What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

If feminism is a belief in pursuing equal rights for women, and a man believes women should be equal to men, then surely that makes them a feminist? I am often bemused by the fact educated women will say "I'm not a feminist" - it makes me want to shake them and ask if they therefore believe they are or should be subservient to men!

Well, it's because it sounds pro-women rather than pro equality.

What's the equivalent for the fight against racism?

[feral chile]

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?

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.

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.

how am I trying to rinse what I said? I just think that the concept, and its solution, is a massively complex one.

I don't like the term patriarchy, I don't like the implication that it's universal and absolute, and I feel that the whole question of power is value ridden to start with.

You keep asking what patriarchy is, and all my arguments have been about the terms within what it is, and how they're defined.

There is hope. Large employers are actually addressing the mobility problem that's a barrier to a lot of women, there's a lot more emphasis on managers developing their staff now, which lessens the disadvantage faced by women seeking advancement.

ALL I'm saying, is that, if patriarchy was still as pervasive as it once was, we wouldn't be questioning it. So it's valid and yet not. The only way it'll manage to perpetuate itself is if everyone refuses to admit that any change is a change away from it, and the change gets subsumed into 'what men want'

The example I mentioned earlier - I'm quite butch, I'm a bit dismissive of overtly feminine women, whether that's expressed as baring their breasts or pink feather boas.

Now, I can see how each of those examples of femininity can be interpreted as a gender bias in favour of men - either aspiring to be men (butch) or be attractive to men (adhering to cultural stereotypes of femininity.

But if we persist in interpreting every expression of identity/sexuality as evidence of patriarchy, we can never successfully challenge it, because we are ensuring its survival by applying it to the way we interpret reality.

The ONLY way to challenge patriarchy, which is gender bias, is by getting rid of gender bias. And we can only do that when we only apply the terms masculine and feminine to reproductive classifications, and use stats for everything else.

Why are there are of one sex doing this, that and the other, and why that is.

And we also have to try to find a way of not automatically assigning a higher status for every area where women are under-represented, and a lower status for every area where men are under-represented. To avoid women aspiring to particular professions and men avoiding them.

So that's why a lot of my arguments try to be a reversal of status values. Sure, the reason why men are under represented in the caring professions and over represented in the boardroom is because of gender stereotyping, but let's raise/lower the profiles of the professions, as well as trying to get equal numbers.

[feral chile]

you don't get it, do you?

No, I really, really don't.

And don't even talk to me about bloody dominatrice(sp?) I've had to agree to go watch 50 Shades to avoid upsetting someone.

Edited February 16, 2015 by feral chile

[bunique]

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!'

Surely "supremacy" is a belief that men/whites are stronger, not an actuality? Patriarchy is not about strength but about power

[russycarps]

what is it (the decision) based on?

Recruiting staff is very costly and time consuming. It makes no sense to employ someone who is perceived to have a high risk of leaving in the near future (30 year old woman, newly wed) if there is a lower risk alternative.

It's not about man versus woman. It's cold, emotionless logic.

[russycarps]

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

I don't understand what risks men face by being at the top table? They've coped with that position since time began. What risks does the modern world pose?

[feral chile]

I don't understand what risks men face by being at the top table? They've coped with that position since time began. What risks does the modern world pose?

http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/mortality.html

[feral chile]

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.

racism doesn't exist unless he does.

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.

This is what I'm trying to do - figuratively speaking, patriarchy's saying 'I'm boss' and I'm saying 'oh no you're not, sunshine, we're just letting you think you are, so you can die sooner than us, get trapped in soul destroying jobs, and suppress all your emotions and social connections, in order to take all the risks. Sure, you can have all the glory too - we get the standard of living and status associated with you, if we're prepared to put up with your chest-puffing - that's the least we can do to reward you for being such a good boy'.

[feral chile]

Surely "supremacy" is a belief that men/whites are stronger, not an actuality? Patriarchy is not about strength but about power

maybe that's where I'm getting confused then, I'm not talking necessarily about physical strength, though that's supposedly where the supremacy/dominance comes in.

Though it's a silly argument, that one. Humans have poor physical strength compared to other predators, but we're still a dominant species.

are men dominant because we all think they are?

[feral chile]

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?

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.

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.

Are we still fixated on that? Why are you so obsessed with it? I was nowhere NEAR as patronising as you often are.

Edited February 16, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Surely "supremacy" is a belief that men/whites are stronger, not an actuality? Patriarchy is not about strength but about power

That's how I feel about the patriarchy concept, though, because it's claiming that women (and men, I suppose) are so conditioned by patriarchy, that they can't define their own sexuality. So whether they're sexy, modest, ultra butch, feminine, it's all culturally defined. By patriarchy.

I'll go with culturally defined, but philosophically speaking, (and scientifically, actually), there's no way to say for sure what works with or against patriarchy, then. Because if you have a value system that places your truth value as patriarchy - male power so pervasive that you can't act without being influenced by it - there's no way to test it. There's nothing outside of it. And therefore, by definition, no way free of it.

Edited February 16, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Surely "supremacy" is a belief that men/whites are stronger, not an actuality? Patriarchy is not about strength but about power

And power is about political strength, isn't it? Dominance?

[feral chile]

I just tend to focus on values (which is what patriarchy does, after all). But I want the freedom to focus on values that favour women unfairly, as well as those that favour men unfairly (or to put it another way, disadvantage people).

[Katster]

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.

From April this year men and women can split maternity leave and pay between the two of them equally.

[Katster]

However they choose to, too. So if the man wants the full 12 months, and the woman is happy for him to do so, he can.

[bunique]

But in reality if a woman intends to exclusively breastfeed for the first 6 months, it's not a practical solution.

[russycarps]

But in reality if a woman intends to exclusively breastfeed for the first 6 months, it's not a practical solution.

which is a pretty special thing to be able to do.

I wonder if a woman would trade being able to breast feed a baby, for having an advantage when it comes to seeking employment?

The bond that forms between a mother and child thanks to breastfeeding is something I view with envy. But hey! at least I might have a better chance of getting a job when I'm 30 and newly wed.

[eFestivals]

and that's not anti-woman?

I see nuances aren't your strong point.

It acts against women, yes, but it doesn't exist for the purposes of penalising women.

It exists as a consequence of capitalism. It's about chasing capital, and not acting against women.

Edited February 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

All the labelling (patriarchy, sexism, feminism, etc) just stifles the real debate.

]

only when you don't understand what they mean tony.

That's the big problem here. People are talking shite when pretending they know what they're talking about.

Making it up in your head isn't worthless, but it does put you at a huge disadvantage when discussing with others who are a million miles in front of your just-had thoughts.

Edited February 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Are we still fixated on that? Why are you so obsessed with it? I was nowhere NEAR as patronising as you often are.

The fixation is all your own, which is why you're continually trying to rinse what you said that has embarrassed you so hugely.

Why do you think I'm going to sit here and not point that out each time you try and hide what you said behind an attack on me?

[eFestivals]

From April this year men and women can split maternity leave and pay between the two of them equally.

yep, tho they can't split the pregnancy.

[eFestivals]

are men dominant because we all think they are?

more reading on patriarchy required. You're still missing the *VERY* basics.

[eFestivals]

What is t

oh look, tony likes the irrelevant.

[eFestivals]

Yes, that's what I said.

it's nothing of what you said. You said it was anti-woman.

[eFestivals]

and you said it was against women

We agree

I said it acts against women.

That's a very different thing to something which is designed to act against women - which is the "anti-women" you said it was.