What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

Btw, thanks for the above explanation, kaosmark.

I'd been wondering for a while what exactly winds people up so much.

I was wondering what wound people up about tony, I assumed it was because he doesn't lust after boobs.

[eFestivals]

I'm not deliberately trying to fool others.

Eh? do you really believe that? Then you need to stop and think.

You've said confronting an issue head-on doesn't work. You've said that instead you have to manipulate others around to your point of view.

In effect, that's saying "those people are not clever enough to understand the issue, to think it thru for themselves."

I'm not thinking that you're "deliberately lying" - and that's not what I said!! You've chosen to take it as that, all by yourself.

But you are making a deliberate choice with your methods, which pan out as being what I said.

I don't have a sense of superiority in the way you mean. I don't believe that anyone is intrinsically superior to anyone else.

then why do you think others cannot face the issues in a straightforwards way, via a direct confrontation of what is wrong with their views?

Are they not clever enough to think for themselves, to think as you do?

I think people have skill sets, and people vary regarding how skiled they are.

True.

Care to tell me what proves one skillset - yours - as the only skill, which enables you to say that mine is not?

You seem to think that what I do is done without thought. That's a big error.

I expect to be reasonably efficient in using positive language, I've been trained in negotiation techniques, and customer service, and therefore I know something about that. I know something about subjects I've studied, and I know I'm pretty good at working out subtext in official reports, and identifying trends, and how they'll affect the workplace.

And yet it's not any guaranteed method, and we still have a country full of the unconverted.

Is that due to the success or failure of that 'approved' method which gives the approvers of that method a free pass?

If you're starting from the premise that everything's male defined, then the counter reactions will be nullified, because the reaction would, by definition, be male defined.

I've not started from that premise. I've said that disproving patriarchy requires showing what isn't male defined.

It's how I end up accepting the patriarchy idea as correct - via the evidence. I'm happy for you to blow it away, if you're able to.

But this move towards greater equality hasn't given women more choices. Women now have to work to keep their families out of poverty, because one wage isn't enough.

Spot on!

And we got here because women dismissed patriarchy and said "if we're like men, that's equal, isn't it?"

I just think that an analysis of how society is changing is more useful than a top-down theory. Or at least, as useful.

I agree. The problem is within how the analysis goes. If not everything is accounted for, then it's likely the analysis will have analysed wrongly.

PS: to show it as just a "theory", you have to say what isn't male defined but you do. Until you do, you're dismissing something on the basis of nothing.

And some of this is just because I don't like the suggestion behind the term patriarchy that carries with it that men are more powerful.

Why do you think a non-acceptance of the facts can lead you to the right answer?

Men *ARE* more powerful within the shape of society we have. Nothing of accepting that means you have to like it, but you will never change what you don't accept.

Edited February 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

And the fact that it then classifies society into 2 genders, acting in opposition.

That's your take on things.

Patriarchy only says how things have come to be shaped as they are. It doesn't say that the shape of everything is wrong.

There is a 'right' answer for everything (something we all agree on, else there's no mileage in a discussion such as this); the problem is finding the right answer, which does not mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. You arrive at the right answer via confronting ideas and challenging them, not by pre-deciding the answers as you've done in what's quoted above.

I'd prefer to think of society as having gender biases, and get rid of as many stereotypes as we can. because if men weren't ridiculed for showing a softer side, then a lot of societal problems could be worked through anyway.

There you go again with the superiority side of things - that women's soft side is all there should be. That's not a stereotype, is it?

I think it plays into the hands of crafty politicians, otherwise, who use equality to make things worse for us, not better (equal low pay, equal raised pension age, etc.)

says the women who will not challenge her own ideas that don't challenge those politicans.

[feral chile]

That's your take on things.

Patriarchy only says how things have come to be shaped as they are. It doesn't say that the shape of everything is wrong.

There is a 'right' answer for everything (something we all agree on, else there's no mileage in a discussion such as this); the problem is finding the right answer, which does not mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater. You arrive at the right answer via confronting ideas and challenging them, not by pre-deciding the answers as you've done in what's quoted above.

There you go again with the superiority side of things - that women's soft side is all there should be. That's not a stereotype, is it?

says the women who will not challenge her own ideas that don't challenge those politicans.

It's not that I think a soft side is all that there should be. But if men are brought up to be competitive, and women are not, and we end up with a competitive society instead of an equal one, then we need to rethink things. Women need to learn (be taught/society needs to change values etc.) that it's OK to be competitive, and men need to learn that it's OK not to be.

I don't mean all the time, I just think we should stop suppressing certain aspects of being human, in order to fit gender-specific stereotypes.

You're the one that's just stated that 'soft side' is female defined, and superior, by the way, you've assumed it from what I've said, and it wasn't even in my head.

I've already stated earlier, I dislike competition, and I don't know whether it's my social conditioning, or whether t's because I genuinely think it brings out the worst in people.

Girls do get taught communication skills, how to express emotion, and how to compromise.

You seem to think that's fooling people, from what you've said earlier. I've learnt not to escalate situations by being confrontational, so I think that's what I should do. Being human, it's definitely not what I always do.

I don't feel superior, I try not to compare myself to others. But when I do, it's usually to see what they're doing better, to pick up tips.

Edited February 27, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

neil, if you think I feel superior, have you considered you calling people morons for not accepting your perspective, and telling them to go away and read up on it, because you're right, even if you admit you haven't done enough reading to explain it properly.

One thing I've learnt from my days of working in contact centres - people are not idiots if they don't understand the system.

But equally, they're not justified in calling you an idiot, because they refuse to let you explain how the system works.

It's give and take - you can't discuss anything without trying to understand where the other person's starting point is.

And I can tell you this from experience. Once you've antagonised someone, they stop listening, because they're hostile to you, and to everything you say.

Particularly if you tell them they must do something. Or else.

We all have to work within the system, (whichever system that is) and the best approach is to find a way for the system to work for all of us.

Edited February 27, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

neil, if you think I feel superior, have you considered you calling people morons for not accepting your perspective, and telling them to go away and read up on it, because you're right, even if you admit you haven't done enough reading to explain it properly.

One thing I've learnt from my days of working in contact centres - people are not idiots if they don't understand the system.

But equally, they're not justified in calling you an idiot, because they refuse to let you explain how the system works.

It's give and take - you can't discuss anything without trying to understand where the other person's starting point is.

And I can tell you this from experience. Once you've antagonised someone, they stop listening, because they're hostile to you, and to everything you say.

Particularly if you tell them they must do something. Or else.

We all have to work within the system, (whichever system that is) and the best approach is to find a way for the system to work for all of us.

I'm not trying to pretend - as you and tony are when you condemn me for it - that there's not a sense of superiority around *all* differening views. Any person thinks their own view as right, and by that they think of other views as wrong. The right view is always superior to the wrong view.

Me suggesting you do some more reading is the antithesis of that. It's very clear there's some major gaps in your knowledge from what you post, but I'm not trying to pre-decide the views you might take from you expanding your knowledge. If I were, I'd be trying to tell you what you should be thinking, instead of me pointing out where your thinking fails.

My refusal to write you a text book here is only because I've no intention of writing anyone a text book, and because I know those text books will do a far better job than I will ever manage in the sort of language you'd be willing to accept (tho that's your own snobbery of language, a problem for all of academia, which leads to 'only-approved' outcomes, and lessens thinking).

If you close off because you're not getting the fluffy pink kitten you demand, I'm going to laugh at your deliberately-chosen stupidity. The same applies to your refusal to look at a book, based in a sense of superiority that there's nothing you can learn.

Agitation is no less of a method, and it's a misplaced sense of superiority that has you dismiss it as worthless. Meanwhile, I don't see you dismiss as worthless the fluffy pink kittens which ARE failing, and where you acknowledged that failure in the first post of yours that i replied to today.

I see the fact that I've needed to type any of this as a failure of your intellect, btw. You should try getting out of that box you're in now and then.

Edited February 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

As much as feminism is defined, the definitions are open to interpretation. Here are 2 definitions in one dictionary:

: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

: organized activity in support of women's rights and interests

That's 2 different definitions. How can anyone accept one single definition of feminism?

Feral has been talking about what it means to her and what has lead her to what it means to her. I think it's much more constructive to try and understand what someone's interpretation of something is for the discussion to go anywhere

words are always used within a context tony.

I know that you can't understand the words I've just written tho.

[eFestivals]

There's accepting that it exists, which it does, and then there's you're own personal choice to accept ('permit' it to exist) it in your own environment, when you can. It doesn't exist in our home. I am not any more powerful in any way than any of the females in my family, for example.

Oh, tony. :lol:

very well done for being the only unique human. I bow down to your own house of god, can I come and worship there?

[feral chile]

I'm not trying to pretend - as you and tony are when you condemn me for it - that there's not a sense of superiority around *all* differening views. Any person thinks their own view as right, and by that they think of other views as wrong. The right view is always superior to the wrong view.

Me suggesting you do some more reading is the antithesis of that. It's very clear there's some major gaps in your knowledge from what you post, but I'm not trying to pre-decide the views you might take from you expanding your knowledge. If I were, I'd be trying to tell you what you should be thinking, instead of me pointing out where your thinking fails.

My refusal to try and write you a text book here is only because I've no intention of writing anyone a text book, and because I know those text books will do a far better job than I will ever manage in the sort of language you'd be willing to accept (tho that's your own snobbery of language, a problem for all of academia, which leads to 'only-approved' outcomes, and lessens thinking).

If you close off because you're not getting the fluffy pink kitten you demand, I'm going to laugh at your deliberately-chosen stupidity. The same applies to your refusal to look at a book, based in a sense of superiority that there's nothing you can learn.

Agitation is no less of a method, and it's a misplaced sense of superiority that has you dismiss it as worthless. Meanwhile, I don't see you dismiss as worthless the fluffy pink kittens which ARE failing, and where you acknowledged that failure in the first post of yours that i replied to today.

I see the fact that I've needed to type any of this as a failure of your intellect, btw. You should try getting out of that box you're in now and then.

Thinking you're right isn't superiority. Superiority is thinking you're right and the other person is stupid. Thinking they're wrong, fair enough.

The thing is with not being specific in what I should read, I have read a lot of feminist theory but it was a long time ago.

As far as I was aware, I thought feminist theory had evolved, but patriarchy seems to be very similar to what I studied and lived through in the '80s.

As I say, it was definitely a man's world back then, and I also would have agreed that Page 3 was part of it.

I can't lie and say I'm bothered by Page 3, because I'm not. I was bothered by it when I was younger, though, because I was less secure of myself. And my husband. And more jealous of him 'looking'.

See, when you say everything's male defined - think of possessiveness. I used to be possessive, far more than my husband's ever been - I demanded fidelity, faithfulness and loyalty.

Was that ale defined then? I'm far more tolerant now, in no small part due to the feminist doctrine that monogamy is part of the cultural emphasis on property ownership.

My husband, on the other hand, was never possessive, in the sense that he felt he had the right to be. he always said he didn't own me.

That doesn't mean he's incapable of being hurt by me.

This always makes me think of Carl Rogers writing about a hippy commune - a girl stumbled upon a couple making love, and she had previously been with the boy and was fond of him. She started crying, and apologised for it, because of course she thought it was implying ownership. The other couple both hugged her and tried to comfort and reassure her.

There was so much I felt was right with this, and yet so much wrong, that I still often think of it.

Edited February 27, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

without any possibility of differing interpretations?

only if you need to question everything.

Which you clearly don't aws you managed to understand w3hgat I said to ask a question of it, so it's mind-numbingly stupid of you to suggest that you do.

[feral chile]

Thanks for the thoughts...

I DO need external validation. It very well may be a flaw of mine. I mean, I'm having counselling, I doubt myself a lot of the time. There are things that some people appear to be very sure of... and then, the more I inquire into these certainties, the more uncertainty seems to surface. Yes it's vague.. I am vague. I'm unsure.

As for the passive/aggressive thing, I apologise for that. Obviously (or maybe not so obviously...?) it's unintentional. But surely, the same thing can be said of Neil's 'methods'?.

We all need external validation.

I don't think you have anything to apologise for. You don't insult or undermine people without provocation, you try to see the perspective of others. And you give the impression you care about people.

That's nothing to apologise for. Or to feel defensive about.

[feral chile]

Oh, tony. :lol:

very well done for being the only unique human. I bow down to your own house of god, can I come and worship there?

This is the bit I don't get, neil. You don't want us to accept that patriarchy exists, you want us to deny that we're trying to change it.

What would be the point of consciousness raising if you then won't accept any resistance to patriarchy? Isn't that the whole point?

And you've taken massive offence at me trying to point out that your debating style is very much in line with patriarchy, and accused me of trying to push my female, soft-centred superiority onto you.

Calling people stupid and mocking, using sarcasm etc., is an attempt to dominate. Whether it's to dominate the discussion, or to do with personal domination, I don't know.

But it's to do with undermining the person rather than the argument, and therefore doesn't change minds.

Edited February 27, 2015 by feral chile

[russycarps]

There's accepting that it exists, which it does, and then there's you're own personal choice to accept ('permit' it to exist) it in your own environment, when you can. It doesn't exist in our home. I am not any more powerful in any way than any of the females in my family, for example.

eh? of course you are more powerful than the females in your family. You a man in a male dominated world.

You may not choose to exercise that power (consciously, at least) but you have that power.

[eFestivals]

see...? what does that mean?

I give an example of one word having 2 different interpretations, and you come out with that..

I see that you don't just have problems with individual words, but even with the most simple following of any conversation.

[feral chile]

eh? of course you are more powerful than the females in your family. You a man in a male dominated world.

You may not choose to exercise that power (consciously, at least) but you have that power.

How could he exercise that power then?

[feral chile]

our home isn't a male dominated environment

Nor mine.

[russycarps]

How could he exercise that power then?

how can a man exercise their "privilege" you mean? how long a list do you want?

[eFestivals]

Thinking you're right isn't superiority. Superiority is thinking you're right and the other person is stupid. Thinking they're wrong, fair enough.

Tell me where this is wrong: The right idea is superior to the wrong idea.

but patriarchy seems to be very similar to what I studied and lived through in the '80s.

I think you might consider suing your teachers.

From what you post, you studied it very poorly which is why I keep suggesting that more reading is required.

But your sense of superiority tells you that couldn't possibly be the case, which is why you refuse to accept there could be any truth in me saying that.

As I say, it was definitely a man's world back then, and I also would have agreed that Page 3 was part of it.

if you'd grasped anything of patriarchy, you wouldn't say "back then".

If you rejected patriarchy, you'd be able to give an academic reason for why (rather than the simple "I don't like it so I'm not going to accept it" that's all you've given so far).

I can't lie and say I'm bothered by Page 3, because I'm not.

so because you're not bothered about it personally, it ceases to be any relevant part of a sexist society?

I'm starting to get you now, and having realised my massive error I'm probably gonna back out of this thread.

[eFestivals]

our home isn't a male dominated environment

No tony, that's merely how you perceive it to be from your position of being the dominant male.

FFS.

Edited February 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Nor mine.

I'm still waiting for that list of things which aren't male defined.

Edited February 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

It's not a male dominated environment because the male says it's not a male dominated environment.

or else!

[eFestivals]

It's not a male dominated environment because the male says it's not a male dominated environment.

or else!

It's priceless, isn't it?

[feral chile]

Tell me where this is wrong: The right idea is superior to the wrong idea.

I think you might consider suing your teachers.

From what you post, you studied it very poorly which is why I keep suggesting that more reading is required.

But your sense of superiority tells you that couldn't possibly be the case, which is why you refuse to accept there could be any truth in me saying that.

if you'd grasped anything of patriarchy, you wouldn't say "back then".

If you rejected patriarchy, you'd be able to give an academic reason for why (rather than the simple "I don't like it so I'm not going to accept it" that's all you've given so far).

so because you're not bothered about it personally, it ceases to be any relevant part of a sexist society?

I'm starting to get you now, and having realised my massive error I'm probably gonna back out of this thread.

All I ever said at the start of all this was that I wasn't bothered personally, it was you who launched into a massive feminist debate and demanded a retraction. I can't retract a personal reaction.

FFS! Now look, you've made a nice little old lady swear lol.

[feral chile]

It's not a male dominated environment because the male says it's not a male dominated environment.

or else!

And it's not a male dominated environment because you say so, either.

[russycarps]

And it's not a male dominated environment because you say so, either.

I'm not sure I follow you. Do you not think it's a male dominated world then?