What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

http://www.nerdyfeminist.com/2012/11/intersectionalism-101.html

While we're discussing intersectionality, I find age is now a factor in how I get treated. It seems to be an advantage when dealing with men, and a disadvantage when dealing with women.

I don't know whether it's an authority thing, or competition, or sexuality, or what, I hesitate to analyse it, as I'm not sure I could be objective, but it's something I've noticed.

Edited March 28, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/karen-ingala-smith/emma-watson-feminism-speech_b_5871742.html

[feral chile]

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/what_is_patriarchy

[feral chile]

This is more on knowledge systems, it might give an insight into where I'm coming from with all this: as far as the apriori article is concerned, I tend to follow the pragmatism paradigm:

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

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/#ExaIllDifBetPriPosEmpJus

And, looking at the second link, I've been asking questions to try to tease out a postpriori definition of patriarchy. If you look at examples 9a and 9b, I believe that this is exactly what goes on when patriarchy comes under discussion.

So, I wasn't asking you and midnight to predict the future. But what would count in principle as an end to patriarchy is a fundamental question, without which the statement is apriori and dogmatic, because either it's tautological, and society by definition is male, and therefore will never change, or, it would be making intuitive assertions of an empirical issue, without providing the means to test their truth value.

And then, just like throughout this debate, you get intuitive statements such as 'in my experience things have improved' 'no they're still the same' etc., depending on how you experience your world.

And, the worst thing, for me, is that I feel a patriarchy model risks trivialising women's influence, and encourages passivity. Women's history is attempting to reconstruct historical records to help to dispel this myth of female powerlessness: even without female power, women have often been able to exert influence over men. Because patriarchy, with its focus on oppression, ignores love, trust and intimacy between the sexes. Consider Sally Hemings, and the amount of influence women historians believe she held over Thomas Jefferson:

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/hemingssally/a/sally_hemings_w_3.htm

The Power of the Powerless
The idea that Sally Hemings could be, despite her slave status, a person with some influence over what happened to her, does not seem to occur to some historians. "Women's history" as a discipline and approach to history has helped in understanding the dynamics of history more clearly, as women historians have paid attention to how women have exerted influence, even without having public power. Those who seem to be powerless -- whose power must be exercised without support of law and custom -- often have real influence, and the story of history isn't complete without looking at those dynamics carefully.

And this is why I feel patriarchy, with its emphasis on power, without a full and thorough exposition of what it means by power, is too general, and too quick to discount examples such as the one above as irrelevant. It almost feels that, by denying these women acknowledgement of their influence, it's supporting the patriarchal system it intends to destroy. After all, the patriarchy model depends on patriarchy within society for its survival, and a lot of feminist academics have built their reputations on developing and defending the theory.

All this emphasis on power, control and domination - this means that if you try to argue that women also have power, it's way too tempting for that also to be interpreted negatively, as women being manipulative, or dominating. When a lot of the time, it's people working together to change an unfair system. Because they care, about fairness and about each other.

Edited March 29, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I was having a conversation with a colleague this morning, talking about feminism and various issues. While on the topic of the disproportionate number of male CEOs there are, I mentioned how there is also a disproportionate number of (male) psycopaths as CEOs than in other lines of work.

Sooooo... is it a good thing to want women to have more CEO positions, as in more women being like male pyscopaths (yes, I'm exaggerating a little!), or do we need to change the role, and it's potential influence and control over society....?

Well, the hope that feminists have is that more women in the role will lead to more diverse practices.

this may be so eventually, but at the moment, the women I know who are in senior roles are far more ruthless than men.

I wish I could supply quotes, but let's just say the general ethos is 'if I can sacrifice everything for the business, so can the rest of you'.

Whereas the men I know have to pay lip service, at least, to the needs of women.

Edited March 29, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/feminist-ben-and-jerrys-flavors-amanda-mccall_n_6956242.html?1427487027&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

[feral chile]

Equality... do we all want to be equal? Or do we just want what we haven't got?

I want equality of opportunity - and then it's up to me if I want what's on offer.

I'm aware it's not that straightforward, however. So within that, I'm including gender neutral opportunity - barrier free.

Edited March 29, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

You wanted some academic discussion, Neil?

more than that, I wanted you to apply some consistent thought. For your sake, not mine.

[feral chile]

it was a slightly flippant comment (do we just want what we haven't got?). But I do wonder if we're so conditioned by our (patriarchal) environment, that maybe our desires are clouded by that. I feel like we have to be careful what we wish for... So far, most of the discussion is about women having what men have, but what if even men shouldn't have what they have? ... ie, a disproportionate control over other people. How does it help all of us to have more people, men AND women, fuelling, and/or perpetuating, a dis-functional system?

Yes, I agree with that.

[feral chile]

more than that, I wanted you to apply some consistent thought. For your sake, not mine.

From my perspective, I am.

But that's from a philosophy perspective, rather than a sociology one.

[feral chile]

I found this article interesting, it concerns an artist having a photo deleted because it shows a fully dressed menstruating woman 'leaking'.

the comments below compare it to bladder and bowel accidents, and many judge it as bad taste.

But the artist does address an issue that relates to this thread - it's distasteful to show blood leaking through the clothes of a fully dressed woman, but it's OK to show bare breasts.

And the article also argues that women being silenced about menstruation is causing real problems for women.

http://www.scoopwhoop.com/news/insta-photo/


http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2008/03/25/in-africa-menstruation-can-be-a-curse/

http://lusciouswound.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/is-it-ok-for-female-comedians-to-joke.html

Jo Brand illustrates this herself in her book Can’t Stand Up for Sitting Down, in which she discusses the joke that appears to have shocked most people, about the Jennifer Lynch film Boxing Helena. As she explains to her audience, in it a surgeon chops off a woman’s arms and legs and keeps her captive in a box, a premise which the audience receives with no apparent objections. She then goes on to speculate how a woman in such a situation would cope with personal hygiene, and in particular having periods. She asks the audience to imagine what it would be like to be trapped in a cardboard box with no arms and no legs and having a period, how it would get all soggy and repulsive. At which point the audience, as if on cue, would register their abhorrence with audible disgust. “Oh, I see,” says Jo Brand. “You were quite happy with the idea of a woman having her arms and legs chopped off and being put in a box, but you seem to be completely revolted by the idea of her having a period. What’s the matter with you?”

Edited March 30, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

indeed...

...hardly surprising when there are people who are disgusted by breastfeeding.

Another item on the amount of pornography that young kids are watching:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32115162

What I find depressing about this is how, when my kids were growing up, I developed an admiration for how some kids communicated with each other. There seemed to be an openness and honesty that I didn't experience (which is probably as much to do with my own upbringing as much as anything).

At the beginning I was slightly shocked, and used to say to my kids how I didn't understand why they talked to each other the way they did. A lot of it was fairly brutal, but they would, as often as not, resolve things, and were good (well, better than me) at 'getting over' things. I learned from it, and it made me feel positive about the future.

But I'm worried that the whole porn 'thing' will put some kind of spanner in the works...!?

I don't know how I feel about this. I tend to think the more we talk about things, the better it'll be, because I think the better informed children are, the better.

I find it depressing that they're subject to this at such an early age, though, which makes discussions of this nature necessary.

Edited March 31, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

While we're talking about periods..... here's something that has often slightly confused me, which is why men aren't supposed to acknowledge that sometimes, a woman's behaviour might be 'different' (oh gawd...) because she is having a period. Now, all I know is that I'll never know what it's like, so it's best just to leave the topic alone, and if there was the slightest hint that a period might be having the smallest effect on someone, you just don't say it.

Then, there was the story of Heather Watson, the tennis player, saying after a match that she didn't play well because of her period. If a woman acknowledges that her period has affected how she feels, why is it not ok for a man to? Is it mainly because a man will use it when it's not the case, and it just becomes an excuse for all 'female' behaviour?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11359785/Periods-in-sport-I-worry-about-getting-mine-at-Wimbledon..html

It's because women want to have their objections and concerns addressed, and not have them dismissed as being 'hormonal'.

The womb was traditionally the site of hysteria, for one thing:

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

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/03/13/hysteria-the-wandering-uterus-and-vaginal-massage/

I remember studying The Yellow Wallpaper (mentioned in the second article) as part of a literature course.

I couldn't get the link in the article to work, this is a wiki summary, and analysis, but I'd recommend reading the original story beforehand, to get the full chilling effect:

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

ah found an online version:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1952/1952-h/1952-h.htm

"He is very careful and loving, and hardly lets me stir without special direction".

Then there's the madwoman in the attic, which again influenced me greatly:

https://kathleenmherron.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/what-is-the-madwoman-in-the-attic/

So I interpret attempts to make women feel ashamed of their sexuality, as further attempts by men to transfer their own insecurities onto women, by demonizing them as wanton or repressing them by idealising them.

And it means that I interpret overt female sexuality for want of a more neutral word, as rebellion against male pigeonholing.

Edited March 31, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

But they're not talking about it, they're just watching it and presuming it's normal.

I was talking these comments, mentioned in the article:

'Easy access'

Peter Liver, director of ChildLine, said that it was important to talk openly about the issue.

"Children of all ages today have easy access to a wide range of pornography," he said. "If we as a society shy away from talking about this issue, we are failing the thousands of young people it is affecting.

"We know from the young people who contact ChildLine that viewing porn is a part of everyday life, and our poll shows that one in five 12 to 13-year-olds thinks that watching porn is normal behaviour.

"They tell ChildLine that watching porn is making them feel depressed, giving them body image issues, and making them feel pressured to engage in sexual acts they're not ready for."

He welcomed the announcement last week of plans to teach children from the age of 11 about rape and sexual consent as part of personal, social and health education (PSHE) in schools.

"Our campaign clearly complements this proposal," he said.

"Across society, we need to remove the embarrassment and shame that exists around talking about porn - which is why we are launching this activity and helping young people to make more informed choices."

[feral chile]

oh.. then yes. Thank god for Childline.

We're not great at talking about sex at all with our kids (generally). Having a conversation about porn in any kind of detail is going to be hard, and is less likely to happen in the situations that most need it, I'd have thought

Maybe that's the way forward, then, maybe it's the fact that boys learn about porn presumably from their mates, and then get socialised at 12-13 as to how they should behave towards sexual imagery.

[feral chile]

I think it would be great to talk lots more about it. I'm not sure where the best 'place' for it is though. More options would be great.

Ye-ess, I was a bit dubious about that. Adults talking to kids about porn? I can't see the parents doing it so it would be either advice centres or schools, I'd have thought.

What kinds of safeguards could be put in place?

Edited April 1, 2015 by feral chile

[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.

It's because I've done the sociology deal 30 years ago, together with philosophy and psychology. All 3 covered feminist theories as part of the academic package.

From there, I went on to study various literature courses. literature tends to concentrate on feminism from a self expression angle, so it often focuses on women being forced into a gender role, either the chaste virgin or the demonic, heretic whore.

And then you have the history of democracy, and women seen through the ages, including the history of witchcraft, which historians see as both a struggle with the ale dominated church, and with science and the law - a struggle between masculine values and power bases, and the more localised female power sources and 'cunning folk', who were both male and female, but ordinary people who were respected for their 'magic' and held local authority. Eventually, the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, resulted in a diminution of this localised power base.

http://witcheslore.com/bookofshadows/witches-workshop/cunning-folk/4716/

And then I've studied continental philosophy, which is entirely different from Western analytical philosophy, as it considers gender itself as a social construction, and has varying definitions of power:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femapproach-continental/

So from my point of view, it's not that I'm all over the place, but I've been exposed to many different feminist perspectives, rather than simply a sociological one.

to put it as Sartre does, the process of objectification involves defining yourself through the Look of the Other. So - men leering at breasts forcing women to look at themselves as dirty and degrading, unless they cover their breasts up as something shameful and degraded, is actually surrendering yourself to the male gaze - campaigns to ban page 3 are condoning the male gaze, subjecting to the male interpretation of the female form as something lascivious and subversive.

So, to me, reacting to the male gaze with attempts to cover up the female form (whether with the wearing of the burka, or by censoring breasts) is a defensive reaction, unwittingly supporting the duality of the angel-demonic whore male gaze. They're both supporting masculine attempts to bring female sexuality under control, where the threat of it can be safely contained.

So - the male gaze sexualises women, and female attempts to escape the male gaze result in women being desexualised. To me, not deobjectified, but desexualised. Because we equate sexualisation and objectification, just as Sartre does, but under patriarchy, we don't accept men experiencing the female gaze, because we refuse to accept that there's such a thing as a true female gaze. Thus, because objectification is seen as male, and sexuality depends on objectification (seeing yourself through the eyes of a potential mate), the conceptual linking of objectification and masculinity results in the negation of female sexuality.

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

You see, one thing that's not been clarified here, is that when someone is objectified, it's not the observer seeing them as an object that results in the objectification, we all do that, simply because we're not who we're looking at. the objectification happens when we view OURSELVES through the eyes of the observer. THAT'S why we become subject to the Look of the Other, and why there's s much discussion about women who want to be looked at. But it's not always a bad thing. It's a necessary part of physical attraction.

Edited April 1, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

It's because I've done the sociology

very badly as we've already established.

You were under the impression it that it was something academically-lesser than psychology, and therefore failed to give it the relevance and importance it properly deserves.

[feral chile]

very badly as we've already established.

You were under the impression it that it was something academically-lesser than psychology, and therefore failed to give it the relevance and importance it properly deserves.

sigh

like you do to psychology, which you seem to often confuse with counselling or psychiatry.

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

Psychology

Psychology is an academic and applied field involving the study of behavior and mental processes. Psychology also refers to the application of such knowledge to various spheres of human activity, including problems of individuals' daily lives and the treatment of mental illness. The word psychology comes from the ancient Greek ψυχή, psyche ("soul", "mind") and logy ("study").

Psychology differs from anthropology, economics, political science, and sociology in seeking to capture explanatory generalizations about the mental function and overt behavior of individuals, while the other disciplines focus on creating descriptive generalizations about the functioning of social groups or situation-specific human behavior. In practice, however, there is quite a lot of cross-fertilization that takes place among the various fields. Psychology differs from biology and neuroscience in that it is primarily concerned with the interaction of mental processes and behavior, and of the overall processes of a system, and not simply the biological or neural processes themselves, though the subfield of neuropsychology combines the study of the actual neural processes with the study of the mental effects they have subjectively produced. Many people associate psychology with clinical psychology, which focuses on assessment and treatment of problems in living and psychopathology. In reality, psychology has myriad specialties including social psychology, developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, educational psychology, industrial-organizational psychology, mathematical psychology, neuropsychology, and quantitative analysis of behavior.

Psychology is a very broad science that is rarely tackled as a whole, major block. Although some subfields encompass a natural science base and a social science application, others can be clearly distinguished as having little to do with the social sciences or having a lot to do with the social sciences. For example, biological psychology is considered a natural science with a social scientific application (as is clinical medicine), social and occupational psychology are, generally speaking, purely social sciences, whereas neuropsychology is a natural science that lacks application out of the scientific tradition entirely. In British universities, emphasis on what tenet of psychology a student has studied and/or concentrated is communicated through the degree conferred: B.Psy. indicates a balance between natural and social sciences, B.Sc. indicates a strong (or entire) scientific concentration, whereas a B.A. underlines a majority of social science credits

I have a B. Sc (Econ)

Edited April 2, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

very badly as we've already established.

You were under the impression it that it was something academically-lesser than psychology, and therefore failed to give it the relevance and importance it properly deserves.

Nah, you've failed to give other disciplines the relevance and importance they deserve. I'm quite happy to consider contributions made by history, literature and philosophy, I'm not tied to First Year sociology from the 1980s, which is what's being discussed here as far as radical feminism's concerned (by you and me, not by midnight, I hasten to add).

Research methods explained - patriarchy at best would use qualitative research methods, I've been seeking something that could have quantitative methods applied to it - ie stats.

https://suite.io/saleha-faruque/4nbj24n

Significant Differences

•When employing quantitative research methods, the researcher usually already knows what is expected from the results. On the other hand, researchers that rely on qualitative techniques cannot expect results similar to their hypothesis.

•Qualitative information is subjective and open to interpretation. Quantitative information is objective; expressed in exact descriptions such as statistics, percentages and numbers.

•Qualitative research methods portray what the social world has in store for people of various backgrounds and living situations. This type of research communicates results through detailed observation and description.

•Conversely; quantitative research is a reflection of people and situations from a specific point of view, such as the rate of divorce amongst parents of suicidal teenagers.

Which is the Best Research Method to Use: Qualitative or Quantitative Methodologies?

There is no particular rule for which research technique to use in sociology. Like sociologists, try to utilize methods that will best suit your research by obtaining effective results. In sociology, different theories will tend to prefer different data collection methods. For example, quantitative research methods are commonly used by functionalist theorists.

On the other hand, feminist theory often makes use of qualitative techniques to better describe intimate and personal accounts of marginalized women in societies. Remember that both quantitative and qualitative analysis have proved useful within their respective fields and individual studies.

Edited April 2, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

And where have I said that it's academically lesser than psychology? I have discussed feminism within the sociology discipline, you're the one wh refuses to look at it from any other academic discipline.

I think you'll find that you've inferred that I think sociology's lesser because of my assumptions of the research methods used regarding patriarchy, not sociology.

Though I'm not sure sociologists test humans in labs like psychology does, so it is different.

Edited April 2, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Genuine question this -can anyone point me in the direction of sociological empirical research into patriarchy?

if patriarchy is a scientific theory, what hypothesis is being tested, what are the research methods used to test it, and what are the results?

What experiments have been conducted?

Edited April 2, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I'm looking for this type of research, and an analysis of the results:

http://www.batteredmen.com/duttfull.htm

[eFestivals]

sigh

like you do to psychology, which you seem to often confuse with counselling or psychiatry.

sigh

Nope. I treat both of psychology and sociology as the weak 'sciences' they really are. That doesn't mean I think they're worthless, but they're stumbling around in the dark like pre-Newton 'scientists'.

[feral chile]

sigh

Nope. I treat both of psychology and sociology as the weak 'sciences' they really are. That doesn't mean I think they're worthless, but they're stumbling around in the dark like pre-Newton 'scientists'.

II haven't seen you castigate sociology for being up itself like you do for psychology, and you're defending sociology when I haven't even attacked it.