What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

This is why you can't use values t prove a value ridden theory.

Woman wearing dresses and makeup?

Conforming to patriarchy

Woman wearing unisex clothes?

Conforming to patriarchy.

Woman doing anything at all?

Conforming to patriarchy.

So your argument boils down to:

Everything you do conforms to patriarchy.

You have done something.

Therefore you have conformed to patriarchy.

Validity isn't the same as truth, if you don't have a statement that doesn't self verify. Therefore, an argument around the first premise has to support patriarchy.

And beginning with the first premise allows for no change at all. It's absolute.

The only way to challenge patriarchy would be to challenge the first premise, as the first premise allows no challenges.

It's a point of logic.

'Most things conform to patriarchy' would be another story, however.

Edited February 27, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

so the second they walk through the front door they scrub their faces clean.

Right-o.

And I never wear makeup at all.

And this proves what, exactly?

If you're going to say, tony's family wearing makeup proves patriarchy, ad my not wearing makeup also proves patriarchy, then you're not using inductive reasoning at all, are you, s you might as well stop looking to real life examples to prove your case.

and what about boys wearing eyeliner? or skirts?

Some do, you know. And guess what! They're not transsexual, and they're heterosexual!

And guess, guess what?

Some women find it attractive. I find men in eyeliner attractive, it makes them look all dusky and sultry. And my friend likes men in skirts.

Go on, now say that's due to patriarchy too.

[eFestivals]

Why? As far as I'm concerned it does. You're the one saying I'm wrong. I'm trying to find out how.

and yet your personality inside your house is the same personality that has experiences outside the house and where those experiebnces are all inheritently sexist.

Do you leave your personality outside the door as well as all sexist influences?

[feral chile]

and yet your personality inside your house is the same personality that has experiences outside the house and where those experiebnces are all inheritently sexist.

Do you leave your personality outside the door as well as all sexist influences?

we're all victims of sexism as well as perpetrators, though. That's how we become aware of unfairness in the first place.

And then we point it out to each other. And hopefully, try to address it.

[eFestivals]

so am I so are you so is the whole world.

The difference being that I'm prepared to examine everything, using the evidence available.

Rather than throwing off the things that don't appeal to me, for whatever reason. You know, like you've thrown of the patriarchy idea just on the basis that you feel it would be defeatist to accept it.

?? Nobody can challenge what they haven't noticed/read/heard discussed etc. etc.

and before that, no one can notice what they're not open to noticing.

The way you notice is via observation and consideration of what's observed, and not by shutting yourself off to noticing because an idea doesn't appeal.

The whole point is, if you're aware of it, it's already getting challenged. or we'd be unquestioningly accepting of it.

Correct.

So if we're all aware of all of the sexism, why has so very very little changed?

Is it because men are determinedly sexist? Or is it because much of society is unknowingly sexist?

But one of the contradictions in patriarchy is that it invades everything. But then, you wouldn't be aware of it, because it would seem like the only way.

A bad logical fail there. You only have to consider all of things we know of that we couldn't if that was logically true.

And not only are we aware of inequality, but most of us think it's wrong.

so why is so little changing?

Might it be because so little is being recognised by most?

patriarchy goes much further than saying there's inequality, it makes absolute claims that the very existence of the concept itself negates.

absolutely not true. If that's what you think, you think that because you've not grasped what patriarchy is.

Or nobody could think up the theory in the first place. Nobody could think 'hang about, how come men have it all their own way'. If patriarchy was a perfect control mechanism, we wouldn't notice or question it.

who said it was perfect?

(perhaps books on logic wo0uld be useful too).

it's the bits that are escaping our notice that I'm worried about (if you see what I mean).

What, like when someone thinks they're completely uninfected by all of the sexism within society?

Oh dear!

[eFestivals]

And beginning with the first premise allows for no change at all. It's absolute.

This is where you're going so very wrong.

The existence of patriarchy continues until such time as all patriarchy has gone. For all of the while patriarchy exists, the extent to which patriarchy infects everything we do can be lessened.

You're doing the equivalent of thinking that a tickle and a punch in the face are both the same indistinguishable violence.

Edited February 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

we're all victims of sexism as well as perpetrators, though.

Absolutely - that's something I explicitly said weeks ago.

Now, perhaps explain to tony some more of that idea, so he understands how he's not able to leave it outside the door...?

[feral chile]

The difference being that I'm prepared to examine everything, using the evidence available.

Rather than throwing off the things that don't appeal to me, for whatever reason. You know, like you've thrown of the patriarchy idea just on the basis that you feel it would be defeatist to accept it.

and before that, no one can notice what they're not open to noticing.

The way you notice is via observation and consideration of what's observed, and not by shutting yourself off to noticing because an idea doesn't appeal.

Correct.

So if we're all aware of all of the sexism, why has so very very little changed?

Is it because men are determinedly sexist? Or is it because much of society is unknowingly sexist?

A bad logical fail there. You only have to consider all of things we know of that we couldn't if that was logically true.

so why is so little changing?

Might it be because so little is being recognised by most?

absolutely not true. If that's what you think, you think that because you've not grasped what patriarchy is.

who said it was perfect?

(perhaps books on logic wo0uld be useful too).

What, like when someone thinks they're completely uninfected by all of the sexism within society?

Oh dear!

You're the one that said you can't think anything without being conditioned by patriarchy.

But then, when I say that feminism is infected by patriarchy (including the feminist theory of patriarchy) you disregard what I say as not understanding that patriarchy infects everything.

gender bias certainly influences our value system. But when I say we should allow people t be how they are, and stop designating behaviour as 'masculine' and 'feminine' eg softness as feminine, you accuse me of claiming 'feminine' softness is superior, which is not what I was saying at all.

And that's the thinking trap that concentrating on power balance can get you to fall into.

I don't think of gentleness as feminine and aggression as masculine. I do think we're conditioned to think like that, though, so what I think intellectually might not correspond to how I react - I might view an assertive woman as aggressive, maybe. Or see male support as patronising.

[feral chile]

What I do understand is deductive reasoning. If you start off saying that everything is patriarchal, you can't avoid a conclusion that everything is patriarchal.

if you start off from a less absolute premise, you can effect change, because it allows for inductive reasoning as well.

[feral chile]

Absolutely - that's something I explicitly said weeks ago.

Now, perhaps explain to tony some more of that idea, so he understands how he's not able to leave it outside the door...?

I've explained my stance on it above. tony seems to be consciously trying to exist in an equitable partnership, which is better than the bad old days of men laying down the law. And believing it was the appropriate social order, and women not recognising they didn't have to accept it.

This is kind of where I was at 30/40 years ago, though I had probably had an unusual upbringing, so my socialisation inside the home contrasted with that outside. That also made me object to being treated like a female, want to be treated as a male, and relate to bands such as AC/DC. I still have an emotional attachment to them, but intellectually I can recognise how sexist the lyrics are.

We all still carry loads of baggage though. I'm sexist in unusual ways, I don't doubt, since there might be a bit of gender confusion going on there as well

Edited February 27, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

You're the one that said you can't think anything without being conditioned by patriarchy.

and that's correct. It doesn't mean you can't think at all, tho.

The version of logic you're working to would make it impossible to make theoretical physical discoveries (that might later be proven), because if we didn't know of it before hand how could we think of it? So that version of logic doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.

But then, when I say that feminism is infected by patriarchy (including the feminist theory of patriarchy) you disregard what I say as not understanding that patriarchy infects everything.

gender bias certainly influences our value system. But when I say we should allow people t be how they are, and stop designating behaviour as 'masculine' and 'feminine' eg softness as feminine, you accuse me of claiming 'feminine' softness is superior, which is not what I was saying at all.

And that's the thinking trap that concentrating on power balance can get you to fall into.

I don't think of gentleness as feminine and aggression as masculine. I do think we're conditioned to think like that, though, so what I think intellectually might not correspond to how I react - I might view an assertive woman as aggressive, maybe. Or see male support as patronising.

Somewhere along the lines there's some crossed wires, because you're claiming things of me that I've never addressed.

[eFestivals]

What I do understand is deductive reasoning. If you start off saying that everything is patriarchal, you can't avoid a conclusion that everything is patriarchal.

And if you start off examining the evidence, and reach a conclusion of patriarchy, what then?

We can't do that because we know of the patriarchy idea, so we have to turn it on its head to find the proof to dismiss it. So: what isn't male defined?

if you start off from a less absolute premise, you can effect change, because it allows for inductive reasoning as well.

Do you think an acceptance of the patriarchy idea makes a person's brain work less well or something?

[eFestivals]

I am capable of being aware that different rules and influences apply outside my home to what happens inside.

It's not that hard.

I'm sure you are.

What you're not capable of doing is stopping everything of those outside influences entering your home, or effecting how you might act inside your home.

Or do you think you've correctly identified all sexism within the world to then eliminate it from your house? And then you or others never slip up in trying to be perfect?

I'd like to believe you tony, but sorry, you're just not that special to be the only person (along with your family) in the world to have those traits.

[eFestivals]

There's lots of change. It might not be enough, but there is change.

There's change, yep.

But it's mostly very minor, and it's mostly slow in coming into full effect, and we keep on finding more where we hadn't previously seen it.

at best right now it's chasing our tail. It's progress, but still a very long way from the goal.

And perhaps that's because some just can't see much of it.

[eFestivals]

But anyway, with tony as part of the only purely-self-socialised family in the country and able to throw off all his out of house experiences at the drop of a hat, I'm out of here.

Would it be wrong o9f me to say there's no sense to be had? Or is that a bit too much truth for you, that you'll feel insulted rather than think?

[feral chile]

and that's correct. It doesn't mean you can't think at all, tho.

The version of logic you're working to would make it impossible to make theoretical physical discoveries (that might later be proven), because if we didn't know of it before hand how could we think of it? So that version of logic doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.

Somewhere along the lines there's some crossed wires, because you're claiming things of me that I've never addressed.

This is very likely, and it's what I've been trying to clarify, every tie I've asked you what could, theoretically, be seen as a challenge to patriarchy.

Everything is influenced by patriarchy, is slightly different, it's not quite so tautological.

tautological arguments are when something, by definition, are true.

And because you've shot down in flames standard feminist observations, and therefore feminsist challenges, to patriarchy, I got confused.

So, you had, in the 80s and no doubt before, feminists pointing out that housewives were undervalued, and costing the jobs they do to get at their real cost. And campaigning for the housewife to be paid, so that it would be given a new status. I don't know whether Tax credits is a form of this.

You had feminists pointing out that job titles such as dustman or anything ending in a gender classification were a barrier to aspirations, and this was changed. They pointed out that babies were treated differently, boys received more rough and tumble and girls more tender hugs, and we addressed this or tried to. Gender specific toys, encouraging girls t learn maths and science...we listened and did this.

Remember, as well as living in a patriarchal society, those of us old enough, were also around when all these biases were brought to public attention. So that knowledge is part of us now, and also influencing our behaviour.

Though mind you, I didn't realise until earlier in this thread that I was actually brought up like this, though I very much doubt there was any deliberate attempt at confounding gender stereotypes.

Maybe that's why I don't feel the sexism as much. because my gender identification is weak.

Edited February 27, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

This is where you're going so very wrong.

The existence of patriarchy continues until such time as all patriarchy has gone. For all of the while patriarchy exists, the extent to which patriarchy infects everything we do can be lessened.

You're doing the equivalent of thinking that a tickle and a punch in the face are both the same indistinguishable violence.

oh I didn't realise you weren't saying that we couldn't change anything. of course it's a slow process, because it'll take a while for attitudinal change t filter through. it's taken at least 3 decades to get where we are.

And because I'm a cynical old bugger, I'm tracing this back to the decline in heavy industry, when brute strength became less of an advantage. Same as a lot of the sexist arguments were trounced when women were needed in WW2.

[feral chile]

The difference being that I'm prepared to examine everything, using the evidence available.

Rather than throwing off the things that don't appeal to me, for whatever reason. You know, like you've thrown of the patriarchy idea just on the basis that you feel it would be defeatist to accept it.

and before that, no one can notice what they're not open to noticing.

The way you notice is via observation and consideration of what's observed, and not by shutting yourself off to noticing because an idea doesn't appeal.

Correct.

So if we're all aware of all of the sexism, why has so very very little changed?

Is it because men are determinedly sexist? Or is it because much of society is unknowingly sexist?

A bad logical fail there. You only have to consider all of things we know of that we couldn't if that was logically true.

so why is so little changing?

Might it be because so little is being recognised by most?

absolutely not true. If that's what you think, you think that because you've not grasped what patriarchy is.

who said it was perfect?

(perhaps books on logic wo0uld be useful too).

What, like when someone thinks they're completely uninfected by all of the sexism within society?

Oh dear!

if by patriarchy you're saying women are under represented in the workforce in certain areas, and over represented in others, of course.

i'd even agree that historically, men have placed more relevance to operating heavy machinery, going down the pits etc., than service centred jobs. I've had that perspective articulated to me in the past - some people are 'more productive' than others, though they didn't explicitly make a gender distinction.

If you mean gender bias, that's fine, I don't have an issue with that.

But using words like defined are a bit deterministic and absolute.

I think that's where I've become confused. Of course we're biased. We live in a society with cultural values that places more economic value on certain occupation than others.

I still think the country's in a state of massive change at the moment though - we'll have to wait to see how it all pans out.

(I do see massive changes though. I was socialised to think that if you had children, you were a mother and nothing else, and I don't think that now. And I'm a product of society too, and therefore reflecting shifts in values.)

Edited February 27, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

and that's correct. It doesn't mean you can't think at all, tho.

The version of logic you're working to would make it impossible to make theoretical physical discoveries (that might later be proven), because if we didn't know of it before hand how could we think of it? So that version of logic doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.

Somewhere along the lines there's some crossed wires, because you're claiming things of me that I've never addressed.

Physics uses inductive reasoning. The version of patriarchy that I at least thought you were arguing for, was that by definition men had the power and controlled attitudes.

In real life is another story. Things could change, but you'd have trouble working out what was a genuine change, because of how data is interpreted.

More women in the workplace - a step forwards or backwards?

[feral chile]

We have one bank account which is totally shared. There have been times when I wasn't earning but my wife was. I stayed at home and looked after our girls. I was a house husband. I loved it! It wasn't my choice.

My dad left my mum and her 3 kids when I was 2. Her sister helped bring us up. I remember when I was at school and kids would be scared of having to face their dad if they did anything 'wrong' or bad at school. I remember thinking how lucky I was to not have a dad. I have never experienced a male dominated environment at home. My wife 'chose' me... I have lived most of my life not dictating situations. It may even be detrimental at times. If anyone says what goes in our home, it's either my wife or one of our 2 daughters.

To suggest I don't know the dynamics of my home while you (Neil or russy) do, is just weird

Maybe that's why we don't 'see' this the same way.

I too didn't have a conventional upbringing. I was brought up by my grandparents, my grandfather was the sole breadwinner, and used to threaten my nan with having to go to work if she didn't improve her housekeeping (which was usually mess he's just created). My mother worked, my father was on long term sick, I was told all my life he was no good. My mother wasn't maternal in the slightest.

At the same time I was being socialised into being seen and not heard, like all good children, I was given boy's toys - cars, garages, action figures - taught to read and add up, given text books for birthdays and Christmas, and encouraged to make my way in the world. NOT to get married and have kids.

My grandparents were very disappointed when I got together with my husband.

So I might not have been fully socialised into patriarchy in a standard female way.

And tony, you seem to have experienced a matriarchal family.

[midnight]

Some interesting points here.

The reason I'm uneasy about women thinking she has an unfair advantage, is the same reason I'm uneasy with claims that women have slept their way to the top, or the latest one, that the 'airheads' are helping their 'airhead friends' to cheat their way to the top.

I agree completely that women have certainly found validation in their appearance in a way that men hadn't. I was going to say, traditionally, but I think it's relatively recent, isn't it? I think men used to be more appearance-focused in previous centuries.

It's the emphasis on competition that I'm not keen on, but I'm not sure whether that's because I think competition is a male defined value. Or just because I don't like the rivalry and division it generates.

Women still aspire to be thin (it's confusing, isn't it - maybe my childhood dislike of Barbie dolls has stood me in good stead, with their big boobs and flat stomachs). But we don't see this in a competitive way, and would we see a tummy tuck as an unfair advantage?

I genuinely haven't formed an opinion as to why this is. But that's the difference, I think, we don't treat women on a diet as if they've collaborated with the enemy, or whatever it is we think breast implants and stilettos do.

And I'm not being judgmental without including myself in this - I'm just as guilty of everything I've mentioned, and part of my stance is to challenge my own prejudice against 'brassy' and 'airhead' female stereotypes.

(Maybe that's what the difference is - we see women seeming to conform to unrealistic stereotypes, and somehow trying to be thin doesn't fit? Confused....)

I don't treat women as if they were "colaborating with the enemy", whether they are on an unecessary diet (not one due to being very overweight, that would be a sensible diet to me), whether they are wearing revealing clothes in freezing temperatures, uncomfortable shoes, or whether they are contemplating cosmetic surgery. I think these are all symptoms of the same thing, but it isn't an us vs them thing.

If anything, the whole looks and beauty industry thing brings that line from a famous song to my mind:

"keep you doped with religion and sex and tv, 'til you think you're so clever and classless and free" - it's all part of the distraction that is needed to keep us in our place. Worry about your weight or bra-size or whether your shoes are sexy and fashionable enough, worrry about other women looking better and try to become as pretty as they are, no matter what amount of effort and money it might take.... worry about anything other than the things that really matter. Worry about who wants to have sex with you, and who doesn't, and why, and why they might prefer someone else. There's a good girl! That's what it feels like to me. I don't want to spend my life doing this. I do tend to think that women (or men) who buy into this are misguided (which might come across as patronising sometimes, I am aware of that).

Edited February 28, 2015 by midnight

[midnight]

Yes. I think society's attitude to sexuality is seriously messed up.

Though personally, I'd prefer to find a way to accept male admiration of breasts as non threatening, and not vile or obscene. (I'm not sure how, though).

rather than the other way around.

It's interesting that she thinks like this, based on what she does for a living. I'll have to think some more about that one.

As for Page 3, I'm not personally threatened by it, I used to be when I was young, maybe it's simply that it doesn't apply to me in the same way, so I assumed society had changed for the better. Mind you, The Sun's been banned from our house for a long time. I'm pretty sure my husband still looks at breasts, though.

I wouldn't care if they banned it though, and if it is causing women to feel threatened, maybe it would make a difference.

There - it isn't about you, or me, it's about them:

(Re-quote from previous post)

[ 'I think what Page 3 does is very damaging to young women. It's like: "This is the benchmark; this is what men find attractive. I don't look like this; therefore I can't be attractive to men." It affects our perception of beauty, and makes young women think they are valued for their sexuality, and not for their thoughts and actions'.

From conversations I've had, I'd say this is how many young women feel when faced with it. And I think we should show some consideration, and solidarity (old fashioned word) with them, even if some of us think it's no big deal. We're hardly deprived by not having page 3. ]

Says the young woman interviewed there, and I shall repeat what I said back there until I'm blue in the face, because it isn't about us 40 & 50somethings. She is the future. I'm not. I'll be dropping out of the workplace within the next 20 years, and out of life altogether in the next 40 (just going by statistics, I know both could be a lot sooner). I've made my peace with my body issues, whatever they were.

A male interest in breasts isn't vile or obscene, btw. I don't think the young woman interviewed for the article would be at all uncomfortable if her boyfriend told her that he liked her breasts. Context is everything.

[feral chile]

There - it isn't about you, or me, it's about them:

(Re-quote from previous post)

[ 'I think what Page 3 does is very damaging to young women. It's like: "This is the benchmark; this is what men find attractive. I don't look like this; therefore I can't be attractive to men." It affects our perception of beauty, and makes young women think they are valued for their sexuality, and not for their thoughts and actions'.

From conversations I've had, I'd say this is how many young women feel when faced with it. And I think we should show some consideration, and solidarity (old fashioned word) with them, even if some of us think it's no big deal. We're hardly deprived by not having page 3. ]

Says the young woman interviewed there, and I shall repeat what I said back there until I'm blue in the face, because it isn't about us 40 & 50somethings. She is the future. I'm not. I'll be dropping out of the workplace within the next 20 years, and out of life altogether in the next 40 (just going by statistics, I know both could be a lot sooner). I've made my peace with my body issues, whatever they were.

A male interest in breasts isn't vile or obscene, btw. I don't think the young woman interviewed for the article would be at all uncomfortable if her boyfriend told her that he liked her breasts. Context is everything.

The original post that set off this debate was a comment I made about Page 3, stating I didn't feel offended by it, and saying man could be seen to be demeaning themselves by it. To me, I don't find men looking at it a symbol of oppression. Why would men need Page 3 if they had power over women? Unfortunately, as the only female commentator at the time, that comment got generalised out of proportion.

then neil wanted me to retract my comment, and I didn't feel able to, because I still didn't see the threat of it.

I don't care if they ban page 3, but I think young women will continue to feel threatened if their men look at other women, and vice versa.

I was trying to work out why women would be hostile to other women for having big breasts.

If you think of possessiveness between couples, you could look at it as patriarchy, though I think that's problematic. Maybe it's a universal aspect of bonding.

and it's neil who wants to take context out of the equation, as he doesn't think you can have differences within and without a relationship.

That doesn't make sense. If my opinion is culture defined, then culture must have changed (which was an assumption I made, which now seems to be mistaken).

Maybe my early socialisation has meant that I seek out situations where I can avoid/gnore patriarchy. My female friends are either old hippies or pagans

Edited February 28, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Can anyone direct me to any objective, scientific evidence regarding how women are stil disadvantaged?

All I can find are arguments, discussion, and opinions.

I fund this, but although some of the reservations in the comments I share, it still is just opinion.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/18ekz3/is_there_such_a_thing_as_the_patriarchy/

Ah, found a summary of Engels, which s probably why I thought this was old stuff now - the society Engels describes is different now.

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/patriarchy.html

While googling, I found this, wile the rest of the article was seriously biased, I found Yen Mano's reply entertaining:

https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101130155302AAof9lx

'In conclusion - 1) Patriarchy is more evil 2) Feminism can still catch up, give it more bombs, swords, and land to conquer.

P.S this is all opinion based. If we want an evidence based answer, let's make a few countries gyno-centric and run by women only - say, on Mars or the moon. Let's see if these countries get along or find themselves in fanatical wars like we have now.

Source(s):

I thought about it for a minute. '

Edited February 28, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Does anyone know anything about Catherine Hakim and Preference Theory?

It's new to me, I haven't read around it yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Hakim#External_links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_theory

She's tried to create an evidence based theory.

Edited February 28, 2015 by feral chile