What women (don't) want.

[bunique]

I'd disagree with this to the same extent I'd disagree with women being called out for the same.

That's not me saying it should never happen. It's me saying that in most instances it's rather pointless, just as much as it would be to (say) harangue a 'glamour model' personally for getting her tits out in the paper.

The issues are not really about personal behaviour where we've been conditioned into acting in particular ways. We'll only change such things via a proper understanding of how they come to be.

Is this where the criticism of Tony's "chipping away" comment comes from? Can't we do both - challenge the small stuff while working on a deeper understanding of why we are where we are?

[bunique]

Anyway, I'm off to cook dinner and do the washing up like a good little housewife

[eFestivals]

Is this where the criticism of Tony's "chipping away" comment comes from? Can't we do both - challenge the small stuff while working on a deeper understanding of why we are where we are?

I didn't criticise anything about tony's "chipping away" comment.

I simply pointed out that him following that with "anything else is divisive" was bollocks. Nothing can be chipped away at without it exposing the divisions.

Edited February 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

Is this where the criticism of Tony's "chipping away" comment comes from? Can't we do both - challenge the small stuff while working on a deeper understanding of why we are where we are?

where are we exactly (in this country)?

I mean as a man, I cannot fathom what it is like to live life as a woman. What is it like? What are the urgent things that need changing? What oppression do you experience on a daily basis?

I'm genuinely curious. How difficult it is it being a woman in the uk in 2015?

If only we could all switch bodies for a day.

Edited February 16, 2015 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

Decisive?

apols for the wrongly-predictive text.

I of course mean "divisive", and I've now corrected it in the post above.

[LondonTom]

I was posting particularly in response to Kaos's post about challenging certain terminology. I was just picturing how that discussion might go in the pub, for example, where I can see the response to a man putting up the challenge being less dismissive than the response to a woman.

Not sure about that, depends on the crowd of course but I reckon most semi decent men would be willing to take on board a woman being upset about something than a man complaining on her behalf.

I think the most likely responce to a man pulling up another man on something sexist would be along the lines of implying his gay or that his being a woman about it.

Edited February 16, 2015 by LondonTom

[bunique]

where are we exactly (in this country)?

I mean as a man, I cannot fathom what it is like to live life as a woman. What is it like? What are the urgent things that need changing? What oppression do you experience on a daily basis?

I'm genuinely curious. How difficult it is it being a woman in the uk in 2015?

If only we could all switch bodies for a day.

You'd spend all day playing with your new boobs

I don't know. I think every woman will experience it differently. As an example, I was reading a thread on Mumsnet earlier about the difficulties experienced by women who have taken a couple of years out of the workplace in securing another job. Perhaps that's down to the economic downturn. Would a man face the same problem if he decided to be a stay-at-home-dad for a while? Possibly, but the cultural (and legislative, I think?) expectation is that if one of a couple is going to stay at home it will be the woman. I'm not sure what the solution to that is.

[bunique]

I know there is also an argument about it being personal choice to have a family and that is the natural consequence.

[eFestivals]

You'd spend all day playing with your new boobs

I don't know. I think every woman will experience it differently. As an example, I was reading a thread on Mumsnet earlier about the difficulties experienced by women who have taken a couple of years out of the workplace in securing another job. Perhaps that's down to the economic downturn. Would a man face the same problem if he decided to be a stay-at-home-dad for a while? Possibly, but the cultural (and legislative, I think?) expectation is that if one of a couple is going to stay at home it will be the woman. I'm not sure what the solution to that is.

I'll just point out that *ANYONE* who is out of the workforce for a while finds it significantly harder to get a job than someone who has been out of work for a short time.

So while the reason women might be out of the workforce can be different, there's not necessarily such a big difference on how they're viewed when they try to return to work.

(tho I fully accept that it's quite possible that an employer will be thinking about whether that mum is likely to have more kids sometime soon).

[russycarps]

I'll just point out that *ANYONE* who is out of the workforce for a while finds it significantly harder to get a job than someone who has been out of work for a short time.

So while the reason women might be out of the workforce can be different, there's not necessarily such a big difference on how they're viewed when they try to return to work.

(tho I fully accept that it's quite possible that an employer will be thinking about whether that mum is likely to have more kids sometime soon).

Yeh I think your last paragraph nails it.

A 30 year old newly-wed woman would have difficulty finding employment, as people will be thinking "she's bound to be getting pregnant soon". So if she was up against a man, the man would have a definite advantage.

But I dont think that demonstrates a woman-hating society.

[gary1979666]

I think if it was a man vs a woman and both had been out of work for a couple of years looking after children, I'd be more inclined to hire the woman (all other things being equal). I'd almost be suspicious of why the man had made that decision and think there was a different reason for the time out.

[kaosmark2]

I'd disagree with this to the same extent I'd disagree with women being called out for the same.

That's not me saying it should never happen. It's me saying that in most instances it's rather pointless, just as much as it would be to (say) harangue a 'glamour model' personally for getting her tits out in the paper.

The issues are not really about personal behaviour where we've been conditioned into acting in particular ways. We'll only change such things via a proper understanding of how they come to be.

I think it depends on the circumstance. If its a friend, and you explain why you dislike their phrasing or language it might make them think. Approaching a random bloke in the pub whining to his mates is a different thing. As is intervening when someone is being obviously threatening.

[eFestivals]

It's not woman-hating. But it is man-preferring.

not in the particular example russy outlined.

It's "self-preservation" by that business rather than the outright sexism of simply wanting a man. Like it or not, there's solid business reasons for why in that example (if everything else is equal) the man is better for that business.

That's not me saying that it has to remain that way, tho I've yet to see anyone come up with anything to adequately address the issue that doesn't merely move the 'bad' impact from the woman to a business.

Edited February 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

It's not woman-hating. But it is man-preferring.

Men sleep around and they're applauded for it. Women do it and they're sluts.

I dont think the employer in the situation I described could give a shit about who the man or the woman have slept with. What on earth is the relevance in that sentence?

It's nothing to do with the sexes at all really. It's a business decision. It's not about inherently preferring a man to a woman

[russycarps]

not in the particular example russy outlined.

It's "self-preservation" by that business rather than the outright sexism of simply wanting a man. Like it or not, there's solid business reasons for why in that example (if everything else is equal) the man is better for that business.

That's not me saying that it has to remain that way, tho I've yet to see anyone come up with anything to adequately address the issue that doesn't merely move the 'bad' impact from the woman to a business.

Exactly. For me, citing this issue weakens the feminist position. This is not about sexism at all.

[feral chile]

There certainly are strands of feminist thinking that can be interpreted as anti-men, girls like this one make my eyes pop (not just the original blog, but some of the comments to go with it) :

https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/utopia-what-would-a-womens-society-look-like/

Whohee. Not sure why she wants to keep this small number of isolated men once they've cleaned up the mess, as women will experiment with parthenogenesis? Perhaps just in case it doesn't work out.

Anyway, there's overkill in every movement and it doesn't mean we have to run with it all. Although, as an old hippie, I like the idea of living with our natural surroundings wherever possible, instead of "conquering" them (there's a figure of speech that shows up a certain type of thinking!), as a heterosexual woman with a son to boot (and plenty of male friends), I can only give this stuff the cold shoulder. But some people really seem to think that this is the logical conclusion of feminism. (No one send this link to Paul Elam's website, please, he'll have a field day!).

I can see why the middle class focus didn't do much for you. When I was about 19, in the 80s, a friend gave me The Feminine Mystique to read. It was already an old hat by then, but new to me. As I ploughed through the descriptions of misery amongst housewives in US-american suburbs and the idea that having a job would make their lives so much better, I kept thinking: that's all very well, but girls, do you have any idea how bl**dy knackering it is to have a job, several children & a household to run? And how much housework and responsibilities your older children will end up with at a young age? Because I'd been there, my mother worked full time, my father often worked long late hours, and she was always exhausted, and I was left to look after my younger brother and a mountain of washing up when I got home from school. Then I realised these women would employ a housekeeper. Ah.

But that doesn't mean that the basic feminist idea, that women should not be in a sub-ordinated position, is wrong. I do think feminism is widely misunderstood, and that is one of the reasons why a lot of younger women try to distance themselves from it with something like" "but I do like men!" - erm, yes, so do I (although not all of them, but then again, I do not like all women either). And I would certainly accept men's opinions and support.

One of the biggest problems is that we are struggling with a mindset. I think I read it somewhere in one of Simone de B.'s books, that it isn't just about gaining power and financial independence, but about the entrenched belief of men - thinking of themselves as something naturally superior to women, and that is what is so hard to tackle (I'll try to find the proper quote when I have time). I'll never forget the day my brother said to me "I'm not having a girl telling me what to do!!". He was about four and I was seven, and my mother had asked me to make sure that he came to no harm whilst she was doing something else. Of course he liked doing dangerous things as 4-year-olds do, and when he came out with that sentence (he'd been trying to climb up a window, and I'd told him to stop), I was thunderstruck (that's why I remember it so well). I knew what he was like and I'd expected him to say: "I won't have you telling me what to do." But the fact that he based his refusal on me being a girl was really quite something.

To be fair, I had a working class chip on my shoulder as well, and was annoyed at what I perceived to be privileged women who had no idea what it was like to be really bottom of the pile. I'm older now, and can understand more that a woman can still suffer domestic violence and be subject to financial control, no matter which class she belongs to.

Though a lot of them were as vitriolic as that woman in the article, and I did get attacked for being married, collaborating with the enemy, as it were, and for having a male as one of my closest friends, a bisexual one at that (who was very camp, so was probably assumed to be gay). Because men preferring men made them the ultimate misogynists, and every feminist except me was a lesbian, though somehow it seemed political rather than a sexual orientation.

I thought it was a question about the alternatives to patriarchy.

It seems to me that a lot of the debate turns on the use of certain words and how they have been applied. So what does "reject" mean - not to acknowledge the existence of something, or a desire to actively resist it - people seem to be using it with different meanings. Also, you've said several times that I am one of those who "advocate" patriarchy, but advocate to me means to publicly recommend or support something, and I really don't think that this is what I'm doing. But I don't think of it as a way of thinking, I think of it as a problem to gnaw away at.

There's a lot of stuff to pick up on, I can't believe that you all have spent the weekend doing this - you're definitely more dedicated to the cause than I am!

And you don't have young children!

It's more that I don't understand why you and neil think I'm ignoring/failing to acknowledge patriarchy, when all I'm trying to do is undermine the idea that male power is absolute, and trying to defend female autonomy and self determination.

I have enough trouble trying to control my own bias - it's not that I can't be completely intellectually snobby about Page 3, and 'airheads', and am - but how can I defend my right to be less stereotypically feminine, without their right to be just as they are?

Maybe they're more true to their sex - maybe I'm aspiring t be masculine, with my logic and butch ways

Ad that's the bit that concerns me - there's no way to ever know how or if we can escape cultural conditioning - but trying not to attach a penis and vagina to particular behaviours and personality traits might be a start.

Edited February 16, 2015 by feral chile

[russycarps]

Sorry, it wasn't clear. The second statement wasn't anything to do with the first. It was an example of how women aren't treated equally

Back to this ^^ post...of course it's to do with the sexes. It's to do with the fact that women have babies and men don't. Yes, it's a business decision too

It's purely a business decision, nothing else. It's irrelevant that it's a woman.

[feral chile]

I think where we're misunderstanding each other is because I perceive the patriarchy perspective to contain not just sexism, but male supremacy - if you asked me if sexism exists, I'd say yes, of course - but patriarchy, because it implies so much more than bias, the two strands of it are getting reduced to one.

So, I'm trying to challenge the idea of male supremacy (patriarchy in that sense), by saying - uh-huh, men can be challenged regarding their power base, they're not as strong as they think they are, women are stronger than you think - which to me, is a challenge to the dominance part of the argument, and to me, is a form of resistance.

the other side of it, is that I think changing cultural values is a very subtle process, and I can understand that some of the words I used in the other thread were poor choices, and they did reflect my personal antipathy to dominance and control, no matter which sex has it. And that's where gender bias comes in.

so yes, I think it is a question of semantics.

I don't like the use of the term patriarchy to refer to all of this, because it's leading to confusion and making it more difficult for women to wage war on the perceived superiority of men - which is where my war is located.

It would be like referring to racism as white supremacy, and then asking a black man to acknowledge it.

And what I hear (I know this isn't what midnight and neil mean) every time I get accused of failing to acknowledge patriarchy is 'men rule, get used to it, stop getting uppity about it and know your place, woman!'

Edited February 16, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I don't like the use of the term patriarchy to refer to all of this, because it's leading to confusion and making it more difficult for women to wage war on the perceived superiority of men - which is where my war is located.

except it's not a war when women go along with what men want, which was your suggested solution. It undermines nothing, and reinforces everything.

It would be like referring to racism as white supremacy, and then asking a black man to acknowledge it.

racism doesn't exist unless he does.

And what I hear (I know this isn't what midnight and neil mean) every time I get accused of failing to acknowledge patriarchy is 'men rule, get used to it, stop getting uppity about it and know your place, woman!'

That's your failing, not mine.

I'm merely reminding you that pretending that men don't rule is pointless. It takes you nowhere positive, it only takes you into delusion.

Recognise the fight and take it on. Don't pretend it's not there and have a pretend fight with yourself.

[feral chile]

Well why else would you be nice to women? They're not like real people.

AND all men want to dominate women. except when they want a dominatrix. But she's not really a dominatrix, because the man wants to be dominated, So really he's the dominant one, even when he's being led around on a lead (or whatever it is).

And next time a woman pisses you off, remember you must have wanted her to really, because she can only think in patriarchy defined ways.

poor little love.

Edited February 16, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

the answer to your question is revealed by your own choice of words.

You've said a feminist is a particular thing, then given an example of a male doing something different, and suggested that they're the same.

Back to what you were really getti8ng at....

As can be seen within this discussion, some women refuse to accept the right of men to have an opinion even when it's supportive - so it's hardly a surprise that some men might choose to take those women at their word.

That idea has been behind my own input here, where I've declined to lay out the arguments feminists make and instead suggested that women go and find out for themselves.

Mind you, I reject entirely the anti-intellectual view that a man is unable to make any worthwhile contribution. That's a line for the morons as a way to shut down discussion.

I'd guess if you were a little older you might better get what's behind that - which is, essentially, feminism of the 70s, which plenty of women found too radical for the fluffy pink kitten strokers those women wish to imagine themselves as.

neil - it's not supportive to ram your opinion down my throat.

so to speak.

and then accuse me of being a bad feminist because I keep choking on it.

And being stupid for not wanting to swallow it.

Edited February 16, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

what is it (the decision) based on?

who is likely to have the best cost benefit to the business.

While everything about a man and woman is (in this hypothetical example) equal with their abilities towards the employment on offer, it's not necessary equal going into the future.

The woman is more likely to take a length of time off (to have a child), which has an added cost to the business of temporarily replacing her, training up the replacement, etc, etc.

It's not anti-woman, it's merely a recognition of the extra potential business costs of one choice over the other.

I've yet to see anyone come up with any solution to this.

[eFestivals]

AND all men want to dominate women. except when they want a dominatrix. But she's not really a dominatrix, because the man wants to be dominated, So really he's the dominant ne, even when he's being led around on a lead (or whatever it is).

And next time a woman pisses you off, remember you must have wanted her to really, because she can only think in patriarchy defined ways.

poor little love.

you don't get it, do you?

[feral chile]

or to put it another way, why else would you give up your place at the top table and all the advantages it affords?

Because that top table you're at puts you at higher risk for all sorts of things. The risks, for me, outweigh the advantages.

[eFestivals]

neil - it's not supportive to ram your opinion down my throat.

It's ramming nothing to say that some people were surprised and disappointed in your take on things.

That's all it took for you to lose the plot. Stop with the revisionist bollocks, eh?

and then accuse me of being a bad feminist because I keep choking on it.

at no point did I accuse you of being a bad feminist.

I will call you a very bad liar tho, because that's what you're turning into in trying to rinse what you did.

And being stupid for not wanting to swallow it.

I called you stupid (if I actually did, I'm not sure I actually did) for putting forwards a "strong" line which was simply a suck-up of men's wants in a woman's cloak.

If you can't see that's what you were advocating, the problem is your memory, your choice of lie, or your understanding of patriarchy.

Get over what you posted, FFS. It's getting really REALLY boring.