Jump to content
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

What women (don't) want.


midnight

Recommended Posts

In the end, it doesn't matter what I might claim is my situation (and to re-iterate, my claim was that my home isn't male dominated, that's all. Nothing about any perfection, or free of any sexism).

If we can't even imagine what we actually want, then we can't even make the smallest of steps towards anything better than what we have.

Hi tony,

how are you? I sent you a couple of pm's, they're showing as sent, but they took ages to submit, and they showed read at the same time as I sent them. Weird!

My husband's not too bad. He's really good with emotions, I think I had to explain to him that old chestnut, though, that when women vent, they're not expecting men to do something. And he had to explain to me, that if he says 'what do you want me to do about it', that's a genuine query, and not a dismissive statement.

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He's said before that there wasn't male bias in his household. That's a statement of success, not attempt.

What difference does that make? If you can't assess the results f your actions, because of male bias, you can't plan them effectively either ie all your actions and decisions are male biased.

This is my argument al along. It's either all or nothing once you go down the 'everything is male defined' route.

Because, when tony or I say we've acted in a feminist way, we both get contradicted as misguided.

But when we argue that those believing in patriarchy would also have the same problem, we get contradicted as misguided.

Which is it then, is everything male defined or not? If feminists can decide which is the direction to take without falling into any male defined traps/misguided thinking, then anyone else can state that's what they've done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What difference does that make? If you can't assess the results f your actions, because of male bias, you can't plan them effectively either ie all your actions and decisions are male biased.

This is my argument al along. It's either all or nothing once you go down the 'everything is male defined' route.

Because, when tony or I say we've acted in a feminist way, we both get contradicted as misguided.

But when we argue that those believing in patriarchy would also have the same problem, we get contradicted as misguided.

Which is it then, is everything male defined or not? If feminists can decide which is the direction to take without falling into any male defined traps/misguided thinking, then anyone else can state that's what they've done.

To say you've succeeded is different from saying you're trying. To say you've made progress is a good thing. To say it's FREE of male bias is naive.

I think Neil ignores the progress that has been made too much, certainly earlier in this discussion (maybe not this thread), there's a lot of great results that have been great achievements.

I believe behaviour cannot help but be INFLUENCED by patriachy/male bias/whatever term you want to use. That doesn't mean that you can't act in a way that is rejecting it or is making positive change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say you've succeeded is different from saying you're trying. To say you've made progress is a good thing. To say it's FREE of male bias is naive.

I think Neil ignores the progress that has been made too much, certainly earlier in this discussion (maybe not this thread), there's a lot of great results that have been great achievements.

I believe behaviour cannot help but be INFLUENCED by patriachy/male bias/whatever term you want to use. That doesn't mean that you can't act in a way that is rejecting it or is making positive change.

Influenced, yes, defined, no.

But it's bloody difficult to decide what's a positive change.

Incidentally, I had to attend a meeting with 2 young girls recently, and on the drive back I was astounded by what they had to put up with from groups of men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Influenced, yes, defined, no.

But it's bloody difficult to decide what's a positive change.

Incidentally, I had to attend a meeting with 2 young girls recently, and on the drive back I was astounded by what they had to put up with from groups of men.

Yup. I'm trying to be careful with my language. I don't think the extremity Neil's implied before is accurate, and I'm trying to avoid giving the same impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you consider yourself weak, or take offence, when someone posted footage of that admirable TV presenter standing her ground over that misogynistic prick?

Or is it Ok for you to admire strong women, but not me?

I give up.

No & no, is the answer to both questions.

Rima Karaki tells a self-important guy that she will not have him tell her to shut up and put her down for being a women. On national TV, of all places. She tries to remonstrate with him, he doesn't want to co-operate, so she uses what power she's got by cutting the interview short. Point made.

And you can admire whoever you want, who am I to tell you not to? But your idea of what demonstrates strength is different from mine:

.....

Which I worry about anyway, though I express it differently - and the Page 3/Tit Monday situation is a prime example.

Am I gender secure if I don't let those things bother me, and just think the men are partaking in relatively harmless banter/immature ogling?

So - is it feminist to not care what the daft half of the opulation are doing, and their obsession with breasts and be mildly patronising about them?

Or is it more feminist to see it as a threat, a sign of oppression, something to feel insecure about?

My personal feeling is that I admire women who don't worry about it, get on with their lives and don't let male attitudes get to them, and I want to be strong like them.

A woman who thinks that something like page 3 can't hurt her and therefore lets it go unchallenged doesn't demonstrate strength, in my books. It may help her to cope, but it does nothing to change or challenge what's going on. It is kind of condoning the thing by inaction. The "I won't let this affect me" strategy may work quite well for people who are being bullied, because there is a chance of the bullies moving on once they notice that they can't really get at this person. But they will just move on to someone else. I do think positive action is better. If you admire the people who say, so what, I won't let it get to me, as the strong ones, you are at the same time implying that the ones who do take issue are weaker - the problem would go away if they only could toughen up. But it won't go away. It will go an and on if we ignore it, or pretend to not care. Or if we really convince ourselves that it doesn't matter.

That's my take on things, and it's nothing personal. (I wasn't even trying to be very serious writing this odd little comment last night).

oh cool, so tony CAN work out what's a genuine feminist action then. Even though he's conditioned by patriarchy.

So, if tony says he's tried to be feminist within his household, I'll accept his word.

So do I. And I think it is great that he is trying (I also think it is great that you tried to raise your children in a non-stereotypical way) - because I think it is possible to gradually change things if enough people are trying. The argument here really isn't that you are not trying to achieve more fairness, you obviously are, it is just about how much has been achieved so far, and about the theory that underpins it.

I am a bit late, as usual, Kaosmark has already pointed out the difference, so I won't to drone on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No & no, is the answer to both questions.

Rima Karaki tells a self-important guy that she will not have him tell her to shut up and put her down for being a women. On national TV, of all places. She tries to remonstrate with him, he doesn't want to co-operate, so she uses what power she's got by cutting the interview short. Point made.

And you can admire whoever you want, who am I to tell you not to? But your idea of what demonstrates strength is different from mine:

A woman who thinks that something like page 3 can't hurt her and therefore lets it go unchallenged doesn't demonstrate strength, in my books. It may help her to cope, but it does nothing to change or challenge what's going on. It is kind of condoning the thing by inaction. The "I won't let this affect me" strategy may work quite well for people who are being bullied, because there is a chance of the bullies moving on once they notice that they can't really get at this person. But they will just move on to someone else. I do think positive action is better. If you admire the people who say, so what, I won't let it get to me, as the strong ones, you are at the same time implying that the ones who do take issue are weaker - the problem would go away if they only could toughen up. But it won't go away. It will go an and on if we ignore it, or pretend to not care. Or if we really convince ourselves that it doesn't matter.

That's my take on things, and it's nothing personal. (I wasn't even trying to be very serious writing this odd little comment last night).

So do I. And I think it is great that he is trying (I also think it is great that you tried to raise your children in a non-stereotypical way) - because I think it is possible to gradually change things if enough people are trying. The argument here really isn't that you are not trying to achieve more fairness, you obviously are, it is just about how much has been achieved so far, and about the theory that underpins it.

I am a bit late, as usual, Kaosmark has already pointed out the difference, so I won't to drone on.

Sorry, sometimes I can feel patronised by you and neil, and it makes me a bit defensive. Plus, I had a bit of sly digs going on in work yesterday so I was feeling a bit sensitive.

Also, even when I try to do the feminist thing, the sex positive feminism I was trained in at university, later feminists then tell you what you've actually done is prepared your kids to be willing victims to the predators, so it's quite an emotive subject for me. It's also why I'm now so wary of feminist action, as I'm afraid of falling into the same trap again, and try to avoid the ideology and look at specific things to change, like women under represented in certain areas, double standards, etc. Though even this is problematic.

We were told that men were using our sexuality to make us fearful, and it was a form of bullying, as it was a dominance tactic. So the feminist reaction I was involved in was a countermeasure against masculine attempts to censor us, to force us into the ideal of thee demure, respectable woman, and we were encouraged to be bold, in all areas.

I don't class myself as weak, but I definitely am not as strong or as confident as some of the women I see as role models, they're usually political activists, and VERY bold!

It doesn't mean that you're weak if you're not exceptional like some of these women are, and it very much depends on whether your take on Page 3 is that it's an example of men trying to bully you.

Maybe because of that particular take on it, I tend t focus on the people who look at it, and the women who see them looking. And I further tend to think then, of the Page 3 fans as immature, and the women affected by it as needing to point this out.

So, to me, Page 3 is related to mild intimidation, and that's why my reaction is what it is.

Saying all this, as mentioned above, I witnessed 2 young girls being subjected to far more direct intimidation, I was amazed this still goes on, so I can well understand why you would connect the two.

(Maybe this is part of it - I get respect and consideration from young men, they probably associate me with their grans, so as was discussed earlier, I'm missing the experience of what's still out there, and genuinely thought that society is more respectful to women than previously).

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh cool, so tony CAN work out what's a genuine feminist action then. Even though he's conditioned by patriarchy.

So, if tony says he's tried to be feminist within his household, I'll accept his word.

are you working by the method that anyone who disagrees with your own thinking has to be opposed to everything you say, or something?

For all the while you make up the facts in your head, you'll get it wrong.

You've put your own assumption onto my words, which is nothing of anything I've said and is not what *HAS* to happen.

Why do you think that someone who accepts the existence of patriarchy as an idea can't work out what is a feminist action? It's logically inept.

They can't work out all of what would create equality, but just because they're conditioned-blind to some things does NOT get to mean they're conditioned-blind to everything.

That's something you're inventing all by yourself, and which is proven wrong by all facts of life.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Neil ignores the progress that has been made too much, certainly earlier in this discussion (maybe not this thread), there's a lot of great results that have been great achievements.

Yesterday, equality took a huge step forwards in this country.

An unelected body of 26 people within govt has allowed in its very first woman, and a step forwards in equality of 'democractic' representation has been made.

(in case that's passed you by, the ecclesiastical representation within the House of Lords now has its first woman).

That same grouping still has sexist rights enshrined in law, tho.

Tell me again that I'm underestimating progress. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you working by the method that anyone who disagrees with your own thinking has to be opposed to everything you say, or something?

For all the while you make up the facts in your head, you'll get it wrong.

You've put your own assumption onto my words, which is nothing of anything I've said and is not what *HAS* to happen.

Why do you think that someone who accepts the existence of patriarchy as an idea can't work out what is a feminist action? It's logically inept.

They can't work out all of what would create equality, but just because they're conditioned-blind to some things does NOT get to mean they're conditioned-blind to everything.

That's something you're inventing all by yourself, and which is proven wrong by all facts of life.

Why do you think that someone who thinks there are alternative ways t be feminist apart from top down ideology, are incapable of feminist thought, even when they often come to the same conclusions anyway?

This is PRECISELY why I want to slightly distance myself from an all encompassing theory, because it blinkers you. I agree with nearly every thing that falls under the patriarchy model, but because I get wary of some of it, you dismiss everything I think by default. So you've stopped thinking.

I could now say, 'I reject patriarchy' and then quote exactly what patriarchy claims, and you'd still call me an idiot, and argue against the patriarchy issues I comment on. How do I know this? Because you already have done.

And that's because you're missing the whole point of what I'm saying. I'm not disputing male privilege, I'm not disputing male cultural bias. I'm questioning the use of the model, as I think it can antagonise some men, and we need them supporting equality. It can also lead to some feminists excluding men and ignoring the ways in which patriarchy also victimises them. And we need them on board, because in a supposedly democratic country, it's a matter of numbers.

So, I'd prefer an emphasis on fairness, and the way (what I'd like to call the propaganda of male supremacy, so as not to confuse the feminist theory with misogyny rationalisation), is used to make us easier to exploit, so we can work on ways to challenge male supremacy, which gets used by the hierarchy to screw us all over.

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think that someone who thinks there are alternative ways t be feminist apart from top down ideology, are incapable of feminist thought, even when they often come to the same conclusions anyway?

it's nothing to do with that, at all. It's to do with your failure in logic.

Back in the 1920s, did we know everything about electronics when the TV was invented, or were there still new discoveries to be made despite us having a fixed view of what electronics was? The fact of later discoveries hasn't negated anything of electronics, it's further-proven the concept and helped to better define it.

Now, try putting the same ideas of life towards patriarchy and how we are able to work our way thru it.

Instead of deciding on the basis of nothing at all that nothing can be seen of sexism because we have a bigger concept behind it. You're saying the equivalent of "because we have the big concept of electronics, we can't make any individual discoveries about what electronics can do".

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's nothing to do with that, at all. It's to do with your failure in logic.

Back in the 1920s, did we know everything about electronics when the TV was invented, or were there still new discoveries to be made despite us having a fixed view of what electronics was? The fact of later discoveries hasn't negated anything of electronics, it's further-proven the concept and helped to better define it.

Now, try putting the same ideas of life towards patriarchy and how we are able to work our way thru it.

Instead of deciding on the basis of nothing at all that nothing can be seen of sexism because we have a bigger concept behind it. You're saying the equivalent of "because we have the big concept of electronics, we can't make any individual discoveries about what electronics can do".

uh no I'm not, because patriarchy is an ideology, not a science. If you were as objective as you claim, you'd realise that wile sociology might compete with psychology, it's not mutual, because psychology is to busy trying to emulate the physical sciences.

It's more like theology ignoring advances in science and labelling it heresy because someone was daring to point out flaws, or perceived flaws, in the theological ideology.

ie God created the world so evolution must be wrong.

I just want to make it clear, I'm not comparing the two things because of existence comparisons between God and patriarchy, though I can certainly see the links between the God concept and male supremacy.

I just have concerns that we won't recognise positive change when it happens, because we'l be too fixed in the patriarchy model.

or, much more likely, that we'll perceive advancements when n fact there's still be expoitaion, albeit with gender equality this time.

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

uh no I'm not, because patriarchy is an ideology, not a science. If you were as objective as you claim, you'd realise that wile sociology might compete with psychology, it's not mutual, because psychology is to busy trying to emulate the physical sciences.

are you biased in favour of psychology, much? :lol:

My ex has a bachelor's of Science in Sociology, from 25 years ago. They both claim 'science' - tho they're both mostly talking tosh.

Yes, patriarchy is an idea. Having one idea doesn't stop a person from investigating other ideas - either related or unrelated - does it? :rolleyes:

Which is why your idea that accepting patriarchy as true stops a person seeing sexism is so laughable. It doesn't get more laughable from all intellectual viewpoints.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

fucks sake feral, get back to me when you start living in the real world instead of living within your self-invented fantasies.

Did you mean to quote yourself? I favour psychology, but I don't get defensive about its flaws, one of the things I loved about the way I was taught it, was that it acknowledged its own struggles to be objective.

I studied sociology too, by the way, and one of the things that frustrates me about both, is that yu start off with a theory/hypothesis, and then find evidence to fit. In sociology, a lot of that evidence tends to come from interviews, and in psychology, it tends to come from lab experiments.

Philosophy and sociology seem to rival themselves with psychology, I'm not sure how they feel about the hard sciences, who also don't like social sciences, and I can well understand their objections.

psychology sees psychiatry as its nemesis, however. Because that's the scientific big brother, if you lke.

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you mean to quote yourself?

yes, as a re-iteration of why you're so very wrong.

I favour psychology, but I don't get defensive about its flaws,

not much, eh? lol: .... apart from when you claim it a higher academic standing than it has against other things.

I studied sociology too

for only about 5 minutes tho, given your stated knowledge of it today. :lol:

is that yu start off with a theory/hypothesis, and then find evidence to fit.

How the fuck do you think any idea for any theory came about in the first place? Out of nothing, or out of something? :lol:

In sociology, a lot of that evidence tends to come from interviews, and in psychology, it tends to come from lab experiments.

I suggest you wasted your time with everything others tried to teach you. ;)

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you biased in favour of psychology, much? :lol:

My ex has a bachelor's of Science in Sociology, from 25 years ago. They both claim 'science' - tho they're both mostly talking tosh.

Yes, patriarchy is an idea. Having one idea doesn't stop a person from investigating other ideas - either related or unrelated - does it? :rolleyes:

Which is why your idea that accepting patriarchy as true stops a person seeing sexism is so laughable. It doesn't get more laughable from all intellectual viewpoints.

It shouldn't. But you've fallen into this error yourself, because you've assumed feral = non patriarchy = non feminist, and dissed some of feminism's own ideas, because you hadn't realised they were part of the patriarchy argument, part that I agreed with.

And if I see others ding it, I know I could make the same mistake, so try to keep objective.

Notice I say try - I'm not claiming any kind of superior capabilities here, I think we're all socially conditioned, and it's difficult to see outside it.

This is kind of my thinking. You have patriarchy as a system of organisation, and you have feminism working within it, using a theory based on an awareness of that organisation.

So you've got a kind of Russian doll think going on here. And, I'm quite worried that on top of patriarchy, is another Russian dolls, the ruling classes, which might not be the old fashioned gentry, but more likely to be large corporations.

So, if women took over corporations, does having women (or equal women and men) exploiting us really change anything?

Any kind of divisions down below, suit those at the top, because it stops us noticing how few they are and how much power they yield. And how many of us there are who are beig exploited by them. in a democratc country, supposedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, as a re-iteration of why you're so very wrong.

not much, eh? lol: .... apart from when you claim it a higher academic standing than it has against other things.

for only about 5 minutes tho, given your stated knowledge of it today. :lol:

How the fuck do you think any idea for any theory came about in the first place? Out of nothing, or out of something? :lol:

I suggest you wasted your time with everything others tried to teach you. ;)

I don't claim superiority for psychology. Neither does anyone else who studied it, I'd have thought, at least in my day. It was classified in the same area as other humanities and social sciences. I know I see sociology and philosophy as similar, because they're concerned with people, they're different perspectives on the same thing, so should complement each other.

There is antipathy between them, but it's psychology that gets looked down upon by the other two, not the other way round.

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really should stop making up what I've done to defend your own doings. Delusions do not get you nearer any truth. :rolleyes:

You've said within this thread that I'm not a feminist, I'm not making anything up.

(I don't label myself, I try to avoid labels, in an effort to avoid category errors).

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...