What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

that's a method that only leads you to the confusion you display in most of your posts.

Either we have a patriarchal society, or we don't.

If we don't, you need to give an evidence-based reason rfor your rejection.

So far you've rejected it because you don't want to accept that men hold these powers, and you've rejected it thru application of non-logic that you called logic.

Each time I try to pin you down, you throw in a squirrel as a way to run away from having to commit yourself.

And you say I'm frustrating?

I'm trying to get the clarity of thought out of you that's so far been absent.

I don't think that, and that's nothing of why i'm here.

Presumably you're looking for clarity of what the problems are. That requires the examination of society and effects that you won't do, where instead you seem to think the answers can be found in an individualic and non-academic approach.

Your ideas would develop much better via an examination of the issues - which you run away from every time, to throw in endless examples which are meaningless examples without being examined.

Do I think women are under-represented in certain professions? yes.

D I think there's still gender bias in our value system? Yes - which also relates to the above.

if you get to specifics, I doubt we're in a huge amount of disagreement.

I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, or having a kneejerk reaction to this 'men are more powerful than women' statement, which feels like men claiming mastery, not a statement that there's gender inequality.

[feral chile]

And you say you find midnight's ideas fascinating, and then wonder why I'm calling you out for what you're clearly doing.

But did that happen because of your own sole power to change things, or because those with the power allowed you to change things?

I'm really confused as to why I'm in conflict with feminists, to be honest. I don't understand why saying men aren't helpless and passive is denying the unfair state of affairs that still exists - though not as bad as before - still lots to be done though.

But when you say that attempts in the home to generate a more equal division of labour, and respect between the sexes, isn't proof of fighting for a more equal society - then I get confused.

Regarding the question about my sole power - usually, it's by getting those with authority to make changes, to understand that by working together, we can get a better result.

So it's sometimes persuading people of the how, and sometimes it's changing their perception of what the end game should be.

And at times when the position of authority has been mine, I've used collaboration rather than enforcement techniques, because lots of people are naturally defiant, if they think someone's trying to make them do something.

[eFestivals]

When I hear patriarchy, I get confused, for one thing, with feminists saying it's a man's world, and misogynists saying it's a man's world.

Within this topic, the only time you'll hear the 2nd is jokingly or via the voices in your head, from what i've seen of it. so perhaps stop listening to those voices in your head (or get a sense of humour)?

it's just that because patriarchy focuses on power, I keep thinking the other side of the coin is that women must be powerless, as in not in control or able to influence anything - without agency.

and yet that patently not true, unless you're at the same time denying who you are.

So it's your thinking that's wrong somewhere.

So that's the only bit I'm disputing - that women have the ability (agency, control, power, whatever word you want to use) to influence change - even if political power is still mainly in the hands of men.

The only person I've seen claim that nothing changes is russy, and he's disproven by the facts of reality.

So again, the problem is within your own thinking.

I know you've asked me to give you an example of what isn't male defined, but I'm so confused by the question I don't understand what you mean.

where male influence/power has been applied, to give the outcome that best suits males - and you'll find it's almost everything in life.

Childbirth is an excellent example of that, even tho as that great example it's now starting to become less of a great example as change starts to take effect.

For me, things like 'fireman' 'postman' were male defined, and now the ob title's changed.

But I don't think that's what you mean.

It is in part - and worth noting that for the likes of those prefix-'men', while the title has formally changed, things have stayed much as they are. Most people still habitually say prefix-'man' unless they're perhaps talking about a specific female example.

So change happens, but change is slow because of how things are culturally ingrained.

And when you get to 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits, such as mastery, appeasement, compromise etc., I wouldn't know where to start, because you're talking positive and negative values assigned to traits that I don't believe are specific to gender in the first place.

those traits are contextual and not particularly gender specific or power specific. For example, compromise is fine in the right place, but in the wrong place it risks becoming worse than a bad compromise, it might become appeasement.

As for creating diversions, if you think I'm posting something irrelevant, if you let me know what it is, I'll either stop or argue its relevance, because whatever the diversionary tactic is that you think I'm doing, I don't know what t is.

Why not just try and address a question now and then, rather than run away from it?

You'll only clarify your own opinions by having opinions, and have worthwhile opinions by having opinions that stand up to scrutiny.

[feral chile]

So this song could be your rallying cry, then?

She's very good live, but all the links I've found to a live version of this song have been blocked. Quite ironic.

pretty much, yes.

though lately, it's been more 'ffs I could do a better job than this' and feeling like showing them how it's done.

maybe I'm going over to the dark side

Edited March 9, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

But when you say that attempts in the home to generate a more equal division of labour, and respect between the sexes, isn't proof of fighting for a more equal society - then I get confused.

You get confused because you make it up yourself.

I've never posted anything that says anything remotely like that.

[feral chile]

I'm spilling the beans on my own family here, but my brother and father (who I happen to be very fond of) would totally deny it, and ridicule me for it, if I told them that men are still privileged in today's society. Actually not would, they have done it. They are nice guys and quite educated too.

Nor have I ever had much luck influencing and persuading the other men in my life, but that may be because I'm not doing it right. Should I have used used my erotic capital more, as a bargaining tool? I am frowning on this, that is true, but I don't know whether many other people do. Perhaps it is the only way forward, and morality be damned.

Btw, I too was wondering where the "man-hating" comment was coming from, that's not how you came across to me here. Does it go back to some previous exchange elsewhere?

I'm not quite sure what counts as erotic capital, I think I could use mine as a threat

[feral chile]

You get confused because you make it up yourself.

I've never posted anything that says anything remotely like that.

well when tonyblair said he had quite an equal arrangement at home, I took you to mean it was impossible, because of male bias.

You can still show respect, and share the chores, and decisions, etc. though, and do your best to be egalitarian, surely?

Edited March 9, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

well when tonyblair said he had quite an equal arrangement at home, I took you to mean it was impossible, because of male bias.

and that was correct of you to do so.

That is not a jot of what you just said above.

[feral chile]

and that was correct of you to do so.

That is not a jot of what you just said above.

ok so what did you mean then? I know we can't escape gender bias, unless we stopped thinking of the human species as gendered.

But gender differences - it's impossible to tell which are culturally defined (unless they change over time, which would suggest they are).

The problem is tracking the changes. Say we think that women are better at interpersonal skills. They suddenly become more important because of changes in the economy.

what happens? Do women become more valued, or do men learn interpersonal skills and we get a status quo on the power scale - even though gender differences are changed?

You've always got masculine/feminine and positive/negative to play around with so it gets really complicated.

Should we be getting more women in business, or will power then shift somewhere else?

[feral chile]

Nye Bevan:

'The purpose of getting power is to be able to give it away'

[kaosmark2]

why can't you imagine my home, or anyone's, not having a male bias?

You may have made a strong effort to limit male bias in your home, but male bias is SO prevalent in society, that it cannot be left at the doorstep and be completely 100% irrelevant in your home.

For all I know, your home may have the least male bias in the country, or the world, but it will still have some, because what is in the rest of society, doesn't dissipate on the boundary of where you live.

[feral chile]

You may have made a strong effort to limit male bias in your home, but male bias is SO prevalent in society, that it cannot be left at the doorstep and be completely 100% irrelevant in your home.

For all I know, your home may have the least male bias in the country, or the world, but it will still have some, because what is in the rest of society, doesn't dissipate on the boundary of where you live.

What about the other way round though? Socialisation takes place in the home as well, so if your childhood is a little unusual, you might not have the same gender identity as is the 'norm'.

[midnight]

I'm not quite sure what counts as erotic capital, I think I could use mine as a threat

Don't worry, we're past it anyway :

"Men will always be more powerful and better paid than women, so women can and should manipulate them for social, financial or professional gain using sex - sorry, "erotic capital". Discouraging them from doing so is an evil feminist plot to deny women the only real advantage they have in the "gender war" - their physical charms - although Hakim does not enlighten us as to where this leaves unattractive women, older women, women who can't afford the strict beauty and grooming regimes she recommends, or those of us who forget to wash because we've been up all night watching Buffy, eating cheese and scratching ourselves."

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2011/08/erotic-capital-book-women-sex

You only get a very short window to use it, as it's supposedly after age 30 that our sex drive is lower than that of the guys around us, and for all I know after 40 we are on that slippery slope of diminishing attractiveness. Missed that boat. And I never even watched Buffy or ate cheese (hate it), life's really not fair!

Nye Bevan:

'The purpose of getting power is to be able to give it away'

Nice. But in order for men to share it, they need to acknowledge having a lot of it, otherwise they don't know what they are doing. Until some cunning women snatch some of it away from them with their erotic capital, making the guys bitter and resentful.

What about the other way round though? Socialisation takes place in the home as well, so if your childhood is a little unusual, you might not have the same gender identity as is the 'norm'.

But you'll be influenced by what goes on outside your home as well, and so are the people who create your home life. You might turn out "a little unusual", but you won't be free or ignorant of the mainstream mores and expectations, even if you rebel against them.

Edited March 10, 2015 by midnight

[midnight]

We've been pretty skint in the past, reliant on benefits, living in a council fat etc etc. Apart from not having to worry as much about money now, I can't honesty say when we were happier, there were benefits then as there are now.

I'm not very good at verbalising this stuff (oh really?.. ). It's the bits in between the other stuff that also has an effect. Everyday interchange with other people. Even in a workplace, most of a persons day isn't dominated by the profit margins. It's just normal occurrences. Like NOT perpetuating dumb stereotypical jokes. It doesn't have to be a massively confrontational experience. Where I work, when other colleagues say any manner of thing, about race or sex, they'll say it looking at me, and say "I know you don't like me saying that..." for example. I'm really glad that they acknowledge it. And I know it makes a difference, not just for the person saying it, but other's listening. A small example, I know.

If that sounds like a lot of hippy happy-clappy nonsense.... well it very well might be

I know... I want an update though. I need some re-assurance that she's ok

She's probably ok for the moment, her employers must be rubbing their hands for all the extra attention it got their TV station. Whether the cleric is plotting revenge is another question....

A council flat! Wishful thinking, I never qualified for one, despite being a front line public sector worker. I ended up renting a room in a shared house, it consumed nearly half of my meagre salary (mid 1990s). Wouldn't say these were the best days of my life.

But I do get what you say about the everyday interchanges. We should do what we can.

[kaosmark2]

But you'll be influenced by what goes on outside your home as well, and so are the people who create your home life. You might turn out "a little unusual", but you won't be free or ignorant of the mainstream mores and expectations, even if you rebel against them.

This.

To give another example, Christianity. Even atheists and agnostics are heavily influenced by its impact on society. Can anyone in this country live free of its teachings, beliefs and attitudes, to the extent they won't affect them at all? Of course not, you can involve only certain aspects of it, reject large elements of it (inc. christmas, marriage, etc.), but you can't completely escape it. The same is true of social gender norms.

[eFestivals]

why can't you imagine my home, or anyone's, not having a male bias?

For the same reason that you can't you imagine all male bias.

[eFestivals]

ok so what did you mean then?

exactly what I said.

What part is confusing you?

[eFestivals]

Nye Bevan:

'The purpose of getting power is to be able to give it away'

so do you recognise power, or don't you?

Can you please make up your mind and stick to it, because it's rather impossible to have a sensible convo with a yo-yo.

While you're at it, perhaps make a final decision on patriarchy too?

[eFestivals]

Don't worry, we're past it anyway :

"Men will always be more powerful and better paid than women, so women can and should manipulate them for social, financial or professional gain using sex - sorry, "erotic capital". Discouraging them from doing so is an evil feminist plot to deny women the only real advantage they have in the "gender war" - their physical charms - although Hakim does not enlighten us as to where this leaves unattractive women, older women, women who can't afford the strict beauty and grooming regimes she recommends, or those of us who forget to wash because we've been up all night watching Buffy, eating cheese and scratching ourselves."

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2011/08/erotic-capital-book-women-sex

You only get a very short window to use it, as it's supposedly after age 30 that our sex drive is lower than that of the guys around us, and for all I know after 40 we are on that slippery slope of diminishing attractiveness. Missed that boat. And I never even watched Buffy or ate cheese (hate it), life's really not fair!

Nice. But in order for men to share it, they need to acknowledge having a lot of it, otherwise they don't know what they are doing. Until some cunning women snatch some of it away from them with their erotic capital, making the guys bitter and resentful.

But you'll be influenced by what goes on outside your home as well, and so are the people who create your home life. You might turn out "a little unusual", but you won't be free or ignorant of the mainstream mores and expectations, even if you rebel against them.

[eFestivals]

Except I can

Then you can tell us all the answers to the problems under discussion here, then.

Go ahead, this'll be interesting....

[eFestivals]

Because I can imagine an all male bias, I know all the answers?

You reckon you know en0ough answers to keep all male bias out of your house, so why can't the same answers apply to the whole world?

The real truth is you can't even recognise much of the male bias that others posting here can, as shown by your denial of plenty of examples of male bias within this thread.

[eFestivals]

Where have I denied male bias?

within childbirth, for one (which you've done at least twice).

And you deny that everything is defined with a male bias, and yet decline to give examples of what you believe to be free of male bias. Why is that? Is that because of your male-bias-detection perfection, or because of something else?

[eFestivals]

I haven't said there isn't male bias within child birth. I said it's possible to have it without male bias.

it's possible to have anything without male bias, but only after the bias is identified and fully removed

Now, how have you done that process within your house? Kept your kids always locked inside, perhaps, so they can't be corrupted by the big nasty world?

Edited March 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

It doesn't need to be identified if you start from a neutral position

it needs to be identified to act against it.

There is no such thing as "a neutral position", there is only the position you've been socialised into.

But anyway, you don't agree. You believed you've identified all sexism and banished it from being able to enter your home. You're Mr Unique. Very well done.

[eFestivals]

ok so what did you mean then?

The question here is much more about what you mean, because you're all over the place. One minute you're accepting patriarchy, the next rejecting it; one minute you're recognising what power-weilded can do, the next you say you'll get equality via no-power.

It occurred to me last night what I think is going on.

You've studied psychology, which leads you to focus on the individual. Patriarchy is much more the world of sociology, and psychologists tend to disagree with sociologists and vice versa.

So you focus on the individual, but every now and then you grasp the bigger concepts and can't help referencing them because you recognise their existence, but then you can't reconsile that bigger picture with what you've already decided about the individual. And so, rather than question what you've concluded about the individual, you choose to reject the bigger picture.

Ultimately, such a method is always flawed. You get the right answer via the consideration of all relevant factors and not by picking and choosing which factors you'll include.