What women (don't) want.

[midnight]

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

My comment on context was a reference to your comment on whether male interest in breast is pervy, nothing to do with anything Neil said about context.

I don't know this hostility thing from experience, the only woman I ever knew who had very large breasts had serious back problems as a result and eventually got them reduced through surgery (on the NHS). Very similar story to the girl in the article, except none of us envied her! Mind, we were all older, in our late 20s and 30s. I don't have any friends who seem to worry much about this, maybe they don't tell me, but why wouldn't they - weight and how to loose some is a regular topic amongst my friends and colleagues.

As for possessiveness, it does make sense. The men need to know that they are not sharing their wives in order to be reasonably sure the children are really their own, and the women need the support for themselves and their children, human children need lots of care for several years before they reach independence. So longer-term bonding is essential (although the life-long version isn't). Unless you consider children a responsibility of the whole community and do away with the couple/family idea.....

[midnight]

I was meaning the marketing of toys more than the toys themselves. If you disagree get yourself to Tesco and have a wander up and down the aisles and tell me what you think!

Of course I can buy trains and nerf guns for Willow, but is she going to want them when all the other girls are raving about something different? I will protect her from all that as much as I can but at school etc she will be listening to those same peers who currently attend sure start sessions in tutus and headbands with big flowers on who's mothers quite openly giggle and comment on me and Willow being alternative. It's worse living where I do and we are hoping to move before she's much older but she's still going to be influenced by clever marketing etc.

Watch out when she starts school!

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2015/feb/23/sexist-assumptions-young-children-gender-stereotypes

When I was on maternity leave, I often went to a local charity shop to buy baby clothes. They had a big box of toys standing on the floor, and whilst I was rummaging around, I let my son play with the toys. If he found something he really liked, we bought it (they were cheap, never more than £1). He almost always went for something that was very colourful, had wheels (or other moving parts), and/or made a noise. It was a cheap and easy way to let him have a pick and find out what he liked.

[eFestivals]

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

More silliness, that just can't be let go.

I'm not "arguing for" patriarchy.

I'm recognising via the evidence what exists.

And what exists is patriarchy as defined by others.

What about that have you failed to grasp over weeks? All of it.

Edited March 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

My comment on context was a reference to your comment on whether male interest in breast is pervy, nothing to do with anything Neil said about context.

I don't know this hostility thing from experience, the only woman I ever knew who had very large breasts had serious back problems as a result and eventually got them reduced through surgery (on the NHS). Very similar story to the girl in the article, except none of us envied her! Mind, we were all older, in our late 20s and 30s. I don't have any friends who seem to worry much about this, maybe they don't tell me, but why wouldn't they - weight and how to loose some is a regular topic amongst my friends and colleagues.

As for possessiveness, it does make sense. The men need to know that they are not sharing their wives in order to be reasonably sure the children are really their own, and the women need the support for themselves and their children, human children need lots of care for several years before they reach independence. So longer-term bonding is essential (although the life-long version isn't). Unless you consider children a responsibility of the whole community and do away with the couple/family idea.....

yes, I know possessiveness would make sense in terms of bonding, what I meant was I didn't think it was particularly pertinent to patriarchy. (ie might well be an instinct, though I'm wary of 'natural' interpretations, since as we both know, they get used as an excuse for men sowing their oats and women being chaste, so not as objective as all that).

[feral chile]

My comment on context was a reference to your comment on whether male interest in breast is pervy, nothing to do with anything Neil said about context.

I don't know this hostility thing from experience, the only woman I ever knew who had very large breasts had serious back problems as a result and eventually got them reduced through surgery (on the NHS). Very similar story to the girl in the article, except none of us envied her! Mind, we were all older, in our late 20s and 30s. I don't have any friends who seem to worry much about this, maybe they don't tell me, but why wouldn't they - weight and how to loose some is a regular topic amongst my friends and colleagues.

As for possessiveness, it does make sense. The men need to know that they are not sharing their wives in order to be reasonably sure the children are really their own, and the women need the support for themselves and their children, human children need lots of care for several years before they reach independence. So longer-term bonding is essential (although the life-long version isn't). Unless you consider children a responsibility of the whole community and do away with the couple/family idea.....

I was trying to look at it from the point of view that Page 3 is linked to dominance, so is demeaning. If it's degrading to women, that must be because it's a pervy instinct, since mutual attraction is good.

I struggle with this, I don't want women to feel they should have to cover up because men can't be sensible.

[feral chile]

I was lucky! I found some girls who wanted to do that too, we were forever falling out of trees.

My dad loved having a tomboy for a daughter (I never got into cars, though).

The strange thing in my case is that I don't remember hostility from other girls, or later, women. All this female jealousy stuff is quite alien to me, although I often read/hear about it.

I don't have large breasts, and don't feel hostile to women who do, though maybe envious, that's no doubt conditioned, because I'm pretty sure I'd be defensively covering them if I had them!

I've encountered hostility, I don't think it's jealousy, I'm certainly not a looker. I'm not sure what it is, maybe because they can't suss me out.

[feral chile]

Attractive people have an advantage in life? Well I never..... It's a bit like saying most parents love their children. It is coming from the department of the bleeding obvious.

Conventionally good looking people will always be able to use their looks to get ahead in many spheres of life. This is neither new, nor does it need encouragement - it is already happening. And I don't see why it should be promoted as a good idea to women, even if there were a few hapless souls who haven't realised it yet (doubt that). It re-enforces a lot of negative stereotypes, it simply sends the wrong message and encourages all sorts of potential misunderstandings (what if he thinks you really like or want him?).

And again, the whole thing is based on the idea that women over 30 (Why over 30? What science is that arbitrary figure coming from?) want sex less than men and have to dangle the possibility in front of them. Because the vast majority of men is always gagging for it (Are they? Most grown up men I know have someone to go it if they want that sort of thing, a wife, a girlfriend, a friend-with-benefits, and some just don't care, they don't need to hanker after someone at work who is playing evasive games and all the potential problems that brings. Plus, she's already over 30!!).

I've no idea how men actually feel about this. Assuming they realise a woman is trying that sort of thing on, perhaps some don't, but I'd like to think many do. Is it funny? Annoying? Embarrassing (beauty/attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder, after all)? Does it not matter at all? Would they consider promoting a women who does that sort of thing, because there might be something in it for them or would they think she's actually less suitable for a responsible position? Any chance this might backfire? If a guy tried that sort of thing on with me, I'd be quite annoyed.

That's not the same as you not wanting to have an unusual haircolour for your presentation. The equivalent to this erotic capital idea would be you wearing a tight or low cut top and telling flirty jokes whilst making eye contact with the men in the front row throughout your presentation (vivaciousness, social charm).

I didn't realise she meant quite that. I thought she meant recognising that appearance matters, and so does your interpersonal skills.

I haven't read enough of her, I can see.

[feral chile]

More silliness, that just can't be let go.

I'm not "arguing for" patriarchy.

I'm recognising via the evidence what exists.

And what exists is patriarchy as defined by others.

What about that have you failed to grasp over weeks? All of it.

What evidence are you specifically meaning that is objective?

I hate the term patriarchy.

Both misogynists and feminists agreeing that men have all the power.

Edited March 2, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

What evidence are you specifically meaning that is objective?

The evidence that you cannot give me things which are not male defined, despite me having asked now tens of times.

There is evidence for patriarchy. You need to give the evidence to disprove it if you reject it.

Rather than just the anti-intellectual "I'm not having that".

Edited March 2, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Both misogynists and feminists agreeing that men have all the power.

and evidentialists.

Via the evidence that men *DO* hold all of the power.

[feral chile]

and evidentialists.

Via the evidence that men *DO* hold all of the power.

That's too vague an assertion to claim evidence for.

eg

You'd need to say 'all the powerful positions are held by men' and point to what you class as powerful positions.

And then stats would back you up.

etc.

Otherwise, it's like the Argument from Design.

Those lot think all the evidence is there too.

Edited March 2, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Men don't have to hold all levers of power all of the time to hold all meaningful power, when society is already governed by men's rules and any holding of power by women is temporary, and likely to be in that style of men.

You can pick anything, and with a little examination you can see how that thing has been defined by men to most-benefit men.

Does capitalism exist? It could be denied on the same basis you're doing with patriarchy, and yet if you examine any no-public-intervention aspect of working capitalism implementations, you can see that the system is designed to benefit capitalists.

So give me the list, that you continually duck giving. If it's so easily proved wrong as you're saying, prove it wrong with evidence.

You've already conceded that childbirth is male-defined, so I'll be interested to see what prove you can give that's more female than that.

[feral chile]

capitalism



[ ˈkapɪt(ə)lɪz(ə)m ]


NOUN





an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

That's a good point of reference, it's simple then to argue how much of the system is run for profit and by the private sector.

Because it's very clear what your points of reference are.

patriarchy and power, however:

This is my point of reference: I covered Hobbes, Weber, and Foucalt, and I'm assuming from our discussions that you're referring to power as a resource or domination. I;m arguing (or trying to) for Power as Empowerment, though admittedly, I'm a bit confused and woolly, because it's difficult to conceive of alternatives.

Note from the below: affecting and transforming. NOT manipulative or designed to fool anyone, as you suggested.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-power/

This conception of power as transformative and empowering is also a prominent theme in lesbian feminism and ecofeminism. For example, Sarah Lucia Hoagland is critical of the masculine conception of power with its focus on “state authority, police and armed forces, control of economic resources, control of technology, and hierarchy and chain of command” (Hoagland 1988, 114). Instead, Hoagland defines power as “power-from-within” which she understands as “the power of ability, of choice and engagement. It is creative; and hence it is an affecting and transforming power but not a controlling power” (Hoagland 1988, 118). Similarly, Starhawk claims that she is “on the side of the power that emerges from within, that is inherent in us as the power to grow is inherent in the seed” (Starhawk 1987.) For both Hoagland and Starhawk, power-from-within is a positive, life-affirming, and empowering force that stands in stark contrast to power understood as domination, control or imposing one's will on another.

Edited March 2, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I didn't concede that childbirth is male defined, I didn't really understand what you meant, whether you meant contraception, hospitals, or what exactly.

I think you said the rules around childbirth were ale defined, and I didn't understand then either.

Edited March 2, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

neil, I've yet to find any truth value statements by you that would be capable of proving right or wrong, that's what I'm saying.

You say 'men hold all the power' without specifying what you mean by power, and if you read my link, you can see that feminists themselves define power in different ways.

Capitalism has a clear definition. We know what the public and private sector is, we know what profit is. We know what economic and political mean.

Edited March 2, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I didn't concede that childbirth is male defined, I didn't really understand what you meant, whether you meant contraception, hospitals, or what exactly.

I think you said the rules around childbirth were ale defined, and I didn't understand then either.

Childbirth could be a simple natural act enabled by women for women.

But it's not. The child is the man's 'property', and he wants to ensure the well-being of his property, so has instructed women how and where to give birth - for HIS good, not hers!

I'll happily concede that's more of a historical view today than it would have been 30-40 years ago, but the ideas people are working to today are still in-the-main informed by that historical male-defined set-up.

[feral chile]

Sometimes it is a natural process. Women have more right to choose now. My daughter was able to give birth at home.

though this is a sore point for me. I chose to have a hospital birth, with monitoring, because of my history of extremely rapid births/foetal distress/emergency C section - and my birthplan was ignored, my medical history was ignored, I was induced using a drug against the pharmaceutical company guidelines, the hospital's own guidelines were ignored, both by my female midwives and by my male consultant.

And it was my husband's 'property' who suffered.

How you can argue for or against patriarchy with this one is beyond me.

Edited March 2, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

neil, I've yet to find any truth value statements by you that would be capable of proving right or wrong, that's what I'm saying.

You say 'men hold all the power' without specifying what you mean by power, and if you read my link, you can see that feminists themselves define power in different ways.

How the 'power' might be exercised can be in a number of different ways (from directly, to the most mild cultural pressure), which gives an outcome where men are advantaged or where things are done to their way of liking.

So, for childbirth: something they didn't really have any business interfering in had men define the way childbirth was conducted.

When someone says "if women ran the world it would be very different", they're essentially recognising how just about everything is defined by men to men's benefit.

[feral chile]

For it to be different, women would have to redefine power, and you haven't liked my suggestions thus far.

otherwise, you just replace patriarchy with matriarchy, and the problem continues unabated.

(this is why I keep likening the gender struggle, as defined by patriarchy, with Orwell and totalitarianism - power and propaganda, and all that).

Edited March 2, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

For it to be different, women would have to redefine power

why would they?

In almost everything we can see how the power balance is tipped in men's favour, and all it requires is a rebalancing (tho that's easier said than done, I'm not trying to suggest it's easy).

otherwise, you just replace patriarchy with matriarchy, and the problem continues unabated.

you cure nothing by making all the same mistakes.

Why do you think only warped set-ups are possible?

[feral chile]

it depends how you're defining power, and how you think change can be effected.

If you mean equal representation in political and economic spheres, positive discrimination can take care of the legal side of that.

if you're talking domination and oppression, then we're starting to talk about empowerment strategies, which is where I'm at.

power as empowerment would involve not only allowing equality of opportunity, positive discrimination etc, but also a concerted effort to change perceptions.

so, you'd be looking at things such as questioning why women were still under represented or men under represented in certain professions, and how to change attitudes, probably by challenging gender stereotypes or values.

And the focus would be on collaboration.

Section 4 of my link can explain it much better than I can. it's basically that patriarchy is a theory pointing out that power is in the hands of men.

but power more than anything else is male defined. power is the most patriarchal concept of them all.

So we can't topple patriarchy without toppling that.

therefore, paradoxically, we can't topple patriarchy while asserting it under patriarchy's terms. Using its own value structure.

I don't know if I'm explaining this clearly, probably not. it's not that I don't think that there's male bias everywhere, it's precisely that I think there's male bias everywhere that's my issue. Including everything pointed out in the patriarchy theory.

[eFestivals]

So we can't topple patriarchy without toppling that.

Good luck at finding your powerless world, then.

[feral chile]

It's not going to be easy, that's for sure.

it would be like living in Jehovahs Witness resurrected earth post Armageddon.

or a commune.

Edited March 2, 2015 by feral chile

[bunique]

I think (would need to dig out some old birth books) that birth was female dominated until mid-19th century or so, at which point men stepped in.

[feral chile]

I'd have thought it would have been for some time historically, I remember studying the history of witchcraft trials, and a lot of that was to do with male dominated science and religion competing with traditional female folk remedies. Though that would have been much earlier.

http://hoydensandfirebrands.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/witchcraft-and-midwifery.html

Kings and nobles had their court physicians who were men, sometimes even priests. Male upper class healing under the auspices of the Church was acceptable, female healing as part of a peasant subculture was not. The Church saw its attack on peasant healers as an attack on magic, not medicine. The devil was believed to have real power on earth, and the use of that power by peasant women—whether for good or evil—was a threat to the Church and State.

The greater their satanic powers to help themselves, the less they were dependent on God and the Church and the more they were potentially able to use their powers against God's order. Magic charms were believed to be as effective as prayer in healing the sick, but prayer was Church-sanctioned and controlled while incantations and charms were not. There was no problem in distinguishing God's cures from the Devil's, for obviously the Lord would work through priests and doctors rather than through peasant women.

Thus is why I believe looking at things from a top-down perspective might be an error of judgement. it's looking at power through the eyes of the patriarch.

Cunning folk - think of the power base of Terry Pratchett's Witches, and Headology, the confident sexuality of Nanny Ogg:

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

Women wielded power then. Power in the form of social prestige as wise women. They were revered and sometimes feared.

Edited March 2, 2015 by feral chile