What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

You preceeded the question with my answer

No, your answer relied on definitions that you say don't exist.

[eFestivals]

which one are we discussing?

which one are you rejecting?

That's a more relevant question, seeing as you've said they serve no purpose.

Edited February 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

cool.

I'll go away

brilliant tony, absolutely brilliant.

You get called out on what you've said, and manage to blame me for what you've said.

Fucking trolling moron. Still, you've been out-trolled by your own methods.

PS: tony realises his trolling has been spotted by others, and that's him done.

Edited February 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

?

what, this:

when you reject something, what are you rejecting? Nothing, or something?

(the clue is in the word 'something').

any discussion is "nit picking" at the different views, for fucks sake.

Edited February 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

If there's no patriarchy, women are not put upon by men.

If there's no sexism, women are not disadvantaged.

And if there's no feminism, even if those things above existed women wish to do nothing about them.

And so the answer to the question: what do women want is...?

Nothing at all.

I'm glad tony has cleared that up.

Edited February 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[fred quimby]

And so the answer to the question: what do women want is...?

Nothing at all.

*Cancels weekend to Paris and books a week away with mates*..

Cheers

[feral chile]

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?

I'm so glad I have a man who can read my mind and explain it back to me. As a behaviourist, I like to rely on others to observe and measure my inner states, such as embarrassment levels.

So please, feel free to keep me notified of my motivational and emotional state, as I don't have access to them in the same way you do.

Edited February 17, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I'm so glad I have a man who can read my mind and explain it back to me. As a behaviourist, I like to rely on others to observe and measure my inner states, such as embarrassment levels.

So please, feel free to keep me notified of my motivational and emotional state, as I don't have access to them in the same way you do.

so why do you keep trying to re-write history? Rhetorical question.

I don't care about your reasons, but I do care that you stop doing it.

Move on, FFS.

[feral chile]

Discussion of patriarchy as viewed by different disciplines:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Patriarchy

Edited February 17, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

if you're bored with a thread why don't you just leave it alone.

the same might be asked of someone who is so very far out of their depth they have nothing to contribute, and can only display the huge depth of their ignorance by saying the most ridiculous thing.

Meanwhile, what i'm bored with are feral's fallacies, and not the thread.

Edited February 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

so why do you keep trying to re-write history? Rhetorical question.

I don't care about your reasons, but I do care that you stop doing it.

Move on, FFS.

You do realise that's an extremely ironic statement, as part of the feminist movement is precisely TO rewrite history?

Women are under represented in history, and we did exist back then, you know.

[feral chile]

the same might be asked of someone who is so very far out of their depth they have nothing to contribute, and can only display the huge depth of their ignorance by saying the most ridiculous thing.

Meanwhile, what i'm bored with are feral's fallacies, and not the thread.

Not as bored as I am with your attempts to prove patriarchy is alive and well by attempting to prove your dominance in every thread you participate in.

You don't have to embody the bloody thing, neil.

[eFestivals]

You do realise that's an extremely ironic statement, as part of the feminist movement is precisely TO rewrite history?

really? I don't think there's much mileage in a better tomorrow for women via a pretence of a false past.

[eFestivals]

Not as bored as I am with your attempts to prove patriarchy is alive and well by attempting to prove your dominance in every thread you participate in.

You don't have to embody the bloody thing, neil.

You'd have a point if I treated you differently because you're a women.

Your difficulties here exist precisely because I won't.

[eFestivals]

You could still leave it alone.

ditto.

Why do you think I should run away because you're proving yourselfg an idiot?

You ran away as soon as someone other than me pointed out you were being a prat, and then you're back here being the same moron the instant you feel the protection of your gang.

You're still only after an argument with me - as proven by you going straight back to that - and won't actually address the questions you were posed about what you posted.

[eFestivals]

Where would the world be without Neil...?

I dunno about the world, but you'd be somewhere different to here.

[feral chile]

You'd have a point if I treated you differently because you're a women.

Your difficulties here exist precisely because I won't.

I'm not accusing you of being sexist.

I liked this article discussing patriarchy, I thought there were some good points in it

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Patriarchy

[feral chile]

I answered the question. You just didn't like it.

my gang...

Is that me and you?

Cool, I haven't been in a gang since I was a girl

Though shouldn't I feel under your protection, since I'm female and you're male?

You know what, I really don't think I get this patriarchy thing, what happens if you don't understand it enough to live by its rules?

Do you have to believe in power to be subjugated by it?

(rhetorical question - I'm curious myself).

Edited February 17, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I answered the question. You just didn't like it.

I didn't like it, true. But not because you answered it.

[eFestivals]

I'm not accusing you of being sexist.

I liked this article discussing patriarchy, I thought there were some good points in it

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Patriarchy

patriarchy for dummies...?

seriously, if that's the sort of thing you've been going by, it explains a lot.

Edited February 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

from that article:

“Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence.”

— bell hooks

Suggests that it depends on a belief system to me. So if you take down the belief system, you take down the political-social system.

[eFestivals]

Suggests that it depends on a belief system to me. So if you take down the belief system, you take down the political-social system.

That's a pretty radical definition, quite a way from the norm.

But if you go with that idea, care to tell me how you take down a belief system when *everyone* is schooled in that belief (women included, you included)?

It's waaaay beyond just trying to take down a religion, and no one has got remotely close to taking down any religion (even the more nutty 'modern' ones).

Edited February 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

That's a pretty radical definition, quite a way from the norm.

But if you go with that idea, care to tell me how you take down a belief system when *everyone* is schooled in that belief (women included, you included)?

It's waaaay beyond just trying to take down a religion, and no one has got remotely close to taking down any religion (even the more nutty 'modern' ones).

That's my question, right through this thread.

I said earlier on, I fight a bias against overt feminine behaviour, particularly helplessness etc. I get annoyed when I see women portrayed as needing protection, and screaming helplessly while their loved one gets beaten. I get annoyed with myself when I feel helpless, whether I have to rely on a man's help or not.

So, in my younger days, my nickname was 'Suzi' because I drank pints, did the leather jacket and jeans thing and modelled myself on Suzi Quatro and Joan Jett.

Of course, penis envy was a big issue too, so that expression of identity wasn't really right either.

But can you see, the first step to challenge patriarchy, is for women to claim their sovereignty. And can you see how difficult that is, when even feminists believe that we live in a system where that's impossible.

I'm seriously depressed with how this conversation has gone, because women have to be given credibility, people have to accept that they know their own minds, and even if, to start with, they make mistakes, and maybe perpetuate the patriarchy system, they can't take back control over their own selves, unless they assert their independence.

And I feel that patriarchy, and feminists wanting me to accept the existence of it, are sabotaging my attempts to claim my own independence from it.

Neil, I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but can you see the dilemma I'm outlining?

Edited February 17, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

really? I don't think there's much mileage in a better tomorrow for women via a pretence of a false past.

It's not a false past, it's an undocumented past.

[feral chile]

Tony, while Neil is definitely being an aggressive dick he's right. Having a reasoned debate (not that this is one right now) requires a mutual understanding of the concepts involved, and ensuring a shared definition of the important terms used.

yes, it does. Which is why we need to establish whether we agree on what power bases count, and whether they've changed.

Patriarchy suggests males enjoy power throughout society, so we'd have to look at precisely what's meant by that.

And then try to discover if the stats back it up. And if things have improved over time.

As an example, I don't think men are seen as the head of the household so much now, with the decline of heavy industry, the service industry has grown. Women are less likely to be given housekeeping, men are less likely to be the breadwinner, and there's a more equal split.

That's not to suggest that I think economic power is the only power to be considered, I think the role of educators is important. There are female power bases, though they tend t be less hierarchical in structure.

And if we're discussing whether all thinking has to be defined by patriarchy, we need to be looking at what would count as something not defined by patriarchy.

Because at the moment, it seems that the argument seems to be, that any examples against patriarchy are being ruled invalid, either because they're deemed to be inherently patriarchal no matter what their content, or they're being dismissed as an irrelevant denial of the validity of patriarchy. Both attempts to assert female autonomy, or benefits, are dismissed, as are attempts to assert male dependence, and male disadvantage.

We need more stringent criteria than that, otherwise the discussion just descends into assertions on both sides, with only opinion to shore up each opposing view.