectively, it feels like you are both perpetuating it, enforcing it, even. (let me make this clear, I'm not accusing either of you of actually doing this, it's just how it feels from my side)

And I suspect, both of you think the same of me. You seem to think I'm in denial, and therefore perpetuating it.

if so, that's a really fascinating phenomenon going on there.

Edited February 14, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Yuk. Sounds worse than I thought it would be.

Particularly this bit:

http://www.mamamia.com.au/wellbeing/fifty-shades-of-grey-is-actually-physical-assault/

I agree with the the reviewer's conclusion, wouldn't be so bad if he'd get some proper comeuppance and she'd at least leave him for good.

yes, I only read the first book, so have no idea how the others deal with the issues raised in the first book.

But, from that article, it does sound like really bad, dangerous romantic fiction.

Stick with your abuser, you'll change him in the end and live happily ever after.

Er, no. You're not his therapist.

And abusers are adept at control, so you're more likely t be the one who's changed. As in emotionally and psychologically destroyed.

Edited February 14, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I reject it too. That doesn't mean I don't believe it exists. I reject racism and sexism too. They also exist.

tony.

Thank you so much for the clarity of what you just said.

That's how I feel too.

[feral chile]

Moving on from that - I think the sticking point for me is the failure, in this thread, to separate out the sexism element from the power element.

If you think of white supremacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy

Academic use of the term[edit]

The term white supremacy is used in academic studies of racial power to denote a system of structural or societal racism which privileges white people over others, regardless of the presence or absence of racial hatred. Legal scholar Frances Lee Ansley explains this definition as follows:

By "white supremacy" I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.[11][12]

This and similar definitions are adopted or proposed by Charles Mills,[13] bell hooks,[14] David Gillborn,[15] and Neely Fuller Jr.[16] Some anti-racist educators, such as Betita Martinez and the Challenging White Supremacy workshop, also use the term in this way. The term expresses historic continuities between a pre-Civil Rights era of open white supremacism and the current racial power structure of the United States. It also expresses the visceral impact of structural racism through "provocative and brutal" language that characterizes racism as "nefarious, global, systemic, and constant."[17] Academic users of the term sometimes prefer it to racism because it allows for a disconnection between racist feelings and white racial advantage or privilege.

Now, this isn't just about privilege, it's about feelings of supremacy.

So, when we're talking about patriarchy, I'm never sure whether you're talking about the power hierarchy or something much more subtle.

Historically, black Americans scored lower on IQ tests, and were thus deemed to be intellectually inferior. This seemed to be based on evidence. It was used to explain why black people had lower socioeconomic status.

except, of course, the IQ tests themselves were culturally biased.

Now, if you're talking about systems such as this that favour men, then yes, I'd agree.

But it's a very fine line between raising consciousness of the unfairness inherent in certain systems, and pointing to male power hierarchies, and asserting that men are dominant/superior/more powerful.

It's the second bit that I've been rejecting.

[Katster]

I have no interest in reading or watching 50 shades. I don't need to read or watch to know they are rubbish. Bye.