What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

And so do I, but that's nothing to do with you being completely wrong about what sociology is.

A qualitative approach can be just as scientific.

Says the man without a degree teaching all this to the person who was boasting about her own qualies.

Now, perhaps put down your defences and wise up instead? You're boxing yourself in the wrong place by an approach where you're saying there's nothing further for you to learn.

I prefer a qualitative approach, it can certainly be more meaningful.

I'm not saying there's nothing further for me to learn at all. And I'm not boasting about my qualifications. It's you who said I lacked academic rigour, in a discussion where there is none anyway, from any of us.

Most of my objections have been from a point of logic, rather than anything else.

Think Venn diagrams.

If patriarchy (actual patriarchy, not feminist theory) is Set A, and according to you, everything falls within it. Feminism is set B inside set A.

Therefore is subsumed by it. For anything to change, you have to have an overlap, so some parts of any subsets have to be outside Set A.

It's the absolute nature of what you're saying I'm objecting to, because logic dictates that, in a totally closed ideological system, by definition there is nothing outside it, and therefore no possibility f change).

I don't necessarily disagree with patriarchy as a pervading influence more your presentation of it as absolute power.

[feral chile]

If stroking the squirrel makes you feel better, then yes, I'm a failed feminist too.

You think formal logic is a squirrel?

[eFestivals]

Nope.

Yes it can.

Quantitative research methods can be applied.

In the conventional view, qualitative methods produce information only on the particular cases studied, and any more general conclusions are only propositions (informed assertions). Quantitative methods can then be used to seek empirical support for such research hypotheses.

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

[feral chile]

well, it can be, but it doesn't have to be, You've managed another logical fail.

The problem is the wrong place your lack of academic rigour takes you to, rather than the lack of academic rigour itself.

You're all over the place. One moment you're quoting bookspeak, the next your prejudices are the new truth, etc, etc, etc. You never stop and check your thinking to work out where you are.

We've just gone thru a page or three of all of that, and I still don't think you've really grasped that sociology is at least the equal of psychology in an academic sense, and all of what that means to everything you've said so far.

ok formulate it differently from your argument then.

[eFestivals]

You think formal logic is a squirrel?

You've pursued me to make that admission. How has it advanced anything of your previous claims?

You know, the claims which you made that were wrong, for the most basic levels of the subject area.

[eFestivals]

ok formulate it differently from your argument then.

formulate what differently from my argument?

I'm simply stating the truth. You *ARE* all over the place, often driven by your ignorance and prejudices, and never back-applying the new knowledge you've just gained into your arguments. You get told you're wrong at the most basic of levels, and nothing of your thinking changes.

Edited March 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

formulate what differently from my argument?

I'm simply stating the truth. You *ARE* all over the place, often driven by your ignorance and prejudices, and never back-applying the new knowledge you've just gained into your arguments. You get told you're wrong at the most basic of levels, and nothing of your thinking changes.

Right back at ya:

I'm simply stating the truth. You *ARE* all over the place, often driven by your ignorance and prejudices, and never back-applying the new knowledge you've just gained into your arguments. You get told you're wrong at the most basic of levels, and nothing of your thinking changes.

[feral chile]

formulate what differently from my argument?

I'm simply stating the truth. You *ARE* all over the place, often driven by your ignorance and prejudices, and never back-applying the new knowledge you've just gained into your arguments. You get told you're wrong at the most basic of levels, and nothing of your thinking changes.

prove my logical fail by formulating your statement in terms of formal logic, in a different format from mine.

[eFestivals]

It's you who said I lacked academic rigour, in a discussion where there is none anyway

you keep trying to claim that rigour via your (wrong!) logical claim that accepting patriarchy makes it impossible to act against sexism.

You're claiming an academic basis to what you're putting forwards, when that claim can be seen to be wrong in all reality and therefore cannot be anything but a logical fail. There are people who accept the idea of patriarchy and who are also able to see and act against sexism.

Patriarchy doesn't vanish in a (il)logical puff of smoke when a person recognises sexism.

Because you think it does, something with your analysis HAS TO BE flawed.

Most of my objections have been from a point of logic, rather than anything else.

Think Venn diagrams.

If patriarchy (actual patriarchy, not feminist theory) is Set A, and according to you, everything falls within it. Feminism is set B inside set A.

Therefore is subsumed by it. For anything to change, you have to have an overlap, so some parts of any subsets have to be outside Set A.

It's the absolute nature of what you're saying I'm objecting to, because logic dictates that, in a totally closed ideological system, by definition there is nothing outside it, and therefore no possibility f change).

I don't necessarily disagree with patriarchy as a pervading influence more your presentation of it as absolute power.

Nope, completely wrong.

You're applying a set of rules you've invented out of nowhere onto the data.

There is patriarchy, and there is feminism.

Patriarchy intrudes into everything, but it does not (necessarily) negate everything into which it intrudes. You've made that part up all by yourself.

You can act against the parts of patriarchy that you're able to recognise. Patriarchy does not stop you being able to recognise, tho it can effect how good your vision for all-patriarchy might be.

[eFestivals]

Right back at ya:

I'm simply stating the truth. You *ARE* all over the place, often driven by your ignorance and prejudices, and never back-applying the new knowledge you've just gained into your arguments. You get told you're wrong at the most basic of levels, and nothing of your thinking changes.

Squirrel.

It's YOU who've just discovered that everything you believed about sociological ideas has been wrong.

Get back to me when you've mulled that new knowledge thru everything you've previously believed.

[feral chile]

you keep trying to claim that rigour via your (wrong!) logical claim that accepting patriarchy makes it impossible to act against sexism.

You're claiming an academic basis to what you're putting forwards, when that claim can be seen to be wrong in all reality and therefore cannot be anything but a logical fail. There are people who accept the idea of patriarchy and who are also able to see and act against sexism.

Patriarchy doesn't vanish in a (il)logical puff of smoke when a person recognises sexism.

Because you think it does, something with your analysis HAS TO BE flawed.

Nope, completely wrong.

You're applying a set of rules you've invented out of nowhere onto the data.

There is patriarchy, and there is feminism.

Patriarchy intrudes into everything, but it does not (necessarily) negate everything into which it intrudes. You've made that part up all by yourself.

You can act against the parts of patriarchy that you're able to recognise. Patriarchy does not stop you being able to recognise, tho it can effect how good your vision for all-patriarchy might be.

At last! Use male biased and not male defined then. Defined is absolute, influenced/biased is not.

I agree with all of the above. I did ask you right at the start if you thought patriarchy meant absolute power, and explained how that would result in a tautological argument (by definition x must mean y) and THIS ^^^ is what I was getting at!

I didn't invent deductive reasoning, by the way. it's been around even longer than me

Edited March 27, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Defined is absolute,

nah. That's your wrong take on things.

Things within society have been defined in such a way to benefit men, but not necessarily to only benefit men, or to necessarily benefit men to the fullest extent possible.

I'm not sure now what word a common description of patriarchy might go with, but my own choice to use 'defined' and not 'biased' is very deliberate. To me, 'bias' implies intent, while 'defined' does not, and I think that distinction is important.

[feral chile]

nah. That's your wrong take on things.

Things within society have been defined in such a way to benefit men, but not necessarily to only benefit men, or to necessarily benefit men to the fullest extent possible.

I'm not sure now what word a common description of patriarchy might go with, but my own choice to use 'defined' and not 'biased' is very deliberate. To me, 'bias' implies intent, while 'defined' does not, and I think that distinction is important.

'defined' implies something much more than that. If everything is male defined, it follows (in formal logic) that by definition, everything is masculine.

Everything. Closed system.

'Definition' is a massive philosophical concept in itself, I can give you a link, but I can't claim to understand even half this.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/definitions/#SomVarDef

Easiest way is to think of numbers. 2+2 = 4, because we have defined 2 and 4 in a particular way.

There is no evidence ever that can change that fact, unless we change the definitions. So 2+2=4 because of how they're defined. A number equation is a tautology because of this. You don't ever have to count anything, because the meaning is in the words, it's not an empirical proposition.

So - patriarchy has to be an empirical proposition, not anything that has been defined as such. Not even defined by patriarchy itself.

it has to be in-the-world, testable, and not absolute, in order to be testable. Because if it's by definition, then any change we make will also be male defined. By definition. Logic will dictate that it's male.

(I suspect that lots of times, that's actually what bloody well happens, but that's another issue - an empirical one, not a logical one)

Edited March 27, 2015 by feral chile

[fred quimby]

If stroking the squirrel makes you feel better

Euphemism ?

[feral chile]

Euphemism ?

[eFestivals]

'defined' implies something much more than that. If everything is male defined, it follows (in formal logic) that by definition, everything is masculine.

Nope. As I demonstrated with the word used in context above, it doesn't have to mean an absolute.

And anyway, even if it did mean absolute, that male doing the defining could define some feminine things into it.

But have it your way, I'll go with biased, I'm not so fussed as to get hung up over language. As long as you're taking 'biased' as not necessarily deliberately created to be that.

[eFestivals]

Easiest way is to think of numbers. 2+2 = 4, because we have defined 2 and 4 in a particular way.

But numbers ARE absolute by their very definition, while things and ideas are not (necessarily).

What's a 'coat'? It's an over-garment but can be a million different types within being that coat.

Patriarchy is about it being a man's world, but that's still not to the exclusion of everything female.

[feral chile]

precisely, hence my confusion. we use the word 'defined' differently, which is why I could never answer that question you asked e, because I had no idea what you meant.

[feral chile]

how about male conditioned?

or unconscious bias? (that's the latest diversity one, I think)

edit: ah sorry, missed one of your replies above.

Edited March 28, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

https://www.change.org/p/manan-kumar-mishra-chairman-bar-council-of-india-take-action-against-lawyers-ml-sharma-and-ap-singh?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=271651&alert_id=QNOgbIwuHD_T%2B3znRxm5TI04HzFIwb%2BASPqXQJxG5Ugicm6ybW%2BfZ6bZEeMZ6ZUAjY3Vz07Sm5Q

[feral chile]

Here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-sex-markets/

“Pornography, including pornographic rape scenes, may serve another, intensely political end for women who read or see them: they go against the grain, thus allowing viewers to express rebellion and individuality. In this sense, too, words or images that literally depict a woman's powerlessness may well have an empowering impact on female viewers” (Strossen 1995, 174). The existence of divergent interpretations and responses to pornographic works challenges the idea that pornography has any single, harmful impact on the background conditions of communication. And without any single, persistent impact on background understandings, it is doubtful that pornographic works would have the power to silence or subordinate women, in any or all contexts. In some contexts, Strossen suggests, pornographic works can even invite viewers to rebel against conventional notions of female vulnerability and respectability, or to explore the origins of disturbing sexual fantasies. At the very least, such materials make aspects of human sexuality available for public debate and critique (Strossen 1995, 176). Ironically, as Georgia Warnke notes, anti-censorship feminists can reasonably claim that “antipornography feminism silences women's differing sexual self-expressions by condemning those with which it disagrees as false consciousness … [and] by promoting legislation that would suppress materials through which women can discover different views of an authentic sexuality and, indeed, different ways of being sexual” (Warnke 1999, 124).

Middle ground feminists do not treat sex commerce as monolithic, but pay attention to the different ways that labor and capital are organized in different trades. They recognize that much of sex work, like other low status service work, is menial and sometimes unpleasant, but it is not work that is inherently degrading or violent to those who perform it. Middle ground feminists recognize that sex work is continuous with much of the caregiving work women perform, as wives, mothers, nurses, teachers, nannies, and domestics, and do not single out the sex industry for assigning to women a disproportionate share of caregiving work in society. In this way, middle ground feminist do not treat sex work as exceptional in terms of its risks, difficulty, and larger societal effects.

Edited March 27, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/

According to MacKinnon and Dworkin, the way to fight objectification is to fight gender inequality, which is created and sustained by men's consumption of pornography. They take it that pornography has power and authority over its audience (men and boys). This view is also defended by Langton, who argues that it does not matter that the speech of pornographers is not generally held in high esteem. What matters, rather, is that men and boys learn about sex primarily through pornography. Pornography passes the message to its audience that women are objects readily available for men's consumption (Langton 1993, 312).

The view that pornography has this amount of influence over men and plays such a central role in women's objectification has received criticism. Deborah Cameron and Elizabeth Frazer question the idea that men are conditioned to behave in certain ways as a consequence of pornography consumption. What is problematic with this idea, according to them, is that men are presented as incapable of critically interpreting pornographic materials, and as simply imitating what they see in pornography (Cameron & Frazer 2000, 248–251).

Even assuming that pornography does indeed pass the message that women are object-like to its consumers, however, it has been suggested that pornography is not special with respect to sustaining gender inequality and women's objectification. Leslie Green explains that the idea that women are mere objects/tools is reinforced through parental pressure, television, popular novels, music videos and fashion. What we need to do, Green says, is change our society, in a way that women's subjectivity will be acknowledged (Green 2000, 43–52). Nussbaum too argues that we should not see pornography as the primary cause of women's objectification. Sexual objectification is, according to Nussbaum, often caused by social inequality, but there is no reason to believe that pornography is the core of such inequality (Nussbaum 1995, 286, 290).

A similar view has been put forward by Ronald Dworkin, according to whom: “It might be odd that feminists have devoted such energy to that campaign [the campaign for outlawing pornography]… No doubt mass culture is in various ways an obstacle to sexual equality, but the most popular forms of that culture—the view of women presented in soap operas and commercials, for example—are much greater obstacles to that equality than the dirty films watched by a small minority” (R. Dworkin 1993, 36).

[feral chile]

I don't think it can be called a small minority anymore, the people who watch porn. Especially young teenagers going through puberty, who are probably most vulnerable.

And a lot of mainstream tv/films, are what some would have termed porn not long ago.

Also, calling them 'dirty films' is a bit telling

I also agree that porn probably isn't the main perpetuator of a male dominated society. It's almost everything else too. The ads, the soaps, movies, music videos, etc etc. One can run the risk of sounding out of touch, or being a fuddy duddy, but to not acknowledge what is sort of ..well.. .everywhere, is just turning a blind eye

Hi Tony,

I've no idea how many people watch porn, I hate it.

But I d agree with the point that comparatively speaking, there's a huge media influence.

Thhs was more a response to neil's mistaken idea that my view is non academic.

My non academic reaction would be to ban it.

Edited March 27, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/03/the-curious-case-of-men-and-womens-buttons/388844/?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_facebook

[feral chile]

You wanted some academic discussion, Neil?

Try googling these, and you'll see that some academics have raised the same questions. I can't link directly, because I can only find pdf downloads.

Anna Pollert (1996) Gender and Class Revisited the Poverty of `Patriarchy'

Joan Acker (1990) The Problem with Patriarchy

Heidi Gottfried’s (1998) Beyond Patriarchy? Theorising Gender and Class.

I can relate particularly to Anna Pollert's article, and she explains much better than I can, the concerns I have.

(and midnight, yes, I know intersectionalism tries to address this, I still think the use of patriarchy as a concept can lead to problems. How will you know if equality is achieved? I suspect that the definition of male power will change, as whatever measure of success is used is unlikely to result in a fairer society, for example, if we eventually get an equal number of female CEO's and the result is still exploitation, female CEO's will cease to be a measure of gender equality, as we cling to the patriarchy model. We'll ust say 'ah, the locus of male power is elsewhere, just as we trivialise female power loci at the moment).

Edited March 28, 2015 by feral chile