What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

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'.

Forgot my smilie at the end of my other post. I'm not sure how you got to that statement from what I posted though.

But I'm not prepared to join in with abusive comments, so I'm more than happy to converse with those who are able to have a mature conversation, without having to resort to the tactics you seem to feel the need for.

[feral chile]

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.

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.

Difference being, if someone's trying to avoid being racist by changing their behaviour, they're not getting accused of failing to acknowledge white supremacy, in the way that women get accused of failing to acknowledge patriarchy.

[feral chile]

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.

list your evidence then, and then show me why being a CEO influences the future more than educating the future generation, either through parenting or any other educational method.

Maybe the problems aren't where I think they are, but at least I'm demonstrating why I think so, rather than referring to a theory that makes claims that are unsubstantiated. You keep missing the point that if patriarchy was so all pervasive, we wouldn't even be arguing about it. You'd be telling me to know my place, and I'd know it, and we wouldn't even question it.

[eFestivals]

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

Correct.

Division exists, up until the time that feral convinces everyone to agree with just her view of things - whilst her own disagreement with other feminists at this time is not the division amongst women she's so against, yeah?

[eFestivals]

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

Yes, it's a theoretical construct.

After all, you don't live in a male-defined world, do you?

[feral chile]

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.

They exist as an attitude and a belief in society.

And you can reject it, just as you can reject any belief.

Even science rests on a hypothesis. The difference is that science recognises this, and doesn't claim to be truth. And that's why we trust it.

Because if patriarchy were a scientific hypothesis, you'd have tightly defined definitions as to what was meant by power, you'd have stats to support/insubstantiate, and if you had conflicting evidence, you'd have to review the hypothesis in order t account for the anomaly.

But above all else, a scientific hypothesis has to be in principle falsifiable. And every attempt I've made to make patriarchy in principle falsifiable, you've torn down. And every attempt I've made to engage with patriarchy advocates, to put forward something which in principle would prove that patriarchy is false/no longer exists, have been met by silence, or taken to mean I want a prediction of the future.

If patriarchy is not in principle verifiable/falsifiable, then it's not a truth proposition. It's a tautology, belief/dogmatic statement5 or a value.

This weakens your own argument, and I've been trying to get you to understand this.

Because anything other than empirical theories are attempts at interpreting the world, and to give meaning to it. And since patriarchy relies on the belief that men are superior, that has to be challenged right through society. By saying no, they're not.

Popper and falsifiability:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Falsificationism

[eFestivals]

OK, so how can a woman challenge patriarchy sexually?

they firstly have to recognise patriarchy.

They're not challenging it by pretending it's not there, are they?

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

Are they determined by men?

well, if as a man when with a woman I was to presume those as the only erotic zones, i'd soon be in trouble.

And yet the focus is on just those you name.

Ever stopped to wonder why?

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?

You can't change the need of breathing; not all changes you might want are possible.

But having said that, changes are possible - tho it needs a better take on things than you're managing.

I would suggest that you did some reading to find out, but you'd only claim that was an attempt to put you on the wrong path.

[feral chile]

Correct.

Division exists, up until the time that feral convinces everyone to agree with just her view of things - whilst her own disagreement with other feminists at this time is not the division amongst women she's so against, yeah?

I'm not the one calling people stupid or unread for refusing to accept patriarchy as universal.

I have taken on feminist theory in the past, and followed some of its principles. Particularly those associated with double standards - you know, men want sex, but despise women who give it to them.

[feral chile]

And how can you challenge patriarchy ie the belief that men control your sexuality, other than by saying, I control my own sexuality?

You saying, oh no you don't, men do - how is that challenging the value system (which is what patriarchy is) that says women are what men want?

When a woman says, I'm attracted to that man, I'm going to seduce him and enjoy his body, you're then saying 'yes, but that's you failing to recognise patriarchy, because all sex is for men, you only think you want to seduce him because men want to have sex with you'

Now, the above IS what I've been conditioned to think and that's why I'm trying to reject it, though I've only managed rational rejection, I'd still feel used.

Edited February 15, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

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?

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.

PMSL.

If you cannot see the huge logic error here, no wonder you're getting it all so wrong.

[feral chile]

Patriarchy is a value system that has resulted in greater privilege for men. To challenge it, you have to change the value system. That's rejecting its values. As I keep saying, the fact that we're discussing this at all means that times have changed, we've already seen it as unfair and not the natural order, so now we're dealing with historic privilege and ingrained conditioning.

An anachronistic society, in other words.

A huge amount has been achieved over the last few decades.

Edited February 15, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Difference being, if someone's trying to avoid being racist by changing their behaviour, they're not getting accused of failing to acknowledge white supremacy, in the way that women get accused of failing to acknowledge patriarchy.

someone can only try to avoid being racist WHEN they recognise that some races dominate others.

If they don't recognise that scenario, they cannot logically take a position against it. You cannot be against something that you're not aware of existing.

Now, apply the same with sexism.

[feral chile]

PMSL.

If you cannot see the huge logic error here, no wonder you're getting it all so wrong.

Patriarchy is a system based on gender supremacy. I reject the value system that has resulted in gender inequality.

Racism is a value system based on white supremacy. I reject the value system that has resulted in racial inequality.

No one group is superior to another.

No logic error at all.

Edited February 15, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

someone can only try to avoid being racist WHEN they recognise that some races dominate others.

If they don't recognise that scenario, they cannot logically take a position against it. You cannot be against something that you're not aware of existing.

Now, apply the same with sexism.

Yes, by taking that power away from the dominant group. By undermining their value system, and by creating equal opportunities.

That's been done in a legislative sense already. Now we're looking at why legislation isn't enough, and how to change historic power bases and attitudes.

Feminists have done an amazing job already since the 70s. Look at old TV series/films from before then, where it was deemed OK to seduce a woman who had said no, spank her for speaking back to you, get her drunk and trick her into the sack, etc. etc.

Now they make us cringe, because we've moved on. And they're actually illegal now, too.

I actually object to the image of men portrayed as roaming tomcats, as well. I think it's insulting to the majority of men, who are decent human beings.

Edited February 15, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

To challenge it, you have to change the value system.

which first requires a recognition of those values.

You can't act to change something you don't recognise as needing changing.

As I keep saying, the fact that we're discussing this at all means that times have changed, we've already seen it as unfair and not the natural order, so now we're dealing with historic privilege and ingrained conditioning.

Yes, times have changed. They changed when the recognition of the problem of male dominance came into being.

Is it "the natural order"? That's a matter of discussion. There's a well-founded view that patriarchy (tho not necessarily the version of it acted out today) it is the natural order, as a consequence of natural biological differences.

Putting that "natural order" question aside, the version of it we live out today is certainly the result of history and conditioning, where much have come from human social constructs - and those can certainly be acted against, and the effect of patriarchy lessened by doing so.

When we've taken those steps forwards we'll be able to better see the issues around patriarchy, to see where we go next with the fight. That's the only way it's possible to tackle what is culturally ingrained.

A huge amount has been achieved over the last few decades.

A huge amount compared to the almost 'nothing' prior to that, yes.

But we've not even scratched the surface yet.

Edited February 15, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Patriarchy is a system based on gender supremacy. I reject the value system that has resulted in gender inequality.

Racism is a value system based on white supremacy. I reject the value system.

No one group is superior to another.

No logic error at all.

Yes there is - to reject racism, you have to firstly accept its presence.

Are you *now* saying that you accept the existence of patriarchy?

If you are, then you need to be placing your comments within your acceptance of it, and not in one moment (just here) say you accept it, to then only make endless comments where you say you don't.

[eFestivals]

Yes, by taking that power away from the dominant group. By undermining their value system, and by creating equal opportunities.

That's been done in a legislative sense already.

Has it?

Again: I suggest more reading.

[feral chile]

Has it?

Again: I suggest more reading.

Equality Act, rape laws.

[eFestivals]

Equality Act, rape laws.

your words implied *everything* had been done in the legislative sense.

I was pointing out that's bollocks.

[feral chile]

Yes there is - to reject racism, you have to firstly accept its presence.

Are you *now* saying that you accept the existence of patriarchy?

If you are, then you need to be placing your comments within your acceptance of it, and not in one moment (just here) say you accept it, to then only make endless comments where you say you don't.

I accept its presence in exactly the same way as I accept racism, but so far, all I'm 'hearing' is the equivalent of a native American trying to explain that his value system isn't based on property ownership, and being told he doesn't recognise racism because he isn't being white enough to follow the American Dream.

[feral chile]

your words implied *everything* had been done in the legislative sense.

I was pointing out that's bollocks.

everything in the example I mentioned. I was going to put some thngs, then realised the particular examples I'd used had been made illegal.

Though I'm not suggesting that, apart from the provisions in the EA, which are meant to be vague enough to cover future inequalities of opportunity, that in practice we're all on a level playing field.

because I don't accept that legislation is enough.

Edited February 15, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I accept its presence in exactly the same way as I accept racism, but so far, all I'm 'hearing' is the equivalent of a native American trying to explain that his value system isn't based on property ownership, and being told he doesn't recognise racism because he isn't being white enough to follow the American Dream.

You're being told you're not recognising the extent it reaches into everything - as you just demonstrated with your claim that everything has been done legislative.

Is the problem with the idea I'm trying to make you aware of? Or is the problem with your awareness?

I've suggested that more reading can give you the answers, because I know that it can. What you are choosing to post makes clear that it can.

[feral chile]

And when I provide counter arguments, all they are, are examples of alternatives, I'm not proposing them as THE alternative.

[feral chile]

You're being told you're not recognising the extent it reaches into everything - as you just demonstrated with your claim that everything has been done legislative.

Is the problem with the idea I'm trying to make you aware of? Or is the problem with your awareness?

I've suggested that more reading can give you the answers, because I know that it can. What you are choosing to post makes clear that it can.

I do accept the way it reaches into everything, particularly the language we use. That's what I'm suggesting we tackle.

All I'm saying is that the idea that patriarchy is based on - that men SHOULD rule - has already been challenged, very few of us think that's true. But if what you're saying is that it's ingrained into us, we bring our kids up to think it etc. etc., then yes, it's at a fundamental level.

We feminists of the 80s tried to be conscious of this when we raised our children. I'm not saying there still wasn't a lot of unconscious bias going on, still, but we knew about some of it - teaching girls to be pleasant and boys to be assertive, rough and tumble play with boys, gentle cuddles with girls, avoiding gender specific role modelling with parents, avoiding gender specific toys, etc. etc.

I did all that. In fact, I'm way too likely to take offence if someone asks me to do a traditional woman thing, and likely to say 'make your own'.

All I'm saying is, I'm not sure if all that we tried to do wasn't actually counter productive. I have mixed feelings about the ladette culture. And maybe offering someone a cup of tea is being hospitable, and not subjugating myself under patriarchy.

ALL I'm saying is that there are no easy answers. Any counter attack women make to patriarchy CAN get subsumed under it. Trying to level the playing field by setting masculine values as your goal MIGHT be self defeating.

The only thing that seems to provide any sense of female autonomy to me, is to respect each woman enough to accept her choices.

And believe me, I have my own bias to struggle with. Overt femininity does it for me, and I'm never sure if that's feminism. because it's me opposing pandering to gender stereotypes, or sexism, and it's me pandering to machismo and wanting to be more masculine.

And that last bit, is why I think Page 3 girls, and trendy celebrity-follower types, should be free to make their own life choices without me being condescending towards them. Precisely because the patriarchy conditioning is unconscious and present in all of us.

It feels to me as though the patriarchy advocates feel that somehow it doesn't infiltrate their own attitudes. I know it infiltrates mine, and that's why I don't feel qualified to decide what Page 3 girls should do.

Edited February 15, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

You're being told you're not recognising the extent it reaches into everything - as you just demonstrated with your claim that everything has been done legislative.

Is the problem with the idea I'm trying to make you aware of? Or is the problem with your awareness?

I've suggested that more reading can give you the answers, because I know that it can. What you are choosing to post makes clear that it can.

But reading what? I've studied feminist theory as part of loads of different courses, from a sociological, psychological, historical, literature, political and philosophical perspective.

You would need to be more precise in what you think I'm misunderstanding/misremembering/unaware of, because it's either missing reading or possible misinterpretation of what I've already read.