What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

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

[feral chile]

Mind you, saying that, 2 of the women I know who rave about 50 Shades, have both been subjected to domestic abuse.

And one of them has explicitly stated that the author understands what that's about.

except, of course, the book's not supposed to be about that.

So I really don't know what to make of it all.

Edited February 14, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

mmm...

50 Shades criticised for showing control and dominance but failing to show female orgasm, which is apparently what makes the books liberating to women.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/12/fifty-shades-of-grey-ana-orgasm_n_6656162.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

Edited February 14, 2015 by feral chile

[bunique]

I find the 50 Shades hype fascinating. As a friend said, I'm not sure we can criticise it without seeing it; but I also don't want to contribute to its financial success!

[feral chile]

Why is 50 shades supposed to be feminist? The book itself isn't, but is it because it's opened up discourse about female sexuality?

And somehow, a book about an unassertive virgin being dominated by a damaged male, has liberated its female readers by reminding them they have a clitoris?

I'm really confused, because this is one book that I do see as a complete perpetuation of the patriarch ideal.

[bunique]

I don't think it's feminist at all - perhaps there's something in the success of it that hints at a liberated female population (openly reading, enjoying and discussing a highly sexualised text)?

[feral chile]

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.

No, but it's not attracting any interest in this thread.

it's just that I feel outraged by some of the examples of what happens to disabled people, and there seems to be more interest in Page 3, and I'm trying to work out why.

I can understand why you needed to get out - I used to work as a mental health advocate, and it was extremely stressful, and I did in fact burn out. Although I didn't receive a mental health diagnosis, as they decided there was no underlying mental illness, I know just how powerless disabled people feel. And I know from experience how being treated like that can leave you with massive self doubt.

I've always felt I was strong, and I've never felt so vulnerable in my life. Both because of the way my status changed, and my own self image also. You lose all autonomy, and all credibility.

It's a humbling experience, realising you're not so liberal as you think. And you only find that out when you're suddenly in the group you think you're supporting.

edit: I'm actually covered under the EA as disabled, because of a physical impairment, but I still find it hard to accept the term.

Edited February 14, 2015 by feral chile

[kaosmark2]

it's just that I feel outraged by some of the examples of what happens to disabled people, and there seems to be more interest in Page 3, and I'm trying to work out why.

Personally, all I feel I can contribute in response to such examples is an expression of shared outrage. I don't believe I can actually generate discussion. Noone has responded to posts about such issues with "praise IDS, he's finally killing off those fucking scroungers", so there's nothing for me to contest, and nor have I the sense that expressing my disgust would be anything more than just alternative words and another voice.

What we talk about on this forum will not change the world, it might well change the minds of some people reading, it might challenge some entrenched views, but I do not believe that any of the people who spend time on the efests discussions section will approve of the behaviour of the DWP in the past 5 years.

[feral chile]

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

I'm slightly more in favour of the Kyriarchy perspective. The main issue for me, is that we want a fair society. So I want to have a society where we don't think that being CEO is the ultimate aim.

My kids, for instance, will come to me if they want their Dad to do something for them, give them a lift for instance (I don't drive).

They're not frightened of him, he's massively easy going.

So why are they coming to me to grant a favour from their Dad?

Why can't we see that as an example of female authority showing itself? And why do we see patriarchy as an ideal that's passed down through generations, yet not recognise that the female usually has the role of child raising, so could be in a position of great power - do feminists consider their role in this a powerful one? I did a lot of reading on being a good feminist role model when my kids were young, and I tried to avoid gender bias (though I'm aware a lot is unconscious).

Why is being a housewife and mother still devalued?

It's not so much that I reject patriarchy, as that I think feminists are just as guilty of it.

And that leaves us in a very depressing agreement, and one I've been aware of throughout this and previously, dishonestly, tried to avoid stating outright. Because I want patriarchy not to be a tautology. The hope of change rests absolutely on that.

(That's why, what would count as a non patriarchy conditioned reaction, is of vital interest to me, and why I'm so stubbornly insisting on providing alternative interpretations).

Edited February 14, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I prefer using the term 'control' rather than 'power', as well.

[Katster]

I find the 50 Shades hype fascinating. As a friend said, I'm not sure we can criticise it without seeing it; but I also don't want to contribute to its financial success!

Library?

Putlocker?

[feral chile]

I think you're exaggerating the interest in Page 3. For me, it was slightly (short lived) good news that it might be disappearing. That's all.

Not sure where the rights for disabled people came into the discussion

patriarchy is about 2 classifications of equality based on gender divisions, I was arguing that disabled men and women are more equal with each other than with other men and women.

And that we should be looking at fairness and social justice as well as equality (which is supposed to already exist for both gender and disability).

I also think that disabled people need more empowerment as a group than women. (And that's from a personal perspective, as well as from research done by mental health charities etc.)

I'm also part of the campaign to raise awareness for people with mental health issues, as it reduces stigma. And I feel that more people are suffering because of marginalisation than from gender issues.

(in the UK)

Edited February 14, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Out of interest, and in an attempt to get some hard statistics around whether things have improved or not, does anyone have a statistical analysis over time? I've googled but couldn't find one.

The reason I'm asking is that, studying in the 80s, it didn't escape us psychology students' notice that female students far outnumbered males, but the only female lecturers taught Women's Studies. |There was a Sex Discrimination case during that time, and my friend pointed out that a lot of it was probably unconscious bias, the woman just 'didn't fit in'.

I just wondered how much (hopefully they have!) things have improved.

[bunique]

Library?

Putlocker?

I've read the first one - was thinking more about the film!

[feral chile]

oh...

funny, my sister has new boyfriend who works for a charity that aims to reduce the stigma. I think it's called Stigma... (?!). His role is organising concerts.. I think

Aaaanyway...

"And that we should be looking at fairness and social justice as well as equality"

I think that's sort of all we need to aim for, no?

And when I say 'that's all', as problematic as that might seem, as you say, lots of ground has been covered.

I think the awareness that is increasing, all over the world, that women shouldn't be treated as anything less than a man would be, is an amazing thing.

But I detest the backwards steps that have occurred, especially in the uk, with the celebration of 'lad' culture, and the magazines (and music and tv chat show hosts, radio presenters, etc etc) that glorify it, and the mindless use of women to sell those magazines. I think that's partly why I would like Page 3 to go. It feels part of the same thing

What do you think of ladette culture? I have a few feminist friends who feel they've taken control of their sexuality by 'using men like they used to use me'.

I have misgivings. Firstly, I don't think exploitation is the way to go, and to aspire to male attitudes in this respect, and many others, is a mistake.

And also, I don't know if they're really liberating themselves.

For me, this whole discussion has been about this - if you expand that to every other issue women are seeking equality with - how can we free ourselves from the patriarchy conditioning of the actual aspiration itself, whether it's using people, being successful in business etc.?

Why can't we value things that are traditionally seen as feminine, ike raising children, which to me is one of the most important jobs in society, and comes with tremendous social and moral responsibility?

if we could raise the profile of child raising, I wonder if men would suddenly decide they were better suited to it, and women better at running the boardroom?

And would women then demand equality by insisting on their right to raise their own children, and not be subject to the tyranny of the workplace?

it's a tough nut to crack, this one.

Edited February 14, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

It's just replacing one battle with another. And by taking on some of the more mindless traits of laddism, it's a downward spiral to the lowest common denominator. It's a kind liberation, I s'pose... it just feels like a negative one. Can you have negative liberation?

I don't know. When and where possible, I just ignore the patriarchal 'rules'. I think constantly being aware of it and having to do something about it can confuse things too much. I know that might seem like either a simplistic, or too slow an approach. Or just a lazy one. I will actively support any attempt for more equality of fairness when I can. It's one of the unexpected opportunities of my accidental role at work, where I have some authority, which generally I'm rather uncomfortable with, but with it comes chances to have an effect

well, again... that's sort of accepting the old 'rules', isn't it?

Which part is, all of it, or one or other of the statements?

The dilemma I'm finding myself in, is if challenging patriarchy is also failure to acknowledge it, how the hell do you challenge it?

And does patriarchy assert that men have power (but that's subject to change)

Or men are more powerful (which isn't?)

Because, so far, all I'm hearing, from (I was going to say from advocates of patriarchy, I know that's not what they mean), is that patriarchy exists, everything falls under it, and no argument could stand against it, and all resistance is patriarchal and therefore futile.

So the second one then.

So what's the difference again between patriarchy advocates and feminists?

Whereas focusing on barriers to equality avoids value bias to an extent, though equal what is obviously a value (as in equal pay, equal protection under the law, right to office etc).

I'm getting confused between feminists asserting patriarchy exists universally and eternally (since they refute claims that men can be disadvantaged and it's all a myth, and claims that it happens everywhere and has always happened, which anthropologists dispute, and patriarch advocates themselves.

because it feels like the same message - 'men have all the power, just accept it'.

Edited February 14, 2015 by feral chile

[russycarps]

Do you get to see the man's nob in the 50 shades film I wonder?

Edited February 14, 2015 by russycarps

[feral chile]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/13/dominatrix-grandma-dungeon-bdsm-fifty-shades_n_6679932.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

I don't know what my opinion is on this.

Probably confusion, with all this discussion about patriarchy and male-defined sex roles and dominance.

The 60-year-old grandmother of three says it wasn't until her 40s that she discovered her sexually adventurous side. While she jokes that being bossy has always been in her nature, she ventured into the world of whips, chains and submission after her divorce. "I was dating after divorce and the gentleman I was with pointed out to me that someone who bites and tortures him is basically a dominatrix. He suggested I check it out because it was something that came naturally to me," she told The Huffington Post.

[feral chile]

Do you get to see the man's nob in the 50 shades film I wonder?

it's a 15, I think, so doubt it.

[feral chile]

sorry, I just re-read what you said and didn't get it first time...

"Why can't we value things that are traditionally seen as feminine, like raising children, which to me is one of the most important jobs in society, and comes with tremendous social and moral responsibility?"

I totally agree. And we should stop valuing (so highly) some of the things that are traditionally masculine. Like competitiveness, and winning, and physical strength

Well, I don't think challenging it is a failure to acknowledge it. If anything, the opposite is the case. If you don't acknowledge it, then how can you challenge it.

And I know there are contradictions in what I'm saying, but then I think everything is a contradiction of something else anyway...

I don't think all resistance is patriarchal. I've gone on about my resistance to labels and categories before. This might also tie in with my idea that concepts can exist without language (ooops, where's that can (of worms) opener?). But that's for another day!

I'm not sure. But I think people get bogged down in what label something has to fall under. Feminists being one example.

Any kind of attempt to demonstrate against anything will immediately struggle with the different ways of demonstrating. I went on the Climate Change march not long ago, and this bunch of people, all dressed in black, with masks on their faces and banners saying fuck everything basically, in the name of anarchy, pushed their way in front of us. I didn't want to be associated with what they were advocating. Not that there was much I could do about it. And they were probably thinking 'all these namby pamby hippies not wanting to really commit to doing anything are just dead weight' (or something like that...?!)

But feminists aren't all of one mind, are they?

Well, as presented in our discussions on here then.

because I think of myself as against sexism. If feminism means fair play between the sexes, then I'm a feminist, and I've certainly seen some feminists w feel that men are discriminated against by the patriarchy concept as much as women.

I'm not sure how I feel about anarchists. My son's been trying to educate me about the different types. They fascinate me. Anarchism, as I was taught it, was extremely idealistic, in that if we did away with property, the protection of which is the main purpose of the state, we'd all get along splendidly, because we'd have nothing to fight over.

[feral chile]

but, as has been said, some feminists want fair play on a level that I (and you, I think) don't want. They want to be all powerful like some men are. I think a less aggressive and confrontational society is better

Well, that's a whole other thang, isn't it. What type of anarchy do you want? In certain situations (like work) I think I'm perceived as slightly anarchic in the way I approach my job. I don't really fit in with colleagues above and below me. But oddly, I seem to be appreciated for my (ever so slightly) unorthodox approach.

I mean it's not that weird, but it is a bit. Silly things like making tea for colleagues who I am supposed to be in charge of. There isn't one other person in my position who does that. That's odd, to me.

The revolution starts here.... Make tea, not war!

I like it!

[Katster]

I've read the first one - was thinking more about the film!

Putlocker it is then...

[eFestivals]

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

how are you getting on with your own brain?

You are not the only one here, and you are not the only one to be conversed with. It seems like that 'stupid' problem I highlighted extends beyond the use of the word 'stupid'.

[eFestivals]

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

Very well done.

You reject sexism and racism, but they exist. A smarter person than you would realise that you've gone very wrong here somewhere.

[eFestivals]

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.

Note that your use of logic has the evidence of one thing bringing into existence another thing.

In my use of logic, the evidence of one thing only proves that one thing.

The problems in this discussion are not where you're identifying them as being.