What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

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.

It's certainly true that there's a wide belief that society was less patriarchal in the middle ages and earlier.

[eFestivals]

I said that the other day, but you refuted it...

link?

[feral chile]

It's certainly true that there's a wide belief that society was less patriarchal in the middle ages and earlier.

The Enlightenment brought with it an emphasis on rationality, logic and science, and also attributed them to males more than women.

It's ironic that a philosophy emphasizing freedom and equality brought with it such male bias, and a hierarchy detrimental to the more diffused communal power bases of the past. Freedom and equality applied only to men for a long time afterwards.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/

[eFestivals]

It's ironic that a philosophy emphasizing freedom and equality brought with it such male bias

Did it? Or did it merely create more 'things' into which the same male bias could (oh-er missus ) penetrate.

[eFestivals]

Not what you claimed then tony.

Am I surprised?

[feral chile]

Did it? Or did it merely create more 'things' into which the same male bias could (oh-er missus ) penetrate.

Both - it moved into all areas of society, science, medicine, education etc. So left little room for more local power structures.

I don't think there have been many matriarchies, as such, but there have been communities where the power structure wasn't hierarchical in nature.

that all ended.

(Hierarchy is a phallus, don't you think? it needs to become a fallacy).

Edited March 2, 2015 by feral chile

[midnight]

There aren't any "matriarchies" that withstood closer observation, to the best of my knowledge. The Iroquois are often quoted as an example, but whilst their women had a higher statutes than the women of most other NA tribes (ie desendance traced through the maternal line, a right to nominate the male leaders and veto important tribal decisions etc), they were not a matriarchy in the sense that women domineered men.

Whatever matriarchies there may have been have probably been lost before recorded history.

[midnight]

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).

It is pertinent to a system where the child rearing is predominantly done by this bonded couple, the parents. If you'd share it out in the community, the stability of the couple would be less important, because everyone would contribute to the upkeep of the essential next generation, depending on their abilities.

[midnight]

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.

The word pervy (or similar) never really came to my mind in that context. And mutual attraction isn't at risk either, it seems to survive all kinds of developments and debates quite happily. But there is nothing mutual here, as far as I can see - just a certain amount of collateral damage to those women who feel a negative impact.

[midnight]

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.

I wouldn't really recommend reading her, the bits I have read are mostly dressed up pseudo-science. She should have turned it into a self-help-book, I suppose. The message would still be deplorable, imho, but at least it wouldn't be sold under sociology.

But here is a summary by someone who admits to having flirted her way to success, and who thinks the advice is fab. Sorry, it's a link to the D-Mail, but I guess that is the natural home for this type of thinking (yes, I am being judgemental here, I know):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2029781/I-use-sex-appeal-ahead-work--does-ANY-woman-sense.html

[bunique]

This is a pretty harrowing read:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31698154

I'm sure there's a lot of good stuff going on to counter it, but not sure I can bring myself to watch the documentary itself.

[russycarps]

Their views of women are extraordinary. Chilling.

[feral chile]

The word pervy (or similar) never really came to my mind in that context. And mutual attraction isn't at risk either, it seems to survive all kinds of developments and debates quite happily. But there is nothing mutual here, as far as I can see - just a certain amount of collateral damage to those women who feel a negative impact.

I'm trying to understand the Page 3 debate in modern context. back in the day, it was part of a lot of other issues where women were not only placed at a disadvantage, but at risk, because of their lack of protection and consideration within society.

I would have placed Page 3 firmly within everything that needed to change, and I understand the objectification argument.

What I'm searching for is a compromise, whereby men aren't made to feel in the wrong for being attracted to breasts, and women don't feel wronged.

And trying to work out what the mechanism is that's behind it (and please don't say patriarchy, because men would probably still be attracted to breasts in a completely equal society).

I suppose I'm still trying to find a way to give both sexes freedom to express either sexuality without either feeling objectified, or guilty for looking.

[feral chile]

This is a pretty harrowing read:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31698154

I'm sure there's a lot of good stuff going on to counter it, but not sure I can bring myself to watch the documentary itself.

I remember this story, it's horrendous

[feral chile]

Their views of women are extraordinary. Chilling.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/03/16/for-attitudes-towards-rape-to-change-society-needs-to-drop-its-sexual-double-standard/

• ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,095 adults aged 18+ by telephone.

They were given a series of scenarios and asked to indicate whether they believed a woman was totally responsible, partially responsible or not at all responsible for being raped.

If the woman was drunk, 4pc said she was totally responsible and 26pc said she was partially responsible.

If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible.

If the woman failed to say "no" clearly to the man, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 29pc said she was partially responsible.

If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible.

If it is known that the woman has many sexual partners, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 14pc said she was partially responsible.

If she is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said she was totally responsible and 17pc said she was partially responsible.

This is what causes me misgivings with the Page 3 debate. If we allow that Page 3 women baring their breasts leads to the oppression of women, and that leads to rape, where does women's responsibility end?

it used to be baring their ankles, wearing mini skirts, etc. etc.

I'd sooner give women the freedom (and protection) to pose naked than allow men to use Page 3 as an excuse to rape.

Men are responsible for rape. I don't want any hint or suggestion that any act by a woman has caused her to assume responsibility for an offence perpetrated by a man.

Edited March 3, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/noah-michelson/a-few-words-on-russell-tovey_b_6791216.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

[russycarps]

You could argue that if men are responsible for rape, they are also responsible for not raping.

The only reason there is not a horrible rape culture in this country is because men choose it to be that way. Another example of their dominance.

[feral chile]

You could argue that if men are responsible for rape, they are also responsible for not raping.

The only reason there is not a horrible rape culture in this country is because men choose it to be that way. Another example of their dominance.

The only reason poor people don't steal from the rich and seize their possessions is because poor people choose for it to be this way. Another example of their dominance.

The only reason women don't gather and pounce on every lone unarmed male and castrate him before he rapes anyone is because they choose it to be this way. Another example of their dominance.

The only reason women don't maim each vulnerable male child etc. etc.

After all, it would be men's own fault for having penises and being a potential threat.

Too bad they didn't actually intend to be attacked. They were at least partially to blame for being out unarmed, on their own, while wearing clothes with a penis under them.

trollops! asking for it, I reckon!

Edited March 3, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

The trouble is, the history goes back so far (or not far enough), how do we know what was 'normal' and what is now part of our conditioning? Have men been conditioned to think women's breasts are a turn on? or is it part of the DNA? Does it matter...?

I only think it matters because we're looking at attraction as part of domination.

[midnight]

The trouble is, the history goes back so far (or not far enough), how do we know what was 'normal' and what is now part of our conditioning? Have men been conditioned to think women's breasts are a turn on? or is it part of the DNA? Does it matter...?

You've said before that it might be conditioning, I've mentioned it too somewhere (think it was in the news thread), but no one wanted to take this up, perhaps it's unimaginable?

In India, a woman's upper arms are considered highly erotic, and all traditional clothing covers shoulders and upper arms, whilst an exposed midriff causes no reaction. Yet upper arms are not considered much of a display in the Western World and sleeveless dresses are perfectly acceptable for most social occasions. To many tribes in warm climates, the need to cover up breasts was unknown until they got visited by missionaries. The men in the Amazon Indian tribes seemed to be quite able to hunt and fish and socialise despite their womenfolk wandering around with nothing more than a little grass skirt covering the hips (or not even that).

Though I don't think it matters that much in the end, whether it is genetic or very ingrained conditioning, it need not be a massive problem. There are plenty of opportunities to satisfy such an urge. They could look at something like the book Laura Dodsworth is trying to make (I've linked to it in an earlier post), where women of all ages, shapes and walks of life talk about what their breast mean to them - complete with pictures, and some of the stories are really interesting. But that isn't all about sex, and it isn't always pretty. Meep.

To me, the problem with something like page 3 isn't that men like to look at breasts. It is more that their taste is catered too in a sort of environment that we normally separate from "expressing our sexuality" (people read the Sun at work and on the bus etc), and that it prescribes only an extremely narrow kind of aesthetics as worth looking at (very young, white, a very specific type of prettiness). We can't, at the moment, get away from the general attitude to sex (which is really quite negative still), so we normally try to put it away from work and public spaces. Except sometimes - we don't. That's problematic. Who decides why these exceptions are acceptable, and others aren't? Another rhetorical question, but Feral said I'm not allowed to mention the P word!

Edited March 4, 2015 by midnight

[midnight]

This is a pretty harrowing read:

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31698154

I'm sure there's a lot of good stuff going on to counter it, but not sure I can bring myself to watch the documentary itself.

Grim. I read that one earlier today, as I had an interest in the case when the news first broke. I always wondering why they did that dreadful thing with the iron rod to her (that's what killed her, she died a few days later, from massive bleeding and damage to her internal organs), now I know.

They don't want to broadcast the film in India, btw.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-31710244

[eFestivals]

and what is now part of our conditioning?

Oh, you do have social conditioning after all?

Care to explain how you leave that outside your front door, as you claimed your own family's perfection at doing?

[eFestivals]

How can breasts be normalised now? How can sex be normalised?

How can tony be normalised?

It's no less of a good question.

[russycarps]

The only reason poor people don't steal from the rich and seize their possessions is because poor people choose for it to be this way. Another example of their dominance.

The only reason women don't gather and pounce on every lone unarmed male and castrate him before he rapes anyone is because they choose it to be this way. Another example of their dominance.

The only reason women don't maim each vulnerable male child etc. etc.

After all, it would be men's own fault for having penises and being a potential threat.

Too bad they didn't actually intend to be attacked. They were at least partially to blame for being out unarmed, on their own, while wearing clothes with a penis under them.

trollops! asking for it, I reckon!

so why is rape so prevalent in india but not so much in the uk? Because women have decided it wont be that way? Come off it.

Edited March 4, 2015 by russycarps

[krisskross]

so why is rape so prevalent in india but not so much in the uk? Because women have decided it wont be that way? Come off it.

Are the numbers of rapes in india and uk really that different?