What women (don't) want.

[kaosmark2]

To not be able to imagine how some people might be able to live outside of certain social constraints shows a lack of imagination, to me.

That last line is incredibly patronising. You criticise Neil for anything mocking and then claim people have a lack of imagination when they point out the pervasiveness of sexism.

My point is that a number of social constructs, such as religion and gender bias, are so entrenched within society that you cannot escape their influence. Even if you consciously and actively reject it, you're influenced, even if you're unaware of it and are just trying to act in ways you think are fair, you're influenced.

[eFestivals]

so, you saying I can't know my own mind is ok, but if I say something similar, it's patronising?

Eh? Why do you think I'm claiming all knowledge of all sexism?

[kaosmark2]

so, you saying I can't know my own mind is ok, but if I say something similar, it's patronising?

I'm not saying you can't know your own mind. I'm saying your mind cannot escape being influenced by society.

[eFestivals]

If we can't know how conditioned we are, because of our conditioning, and we can't change anything until we're aware of what needs changing (which we can never be absolutely sure of, due to our conditioning), then we're at a permanent dead end. There has to be a kind of leap of faith, or an imagining of what we all wan.

I'm not trying to portray myself as anything special in any way. If anyone wants to live in our home to help me realise where there might be room for improvement, then I'm open to suggestions... I really am.

You're doing the same as feral, being illogical.

While we can't know the exact amount of conditioning and everywhere it intrudes, we CAN know we're conditioned and identify an amount of how we've been conditioned.

The same as with patriarchy, as we work thru the process of addressing what we can identify, other examples of that conditioning will come into our awareness as a result of that cultural change.

For example: 45 years ago, an equal pay act was passed, which addressed an aspect of sexism that plenty of people had become aware of at that time. In the 45 years since, awareness has grown that there's more to be addressed around the issue than simply "equal pay for equal tasks", and we as a society are moving on to looking at addressing those extra issues which weren't so obvious back then.

[eFestivals]

PS: to be properly open to new suggestions for further improvements in trying to be equal, you have to be open to the idea that you haven't already got it all nailed. By believing you have already reached perfection, a person is closing themselves off to the prospect of further improvements.

[eFestivals]

I'm a long way from thinking I've reached perfection, believe me. Not sure that I want to

You said your own home was anti-sexist perfection - which sounded like a claim of perfection to me.

[feral chile]

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.

of course not. Humanitiarian values - which way round is the influence?

[kaosmark2]

of course not. Humanitiarian values - which way round is the influence?

2-way.

[feral chile]

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?

well we once thought being able to vote would give us power

Power changes, as we realise what we thought would make a difference didn't make as much difference as we expected.

And the government has a way of telling you what it gives you is what you asked for, even if it's the exact opposite.

[feral chile]

That last line is incredibly patronising. You criticise Neil for anything mocking and then claim people have a lack of imagination when they point out the pervasiveness of sexism.

My point is that a number of social constructs, such as religion and gender bias, are so entrenched within society that you cannot escape their influence. Even if you consciously and actively reject it, you're influenced, even if you're unaware of it and are just trying to act in ways you think are fair, you're influenced.

Not to mention capitalism and democracy.

And even gender itself, which is mindblowing when you start looking into it - there were posts in here earlier explaining about that, it blew me away.

[feral chile]

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.

yes, this is extremely likely.

I'm seeing this in terms of interpersonal relationships - therefore if men hold all the power, women are powerless and lack agency.

So, my denial, is not a denial of male bias, or advantage, or anything else you'd want to call it.

If you said we're all socially conditioned to link masculinity with positive value, ad femininity with negative, I'd agree, and be debating whether anything was masculine and feminine in the first place.

So I'm quite happy to talk about socialisation and internalisation, but from a phenomenological perspective, rather than a systemic one.

As soon as you mention power, I think domination, and I react to it in a defiant manner.

because I'm thinking of it as an interpersonal relationship between two groups. So yes, you're right.

I'm getting confused between women standing against it, and giving into it. And acknowledging the concept.

between power and empowerment, if you will.

And analysing the feminist message. I want more focus on change.

Edited March 10, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

well we once thought being able to vote would give us power

and it does, a power equal to everyone else's.

The reason we don't get too far with wielding power is because we (as a society) prefer to express our individuality rather than work together.

Power changes, as we realise what we thought would make a difference didn't make as much difference as we expected.

I'd say the power of everything isn't changing (much, anyhow). What was wrong that caused that 'failure' was our belief in the level of power that one thing had.

So, the problem is not just unequal wages as we once perhaps naively thought. The problems are far deeper than just that.

And the government has a way of telling you what it gives you is what you asked for, even if it's the exact opposite.

those with their hands on the levers of power rarely want to give it up freely. Who knew?

[feral chile]

And at the back of my mind is 'don't tell the buggers they have power, we'll never hear the end of it'.

while I'm feeling generous - it's lucky none of you speak Welsh, too - I've been wondering if anyone would pick up on it

(Welsh National Anthem).

Edited March 10, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

I said our home isn't a male dominated environment. I never said anything about perfection, on any level

You said that your home was 100% free of all sexism, and that it was impossible for any sexism to enter your house or be acted out within your house.

That's a claim of perfection.

[eFestivals]

Until everyone has an absolute equal of everything?

yes.

Equality does not mean "no individuality" as you always like to claim it does, as individuality comes from individual experiences and not from the environment we exist within.

[eFestivals]

That's how you interpreted what I said

No tony, it's what you said.

our home isn't a male dominated environment

It doesn't exist in our home.

[eFestivals]

Is patriarchy the same as sexism?

in how it plays out, yep.

And you said - very clearly - "our home isn't a male dominated environment", which encompasses all.

And I endlessly took the piss out of you about it, and you again and again and again claimed your house to free of everything sexist.

But now you're trying to rinse your wrong. You're dumb, but you're not dumb enough to fool yourself about how you're trying to change what you previously claimed.

[eFestivals]

I said my home is free from patriarchy

no you didn't. Liar liar pants on fire!

But even if you did, you'd first have to know what patriarchy is, and you've explicitly stated that you don't understand it.

You are the real Tony Charles Linton Blair and I claim my five pounds. After all, you must be, you have the same aversion to truth.

[feral chile]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/counting-dead-women-online-memorial-8691488

Women who have been killed by their male partners, in the main.

Rachel Williams survived, but her estranged husband and son both committed suicide.

I don't know what to make of it. This man thought he loved her, and took his own life because he couldn't bear to lose her. Then, while she was in hospital recovering from the resulting violence of his love, their son went to stay with the father's family, sleeping on the sofa.

deprived of his family, his home, grieving for his father amidst people grieving and bitter themselves, he took his own life.

He was 16.

All this loss, in the name of love

Edited March 11, 2015 by feral chile

[bunique]

That's a pretty warped definition of "love"

[feral chile]

That's a pretty warped definition of "love"

Exactly!

It's his, not mine. That's precisely why I don't know what to make of it. Prepared t destroy everything, and not even to get what you wanted to start with.

I don't understand it. The only thing that makes sense t me is that he couldn't cope with the loss of control, and he confused that with love.

Where so men learn that to care for something means you have to destroy what you care about?

The son, though - I can't begin to imagine how confused and isolated he must have felt.

Maybe they should teach how to care for people in schools.

Edited March 11, 2015 by feral chile

[midnight]

In July 2005, I went to the funeral of a a former colleague. She'd been killed by her ex-boyfriend (the father of their then 4 year old daughter), with a bread knife. The guy then tried to drink bleach in order to kill himself, but that didn't work and he ended up in a local hospital.

At the funeral, I met her parents, both in their 70s (I think), they looked absolutely broken. I saw her 19 year old daughter from a previous relationship, who had been granted custody of the 4 year old half-sister and was planning to raise her. And I thought, the parents' life is ruined, they'll never get over it. The 19 year old now has to raise a child, she says she wants to and will get help, but it is a big task. The young child will grow up without her mother, with the father in prison, and one day she'll find out that her father killed her mother. The mind boggles at the sight of so much misery - and for what?

2 years before all this happened, I'd been working with the woman on a project; I was her team leader. This job involved home visits to local people, some were meant to take place in the early evenings. She told me that she didn't want to do the evening visits, I asked why? She said she had a very young child (her daughter must have been less than 2 at the time), and that her partner "didn't like it". In this context, I thought she meant to say that she wanted to be home for the toddler's bedtime and that her partner didn't like to be left alone with the child. I had no idea. I could have got her in touch with the right services, if I'd had an inkling - I was funding some of them at the time (ie the local Women's Aid).

Edited March 11, 2015 by midnight

[feral chile]

It's so complicated as well. I know a victim of domestic abuse who ended the relationship, his next partner killed him in self defence, and she was asked to give supporting evidence. She refused because she was still close to his family.

And in my younger days, I used to go down the pub with a woman with a 9 o'clock curfew. She was clearly terrified of her partner. He turned up at my house and dragged her out by her hair once. I managed to persuade him to let her go, and offered her to stay, but she wouldn't.

I didn't know what to do, and still feel guilty.

Edited March 12, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

and as you're doing the all men are bastards thing, I'll just remind you all it's not a one way street.

Plenty of women are prepared to deny their child access to its father, on just the basis that they want to make that man suffer but don't give a shit about making their child suffer. To such women their child is not a person but merely their possession.

Courts have even gone as far to deny a father access forever simply on the basis that the mother would find it too distressing to let a person she's come to hate (merely via the breakdown of their relationship) be able to do what she doesn't want.

Let's have a little balance, eh? It's not only men that can be evil.

Edited March 12, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

and as you're doing the all men are bastards thing, I'll just remind you all it's not a one way street.

Plenty of women are prepared to deny their child access to its father, on just the basis that they want to make that man suffer but don't give a shit about making their child suffer. To such women their child is not a person but merely their possession.

Courts have even gone as far to deny a father access forever simply on the basis that the mother would find it too distressing to let a person she's come to hate (merely via the breakdown of their relationship) be able to do what she doesn't want.

Let's have a little balance, eh? It's not only men that can be evil.

I wasn't intending to say that. The man in the case I referenced killed himself. As destructive as these men are, they're clearly at the end of their tether, and emotionally bereft. As bunique said, it stems from a twisted concept of love, or from powerful out of control emotions...I don't know, I don't understand it.

I don't agree with denying a father access to his children without good reason ie he's an extremely negative influence, abusive, likely to poison them against the mother etc.

And I definitely don't agree with children being used as a weapon. I was brought up by my grandparents, and I was made t choose between them and my parents when I was about 6, so I know the emotional impact this has on a child.

And it's the children who matter. They're not to blame for their parents' mistakes.

It's just....all this pain and violence, in the name of something that's meant to bond people in mutual interest and protection

If ever there was an argument for patriarchy, then surely this is it? Dominance and love getting confused?

Edited March 12, 2015 by feral chile