What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

OK, now this is the bit about patriarchy arguments I don't understand.

Are these women challenging patriarchal attitudes, or are they

kidding themselves?

If you need to ask the question, you need to read more about patriarchy so you better understand it.

[eFestivals]

Thank you. I had a strong feeling that was/is the case.

I was also fairly sure that that was what Neil was getting at too (pointing out the difference between biological determinism and the nature/nurture debate).

I don't know how often or for how long he needs to keep on insulting me to make him feel however he wants to feel.

I also think it's more than ironic how he accuses me of avoiding questions.

I was getting a fair bit deeper than that, like not using two different sets as words that pan out as the same thing,

And I am highly amused that you think "biological determinism" is a fine expression to use in this debate whist having said the use of the terms 'sexism', 'patriarchy' and 'feminism' confuses things.

Anyone might think you have no consistent thoughts.

[feral chile]

I was getting a fair bit deeper than that, like not using two different sets as words that pan out as the same thing,

And I am highly amused that you think "biological determinism" is a fine expression to use in this debate whist having said the use of the terms 'sexism', 'patriarchy' and 'feminism' confuses things.

Anyone might think you have no consistent thoughts.

Hi neil,

Can you explain what you mean please, I'm not sure if anyone has said they believe in biological determinism.

I'm not a biologist, so my understanding is limited, but as far as I can tell, it's usually about genetic predispositions at best, isn't it?

Obviously, some things, such as the fact that only females can give birth and breastfeed, are biological, and maybe there are at the very least predispositions to form attachment based on that, but it's a pretty complex process, and as soon as we start veering away from strict reproduction, we run the risk of mixing up cultural values with what we think is 'natural'

JP Sartre, a huge proponent of freedom, called the situation we find ourselves in our 'fasticity'.

So, that would include physical characteristics, circumstances etc. How we perceived ourselves and our circumstances, was more complex. Like seeing obstacles as challenges, etc.

So even terms such as social conditioning, culturally determined etc., you have to be careful with. Because feminist responses to patriarchy, would, by definition, be culturally determined. You can't resist something if it's not there, so the resistance is because of it.

Edited February 20, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

If you need to ask the question, you need to read more about patriarchy so you better understand it.

It's only this thread that makes me want to ask the question, the answer's obvious to me, but the way I try to resist this type of patronising behaviour is obvious to me, and yet I'm coming into conflict with feminists.

I'm trying to find out where precisely my ideas are a mismatch to people on these boards.

[eFestivals]

I'm not a biologist, so my understanding is limited, but as far as I can tell, it's usually about genetic predispositions at best, isn't it?

as is the "nature" part of nature/nurture.

Which is what I was getting at.

[feral chile]

as is the "nature" part of nature/nurture.

Which is what I was getting at.

It's more that it's not completely determined, as I say, I can't claim to have more than a very superficial knowledge of genetics, but isn't the idea that we might have a genetic predisposition to certain types of behaviours, that then gets 'switched on' when certain environmental conditions are met?

there's a difference with philosophical and psychological theories of behaviourism, as well - philosophical behaviourists are more likely to be determinists, whereas psychological ones are more likely to be cagey as t whether behaviour is all there is, just that it's more scientific to stick to what we can observe and measure. So they'll talk about adaptive behaviour, and shaping behaviour, rather than causes.

So I think (as I say, I'm no expert) current thinking is that it's a complex interaction between nature/nurture.

Edited February 20, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I'm trying to find out where precisely my ideas are a mismatch to people on these boards.

I keep suggesting to you that you can best do so via a greater depth understanding of patriarchy. I do that not to be patronising, but simply because it's by far the best path to expand what I feel you're missing.

Sometimes, what is the right way to go and what someone might consider patronising can be the same thing. You seem to want to dismiss good advice because your mind is clouded by a certain stubbornness.

What I see you doing is you writing a sentence now and then where you say you accept patriarchy, and then a number of posts which seem to be entirely free of any reference or consideration of patriarchy in what you're saying.

[feral chile]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/18/pfox-gay-billboard_n_6698444.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

talking about nature/nurture, I don't think it really matters. This article is about attempts to 'cure' homosexuality - I can't believe we're still trying to 'cure' sexual orientation.

Surely, the issue is not whether or not being gay is a life choice or not, but more, so what, anyway?

The only thing I don't accept about patriarchy is the emphasis on power. I preferred it when we called it sexism.

[feral chile]

I keep suggesting to you that you can best do so via a greater depth understanding of patriarchy. I do that not to be patronising, but simply because it's by far the best path to expand what I feel you're missing.

Sometimes, what is the right way to go and what someone might consider patronising can be the same thing. You seem to want to dismiss good advice because your mind is clouded by a certain stubbornness.

What I see you doing is you writing a sentence now and then where you say you accept patriarchy, and then a number of posts which seem to be entirely free of any reference or consideration of patriarchy in what you're saying.

The thing is, I have read a lot about patriarchy, and I know you think I don't understand it, and maybe I don't, but I do need some pointers as to what in particular, you believe I should be reconsidering.

Some of the stuff I've been reading about recently, has certainly made me reconsider advancements I thought we'd made.

For instance, my husband came home the other day saying that someone had shown him a pornographic clip on his phone of a woman with a donkey, and he was asking me 'why?'

And my first and only reaction so far, was that it was to degrade the woman.

I seriously thought the likes of Animal Farm (the porn film, not Orwell) and snuff movies and the like, had been pretty much done away with, along with the viciousness underlying them.

Edited February 20, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

It's more that it's not completely determined, as I say, I can't claim to have more than a very superficial knowledge of genetics, but isn't the idea that we might have a genetic predisposition to certain types of behaviours, that then gets 'switched on' when certain environmental conditions are met?

there's a difference with philosophical and psychological theories of behaviourism, as well - philosophical behaviourists are more likely to be determinists, whereas psychological ones are more likely to be cagey as t whether behaviour is all there is, just that it's more scientific to stick to what we can observe and measure. So they'll talk about adaptive behaviour, and shaping behaviour, rather than causes.

So I think (as I say, I'm no expert) current thinking is that it's a complex interaction between nature/nurture.

As I'm sure you noticed, I quoted just the 'nature' part. An impact from nurturing is unavoidable, even for what might be biologically determined.

It might be biologically determined that women are subservient to men, but unavoidable nurturing creates a further layer of social constructs that what might be biologically determined plays out within. There is no "biological determination" that is able to be identified currently that is free of those social constructs (except, perhaps, for a new-born).

So what i'm saying is: good luck with trying to spot the differences in reality of "biological determination" and "nature/nurture", because I don't believe it can be done until our knowledge of what drives us is much more developed than it is currently.

[feral chile]

As I'm sure you noticed, I quoted just the 'nature' part. An impact from nurturing is unavoidable, even for what might be biologically determined.

It might be biologically determined that women are subservient to men, but unavoidable nurturing creates a further layer of social constructs that what might be biologically determined plays out within. There is no "biological determination" that is able to be identified currently that is free of those social constructs (except, perhaps, for a new-born).

So what i'm saying is: good luck with trying to spot the differences in reality of "biological determination" and "nature/nurture", because I don't believe it can be done until our knowledge of what drives us is much more developed than it is currently.

I agree with that. I've said before, I can handle talking about a gender bias in society, a cultural bias in favour of men, after 30 years we still have value ridden language etc., it's just that because patriarchy is to do with balance of power, and that this is universal, I can't hep but reject it, because it makes everything feel hopeless.

And I think there's mileage in challenging attitudes (particularly our own) like the women did in that article.

The reason I brought their responses into this debate, is because, to me, they were challenging patriarchal assumptions, by pointing them out. If that's what you think I'm not doing, then fair enough. But, I've taken you to mean, that they're on a lost cause, because they're caught up in patriarchy anyway, so what they're doing is pointless.

And I think any attempts to challenge it are worthy, even if they're sometimes unsuccessful.

[eFestivals]

The thing is, I have read a lot about patriarchy, and I know you think I don't understand it, and maybe I don't, but I do need some pointers as to what in particular, you believe I should be reconsidering.

Almost everything, from what I see within your posts.

It's like you've read about patriarchy, and then said "yep, I get that" and put it in a box on the shelf. Then, for anything you consider, nothing of patriarchy is within that consideration.

Think about what you first said about women who do page 3. You said (paraphased) that if they do it proudly and with the idea that it's them taking the piss out of men, they're taking the piss out of men and have thrown off all patriarchy.

And yet what they're doing they are doing because men want them to do it, and wouldn't be doing it if men didn't want them to do it. That's as patriarchal as it gets.

I don't feel confident enough in expressing what I know* of patriarchy to be able to better tune your take on it, which is why I'm recommending you towards those who do feel able to get it across, by having put it in a book.

(* and anyway, if I did try, you'd merely demonstrate your own sexism, as you have many times already, of believing I'm saying "better inform yourself" to oppress you - thus showing yourself as unable to take an intellectual view ).,

[eFestivals]

it's just that because patriarchy is to do with balance of power, and that this is universal, I can't hep but reject it, because it makes everything feel hopeless.

and yet you're only able to reject it when you can tell me something that is not male-defined, to prove it false.

So take an academic view towards it. You'll do better if you do.

Yes, it might feel a hopeless situation, but so is (for example) wanting a child but no wanting to have to go thru pregnancy; there's lots of things which are beyond our control. We can only accept the realities and work within the environment life gives us.

The reason I brought their responses into this debate, is because, to me, they were challenging patriarchal assumptions, by pointing them out.

Like someone did round the subject of Page 3, just perhaps, that you rejected?

[feral chile]

Almost everything, from what I see within your posts.

It's like you've read about patriarchy, and then said "yep, I get that" and put it in a box on the shelf. Then, for anything you consider, nothing of patriarchy is within that consideration.

Think about what you first said about women who do page 3. You said (paraphased) that if they do it proudly and with the idea that it's them taking the piss out of men, they're taking the piss out of men and have thrown off all patriarchy.

And yet what they're doing they are doing because men want them to do it, and wouldn't be doing it if men didn't want them to do it. That's as patriarchal as it gets.

I don't feel confident enough in expressing what I know* of patriarchy to be able to better tune your take on it, which is why I'm recommending you towards those who do feel able to get it across, by having put it in a book.

(* and anyway, if I did try, you'd merely demonstrate your own sexism, as you have many times already, of believing I'm saying "better inform yourself" to oppress you - thus showing yourself as unable to take an intellectual view ).,

Well, it's possible you're right, I will put it on the back burner, because you can't bring it up in every conversation about everything.

As far as Page 3 is concerned, if we can liken it to child pornography just for a moment. Even though child pornography is illegal, it doesn't stop paedophilia. What it does to , is emphasise that the abuse of children is socially unacceptable. And that children shouldn't be related to in a sexual manner.

This is extremely straightforward, children need to be protected, you can't expect them t understand the dangers of sexualised images of them, etc.

With Page 3, for me the situation is a lot more complex. For one thing, women are one half of heterosexual sexuality, so the aim is for them to be fully consenting partners. So, while we want to change exploitation, and negative bias against women, we need to find a way where women can be sexual beings o their own terms.

And also, unlike children, women are adults, so we need t recognise them as being capable of making their own choices, or we fall into a misogynistic trap.

So - children should be kept out of the sexual arena altogether.

But, how can we have women as equal partners in sexual politics, if you like?

If everything is determined by men, at what stage can we get to a situation where tis is equalised?

I feel, at the moment, that we're trying to treat women like children, in order to protect them from oppressive/predatory males.

We need t establish a society where neither sex feels dominated by the other, and both can express their sexuality with tolerance and respect.

[feral chile]

and yet you're only able to reject it when you can tell me something that is not male-defined, to prove it false.

So take an academic view towards it. You'll do better if you do.

Yes, it might feel a hopeless situation, but so is (for example) wanting a child but no wanting to have to go thru pregnancy; there's lots of things which are beyond our control. We can only accept the realities and work within the environment life gives us.

I've responded in detail above - my main objection is that we need to change the disrespectful attitude to women and that comes from men, so it's male attitudes that would be the problem.

Whether there'd be Page 3, or its equivalent, if men respected women, I'm still considering. How would male sexuality change, if you took dominance/disrespect out of it? Presumably you'd still have men attracted to breasts, there's probably a biological predisposition, maybe related to breastfeeding/reproduction, as well as cultural bias?

As you've said, we can't know where nature meets nurture.

Like someone did round the subject of Page 3, just perhaps, that you rejected?

mucked up my reply somehow - see bolded bits

Edited February 20, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

With Page 3, for me the situation is a lot more complex. For one thing, women are one half of heterosexual sexuality, so the aim is for them to be fully consenting partners. So, while we want to change exploitation, and negative bias against women, we need to find a way where women can be sexual beings o their own terms.

I don't disagree with wanting to find that, but it can never be "on their own terms" when it is so very obviously doing what men want.

If a woman wants to proudly show off her tits, she can do so 100% on her own terms by putting up pics of her tits on the 'net.

Everything about Page 3 is for men. Who is chosen for it, how they are posed, how they are dressed, who gets pleasure from it, etc, etc.

And also, unlike children, women are adults, so we need t recognise them as being capable of making their own choices, or we fall into a misogynistic trap.

Page 3 being available for them to pose on is the sovereign choice of a man. His name is Rupert.

Last I heard it had been 20 days with no tits on Page 3, so perhaps this battle is finally won.

Nothing is stopping women from taking the men out of things on the production side (and i'm aware there's been an attempt or two), tho unfortunately for female sovereignty in this it's always going to have to pander to wha tmen would like hose women to be doing for them if it's to be a commercial success.

But, how can we have women as equal partners in sexual politics, if you like?

Without trying to answer the 'how' of equality (cos i'm not sure it can be), not everything is infected as much as Page 3.

I feel, at the moment, that we're trying to treat women like children, in order to protect them from oppressive/predatory males.

Bullshit.

The line I'm referencing is merely one where realities are recognised rather than brushed under the carpet and pretended not to be there, and then steps are taken forwards.

Page 3 is not undermined by going along with it.

[feral chile]

OK.

If you work in a role where your job is to persuade people to work towards a common goal, the first thing is to make sure you've decided where they need to be heading.

You have to convince them that the way forward is in their best interests, as well as yours.

you don't do that by establishing a 'you' and 'I' dichotomy, or by emphasising where the power lies. As soon as you try to enforce something, you get resistance. You focus on 'we' and working together. You focus attention away from the past, and apportioning blame as to how things got into the mess they're in, and instead focus on how teamwork will lead to the desired outcome. And what needs to be done to achieve it.

So, in order to change society, we need to first, have an implicit agreement that unfairness is wrong.

And then, we want to play down where the power lies, and who's to blame for what, getting people defensive isn't constructive, - in order to focus on ways to bring about a power shift.

So, whether patriarchy is a true reflection of society or not, do you think it's constructive to draw attention to it?

or would it be better to draw attention to double standards in attitudes, social justice etc. that we all agree needs to be addressed?

Especially when, under the rules of patriarchy, if men hold all the power, the only way that can change is by bringing them on board and working towards a common goal?

Do you really think focusing on patriarchy, and stating explicitly that men are privileged, is the best way to effect change?

And given the above, do you ever think you are going to get me to acknowledge that men hold all the cards?

You take away every negotiating chip a woman has, the second you accept that as an opening gambit.

sometimes, focusing on the big picture is not looking at the even bigger picture.

Edited February 20, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

OK.

If you work in a role where your job is to persuade people to work towards a common goal, the first thing is to make sure you've decided where they need to be heading.

You have to convince them that the way forward is in their best interests, as well as yours.

you don't do that by establishing a 'you' and 'I' dichotomy, or by emphasising where the power lies. As soon as you try to enforce something, you get resistance. You focus on 'we' and working together. You focus attention away from the past, and apportioning blame as to how things got into the mess they're in, and instead focus on how teamwork will lead to the desired outcome. And what needs to be done to achieve it.

but none of that is possible without first identifying the issues to be overcome - even if teacher thinks they're a bit difficult for the poor little saps to get their heads around.

So, in order to change society, we need to first, have an implicit agreement that unfairness is wrong.

which first requires identification of what is wrong and why it's wrong.

And then, we want to play down where the power lies, and who's to blame for what, getting people defensive isn't constructive, - in order to focus on ways to bring about a power shift.

and of course, needing to hide the issues isn't a defensive mechanism.

So, whether patriarchy is a true reflection of society or not, do you think it's constructive to draw attention to it?

yes. There is no other way.

If people don't understand why they're fighting, how long will they bother to be putting themselves in the line of fire?

or would it be better to draw attention to double standards in attitudes, social justice etc. that we all agree needs to be addressed?

it's not an either/or.

Especially when, under the rules of patriarchy, if men hold all the power, the only way that can change is by bringing them on board and working towards a common goal?

and you're back to the idea that men are consciously and politically attached to patriarchy. They're not.

It's merely a situation that men find themselves in - and where most don't realise.

Do you really think focusing on patriarchy, and stating explicitly that men are privileged, is the best way to effect change?

Yes. People need to understand what they are trying to change, otherwise they've changed nothing but instead just given it a fresh paint job.

And given the above, do you ever think you are going to get me to acknowledge that men hold all the cards?

so you reject patriarchy?

So I ask again: tell me what isn't male-defined.

You take away every negotiating chip a woman has, the second you accept that as an opening gambit.

bullshit. Your mistake is believing that men are consciously obstructive to change.

sometimes, focusing on the big picture is not looking at the even bigger picture.

and changing nothing at all changes nothing.

Edited February 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS ... ultimately, you're saying that women can understand the issues, but men can't and so the issues need to be hidden from men.

(or worse: just you can understand the issues)

Sexist, much?

Nothing is improved by making all of the same mistakes.

Edited February 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[krisskross]

Behavior is a difficult one, its easier to look at biological differences first - and thats complex enough..

This gives a broad overview on the biology of sex; http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

The last line of "if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask." gives some indication of where scientific knowledge stops and society needs to take over. Yes, there are genetic differences that predispose you to almost anything but how society responds to that is key.

If behavior is linked to gender its adding a whole new layer of complexity. If men to act in one way and women another, would it be better to accept that or to overcome it and teach them to act in the same way. This all then gets tied into mate choice / sexual selection anyway which could very well make any efforts to change behavior meaningless. If there is a drive for women to mate with the strongest / most aggressive / alpha male and for men to mate with a woman who he's certain any children will be his, would this need to be changed somehow as well?

[eFestivals]

If men to act in one way and women another, would it be better to accept that or to overcome it and teach them to act in the same way.

What I keep pointing out is that both are possible. In fact, both happen all the time every day.

Men and women *do* act differently; we can see that, so we might as well accept that reality.

But there's plenty within that which is clearly discriminatory and can be acted against and changed, and does get acted against and changed.

That process is the best we can manage to do (tho we can better tackle some issues than we do within that process).

Via that process the differences get lessened, which allows us to re-evaluate things from a different place where we'll get an ever-clearer view of what the actual issues are and how they're best tackled.

[feral chile]

PS ... ultimately, you're saying that women can understand the issues, but men can't and so the issues need to be hidden from men.

(or worse: just you can understand the issues)

Sexist, much?

Nothing is improved by making all of the same mistakes.

ok.

If patriarchy is true, then men hold all the power.

how do you suggest negotiations to continue, then?

You'd have to start with some areas whereas men could gain some benefits from change.

For instance, if men are the sole breadwinners, they have all the pressure to be economically successful, they feel obliged to sacrifice job satisfaction for money, etc.

One of the women in that article I quoted objected to the fact that she was the one who was asked about work-life balance.

This is relevant to all of us, and could also promote more women entering the workplace, and more women reaching prominent positions.

And if both sexes were then free to devote more time t their personal lives, there might be opportunities for more equity there too.

So, maybe a win-win situation.

BUT - if patriarchy is emphasised, 'men in the workplace' is by definition a position of power. Why would they willingly give it up, if it's presented like that?

Edited February 20, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

provoking a defensive response is always unconstructive, if you're trying to negotiate.

I just want to foster a spirit of co-operation.

I don't think anyone's unaware of feminism by now, either, so raising awareness in the UK isn't an issue, though it might well be an issue for other disadvantaged groups.

[feral chile]

Agree with all of that

Me too.

As soon as you get rid of 'patriarchy' 'power' 'dominance', I'm fine with everything you're saying.

I'm just seriously anti authority. If you switched your language to 'gender conformity' I'd probably be agreeing.

That may well be irrational, I certainly can't explain why I feel there's a difference, but I do.

[krisskross]

bullshit. Your mistake is believing that men are consciously obstructive to change.

Most are..no? Power == Success.