What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/06/free-the-nipple-liberation-photos-breasts?CMP=fb_gu

"Can a global movement than relies on photos of naked breasts really be one in the eye for patriarchy? Celebrities, and even an MP, have joined a campaign to change the double standard when it comes to nipples"

I understand what they're saying. I used to have problems with following gender specific unwritten rules, such as not going into pubs and clubs on my own. Because I knew 'people' who did it, didn't notice they were male, and got a shock to realise that I was giving out a particular message, rather than ust out to see a band (which was usually the case for venturing afoot).

So, if you think of it like that, should I be curfewed for becoming sexualised ust for wanting to get out more, or should society treat me like it would men who go out on their own?

it's the same sort of argument, should women be allowed to go topless without it being seen as obscene (can you get arrested?) or should women be able to keep cool in the summer etc.?

It's just a cultural thing, after all it could be showing your face, an ankle, elbow etc., that was considered a sexual provocation.

And as this article points out, if breasts weren't idealised, and people saw real ones, maybe they wouldn't be fetishized in the first place:

http://www.007b.com/breast_taboo.php

I interviewed a young anthropologist working with women in Mali, in a country in Africa where women go around with bare breasts. They're always feeding their babies. And when she told them that in our culture men are fascinated with breasts there was an instant of shock. The women burst out laughing. They laughed so hard, they fell on the floor. They said, "You mean, men act like babies?"

Edited April 7, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

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.

you've said you thought of it as lesser, and didn't realise it classed as a science no less than psychology.

And, in relation to sexism, I think the sociological view is more in the right ball park, that we're socialised into these things - both men and women - but it of course varies amongst different people because different people have different experiences.

To take it back to page 3, the sexism around that can't be 'taught away' to individuals. Page 3 has to be removed entirely so that it's not impressing onto most that blatant sexism of that type is mainstream-acceptable.

[feral chile]

you've said you thought of it as lesser, and didn't realise it classed as a science no less than psychology.

And, in relation to sexism, I think the sociological view is more in the right ball park, that we're socialised into these things - both men and women - but it of course varies amongst different people because different people have different experiences.

To take it back to page 3, the sexism around that can't be 'taught away' to individuals. Page 3 has to be removed entirely so that it's not impressing onto most that blatant sexism of that type is mainstream-acceptable.

I think you've assumed I think it's lesser, I don't. I think patriarchy is unscientific, in its generalisation, because it's untestable.

if you break it down and define what's meant, eg, unconscious bias can be tested, I posted a link to a site that tests for that, in a very objective way. The results can be very illuminating - I'm slightly biased against every group I fall under, for instance.

And if you talk about under representation in the professions, etc., that can be assessed statistically.

'Power' to me is too vague and value-ridden to be useful - particularly if you redefine it to exclude any female influence. Because I suspect there's a strong risk of the term becoming synonymous with 'male' power. And the goal posts moving. Equal numbers of women CEO's? Ah, the power is elsewhere then, because patriarchy's not dead. So why not use Occam's Razor to begin with - look at what needs changing, and change it, and don't relate it to anything beyond itself

Then patriarchy becomes too much of a religious dogma.

Edited April 7, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

'Power' to me is too vague and value-ridden to be useful - particularly if you redefine it to exclude any female influence.

Who's defining it to exclude any female influence?

You say power is too vague, and yet we all can know when a power has been used over us. We're less good at recognising the exercising of it ourselves tho.

And the goal posts moving. Equal numbers of women CEO's? Ah, the power is elsewhere then, because patriarchy's not dead. So why not use Occam's Razor to begin with - look at what needs changing, and change it, and don't relate it to anything beyond itself

Then patriarchy becomes too much of a religious dogma.

The goal posts aren't moving. What is moving is society's ability to recognise clear issues that we can somehow address.

Patriarchy isn't dead. You want easy answers, when all patriarchy really does is recognise that there aren't any easy answers, and that we'll have to work thru it and probably make mistakes on the way. If there were easy answers then you wouldn't end up thinking the goalposts had moved.

Patriarchy isn't religious dogma, it's a recognition of reality. If things were as easy and as fixed as you're wanting them to be we'd have fixed them all already.

[feral chile]

Who's defining it to exclude any female influence?

You say power is too vague, and yet we all can know when a power has been used over us. We're less good at recognising the exercising of it ourselves tho.

The goal posts aren't moving. What is moving is society's ability to recognise clear issues that we can somehow address.

Patriarchy isn't dead. You want easy answers, when all patriarchy really does is recognise that there aren't any easy answers, and that we'll have to work thru it and probably make mistakes on the way. If there were easy answers then you wouldn't end up thinking the goalposts had moved.

Patriarchy isn't religious dogma, it's a recognition of reality. If things were as easy and as fixed as you're wanting them to be we'd have fixed them all already.

I know they're not easy and fixed, that's why I'm saying that it's impossible to give anything more than a generalisation for patriarchy. And that's why I know the goalposts will move. Ban Page 3, women will still be sex objects, it won't change a thing. create a society where there isn't a demand for Page 3 - then you're talking about a success story.

And how to get there will involve lots f little fixes, maybe banning Page 3 will hep, who knows, I'd be inclined to think you'd have to ban all idealised female forms, such as fashion shoot type of things, airbrushing celebrities etc. But sex sells, I know people got offended when I complained about nobody being interested in disability and benefits sanctions, etc., in this thread, to an extent the point of that was missed - breasts are sexy, even us women are in here talking about it, and other issues...aren't.

'Men have all the power' needs tightening, if we're to work on change - what power, how will change be measured, etc. :

http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/smart-goals.php

SMART Goals

Specific

•Well defined.

•Clear to anyone that has a basic knowledge of the project.

Measurable

•Know if the goal is obtainable and how far away completion is.

•Know when it has been achieved.

Agreed Upon

•Agreement with all the stakeholders what the goals should be.

Realistic

•Within the availability of resources, knowledge and time.

Time-Based

•Enough time to achieve the goal.

•Not too much time, which can affect project performance.

(Oh look, guess who's been trained in patriarchal 'masculine,' corporate ideals )

Edited April 7, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Who's defining it to exclude any female influence?

You say power is too vague, and yet we all can know when a power has been used over us. We're less good at recognising the exercising of it ourselves tho.

The goal posts aren't moving. What is moving is society's ability to recognise clear issues that we can somehow address.

Patriarchy isn't dead. You want easy answers, when all patriarchy really does is recognise that there aren't any easy answers, and that we'll have to work thru it and probably make mistakes on the way. If there were easy answers then you wouldn't end up thinking the goalposts had moved.

Patriarchy isn't religious dogma, it's a recognition of reality. If things were as easy and as fixed as you're wanting them to be we'd have fixed them all already.

Missed the first part of that reply. 'Men have all the power' does, by definition. I think women have lots of influence, which I would personally class as power.

I think specialised gender roles has caused lack of freedom for both sexes, anyway.

If, by patriarchy isn't dead, you mean we don't have gender equality, then of course I agree, there's a long way to go.

I think you're misunderstanding me, because you think I want less, when in fact I want more, to me, being specific isn't less than a general statement. It's the starting point of a long process of meaningful change.

Edited April 7, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Who's defining it to exclude any female influence?

You say power is too vague, and yet we all can know when a power has been used over us. We're less good at recognising the exercising of it ourselves tho.

The goal posts aren't moving. What is moving is society's ability to recognise clear issues that we can somehow address.

Patriarchy isn't dead. You want easy answers, when all patriarchy really does is recognise that there aren't any easy answers, and that we'll have to work thru it and probably make mistakes on the way. If there were easy answers then you wouldn't end up thinking the goalposts had moved.

Patriarchy isn't religious dogma, it's a recognition of reality. If things were as easy and as fixed as you're wanting them to be we'd have fixed them all already.

Yes, and we all know when we feel that it hasn't. But you can't claim superior knowledge for one, if claiming subjective truth for the other.

So, if you have one woman saying Page 3 makes them feel objectified and demeaned, and another saying refusal to allow Page 3 to make them feel objectified and demeaned has actually empowered them, whose subjective truth do you accept?

I just think the whole point of feminism is to safeguard women's choices. Not to dictate what those choices should be.

I have felt a bit of a lone voice on here, so I felt a bit better having come across this blog: at least now I know I'm not the only one who thinks like this:

https://distractedflick.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/page-3-the-f-word-and-female-empowerment/

Edited April 7, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

A few different opinions on porn:

http://mic.com/articles/114482/11-quotes-that-will-completely-change-the-way-you-think-about-porn?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_facebook

[eFestivals]

Missed the first part of that reply. 'Men have all the power' does, by definition. I think women have lots of influence, which I would personally class as power.

a driver has control of the car, but that doesn't mean a passenger can't influence where it goes.

You're obsessed by a wrong idea, but then wonder why none of your ideas add up. There's a clue there.

[feral chile]

a driver has control of the car, but that doesn't mean a passenger can't influence where it goes.

You're obsessed by a wrong idea, but then wonder why none of your ideas add up. There's a clue there.

What idea am I obsessed with? Diversity?

The only thing I believe is that people should have equal opportunities, and as a feminist, I respect the right of women to choose.

Edited April 8, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=waterline+of+visibility&view=detailv2&&&id=75ABE5808AAC945A1301D3121DBE38A9687D3A93&selectedIndex=0&ccid=RDP8V4cB&simid=608037124756539441&thid=HN.608037124756539441&ajaxhist=0

[eFestivals]

What idea am I obsessed with? Diversity?

No, that women have zero influence with a patriarchy society.

You've used that several times as your reasoning for not accepting anything of patriarchy, when it something you've put on it yourself.

That car analogy is quite a good one, I'd say. The man has control of the car but the woman can influence where it goes.

Following on with that: if the woman increases her influence then the control the man has comes to mean progressively less til we end up with a car with two steering wheels ... OK, OK, it falls down with that last bit, probably.

And so, the problems of patriarchy get worked thru. While it would be nice to snap our fingers and change everything to perfect, we can't even recognise what perfect is, and it's not just processes than have to change but minds too. It's a war, not just a battle.

[feral chile]

No, that women have zero influence with a patriarchy society.

You've used that several times as your reasoning for not accepting anything of patriarchy, when it something you've put on it yourself.

That car analogy is quite a good one, I'd say. The man has control of the car but the woman can influence where it goes.

Following on with that: if the woman increases her influence then the control the man has comes to mean progressively less til we end up with a car with two steering wheels ... OK, OK, it falls down with that last bit, probably.

And so, the problems of patriarchy get worked thru. While it would be nice to snap our fingers and change everything to perfect, we can't even recognise what perfect is, and it's not just processes than have to change but minds too. It's a war, not just a battle.

Patriarchy isn't something you can accept bits of, it's like partly accepting you're pregnant, you either are or you're not.

Is society biased along gender, class, race, educational background, looks, those are just off the top of my head....

yes, of course, But it's not a simplistic gender divide, and way too general for modern society.

I thought this was established decades ago, anyway.

Look, it was: >>>>>http://www.readbag.com/mountaintopinstitute-pdf-monograph-monograph-iceberg-model

Edited April 8, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Here you go, lots of links here discussing equality and diversity:

http://www.faculty.londondeanery.ac.uk/e-learning/diversity-equal-opportunities-and-human-rights/what-is-equality-and-diversity

How could following a patriarchy model help you resolve these cases?

http://www.faculty.londondeanery.ac.uk/e-learning/diversity-equal-opportunities-and-human-rights/case-studies

Waterline of Visibility explained:

https://chicostateblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/the-diversity-iceberg/

Edited April 8, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Patriarchy isn't something you can accept bits of, it's like partly accepting you're pregnant, you either are or you're not.

Patriarchy doesn't say that women have no influence.

You make that part up all by yourself, and use it to justify your rejection.

It's bollocks. You're fundamentally wrong with your take on what patriarchy is saying.

[eFestivals]

Everyone is fucking wrong Neil. We all have crap ears and like shit music. Nobody understands the electoral process...we're all wrong. And you're right. You're the only one. You're immaculate.

No, that's just you tony.

[eFestivals]

Apart from the small detail that I don't think people are wrong. They're different.

Yes tony, it's certainly different that you think there can never be a right or wrong.

Nothing within the patriarchy idea says that women have no influence. Feral gets the idea wrong because she wrongly adds in a factor that she's invented herself.

But she's just got a different take on things, a take where no one can ever agree about anything, because there's no right or wrong meaning to any word. Oh, except that can't be right (or wrong)

Edited April 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

Yes tony, it's certainly different that you think there can never be a right or wrong.

Nothing within the patriarchy idea says that women have no influence. Feral gets the idea wrong because she wrongly adds in a factor that she's invented herself.

But she's just got a different take on things, a take where no one can ever agree about anything, because there's no right or wrong meaning to any word. Oh, except that can't be right (or wrong)

Do you accept that influence is power? Because in that case, patriarchy just becomes part of diversity issues which I feel, is its rightful place.

I wish I could get you to engage with some of the things I post, because I genuinely want to know how patriarchy deals with them.

I can't see how it can, and if it can't what use is it as a strategy for change?

I'm happy to be shown my error, though. But it needs to be a bit more than accusing me of dogma, when I don't have a position to defend to start with.

I certainly believe in unconscious bias, gender is one area of this. It's by no means the only one, and it might not be the one that's affecting the lives of individuals.

Edited April 9, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/feminism.htm

If you read that, explain where your views sit with the varying theories, and how much power you think female influence has, and where it would fit in with each of the different feminist stances.

[eFestivals]

Do you accept that influence is power? Because in that case, patriarchy just becomes part of diversity issues which I feel, is its rightful place.

Yes, influence is power - and what you're not getting is that power is never held exclusively in any single place. Everyone has power they can choose to exercise.

If patriarchy is a diversity issue, then so is sexism - and i don't think you'd buy that.

I wish I could get you to engage with some of the things I post, because I genuinely want to know how patriarchy deals with them.

I'm not engaging because I can see what i'd be getting into, something utterly pointless from a rational conclusion point of view.

Patriarchy deals with nothing. Patriarchy is an observation of the workings of society.

The right corrective actions will come from an accurate appraisal of what needs tackling.

I'm happy to be shown my error, though. But it needs to be a bit more than accusing me of dogma, when I don't have a position to defend to start with.

Are you?

You certainly have a position to defend, the position that you - uniquely - are putting forwards.

I've pointed out constantly that you're making bits up for yourself and basing your conclusions on that self-invention - when there's no basis for the self-invention you won't put down.

Edited April 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

Yes, influence is power - and what you're not getting is that power is never held exclusively in any single place. Everyone has power they can choose to exercise.

If patriarchy is a diversity issue, then so is sexism - and i don't think you'd buy that.

I'm not engaging because I can see what i'd be getting into, something utterly pointless from a rational conclusion point of view.

Patriarchy deals with nothing. Patriarchy is an observation of the workings of society.

The right corrective actions will come from an accurate appraisal of what needs tackling.

Are you?

You certainly have a position to defend, the position that you - uniquely - are putting forwards.

I've pointed out constantly that you're making bits up for yourself and basing your conclusions on that self-invention - when there's no basis for the self-invention you won't put down.

It's not self invention. I'm a functionalist, and patriarchy s a structural theory. Diversity is a bottom up theory. Work out what stops someone doing something, change it, check the counter measure's effective, deal with the next issue.

Sexism would be an equality and a diversity issue, because it involves stereotypes.

I don't know where you get the idea from that I don't think sexism happens, all of us have unconscious bias, I know I can be sexist, both to males and females. I ask for IT help from young males in work, because I expect them to be tech-savvy. That's sexist and ageist.

Diversity, though, allows for the bias to go both ways. Because even in 'patriarchy', this results in the above kind of sexism against men. Defending your womenfolk is another, being the breadwinner etc., - patriarchy assumes these are all male privileges, rather than burdens.

Think about what this means. If society believes men are superior/more powerful/hold more power/all power, most of society would have had to have been complicit in this.

So you're telling me that half the population, of equal intelligence, has agreed to this myth of male superiority, without anything in it for them?

And just when technology comes along, and women and male autocracy doesn't need to rely on brute strength any more, this concept is being weakened, and more women are joining the workforce?

Has it occurred to you that women might have been perfectly happy to send men to war, risk their lives and health working with heavy machinery, crawling through mineshafts in the dark, etc.,?

Allowing men to beat their chest and feel superior, while the women went on quietly organising things, might have suited the majority of us just fine, until work became ore white collar and tempting to us.

And if the above arguments don't persuade you, just try this one. If patriarchy is wrong, and yet most of us adhere to it, then we're all complicit, so anyone saying 'hang on a minute, men and women are equally influential' is helping to subvert and tear down the concept (not feminism, the structure that the feminist concept is pointing to).

Patriarchy isn't just referring to power, power is also related to privilege. Apart from the fact that I think a lot of male privilege is a smokescreen - was it really a privilege to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others - who's really the privileged ones? And the working class man, king of his castle, working harder and harder, working himself to death maybe, to be a good provider - who is patriarchy serving again?

And this idea that men can't control themselves around women - patriarchy says that women are blamed for provoking men. Certainly women are at physical risk here. But is patriarchy saying that men are so weak minded that they can't help acting on impulse? That they're so primitive that they still think and act like animals?

Which gender is claiming intellectual and emotional superiority here? And which gender is being treated like some primitive savage brute?

Both genders use stereotypes to try to further their own aims. As do any other group. The division of labour suited capitalism, now it doesn't, so hey presto now we have diversity. Now we can have both genders, all ages, all levels of ability, etc., working for those who 'take the risks'. Business can take on two for the price of one, less than the price of one, because benefits disguise what the true value of labour is. We all have equal rights to work till we drop, to build up profits for our employers, for the equal privilege of struggling to make ends meet. Are we fighting for equal rights in co-operative ventures? Are we hell!

While diversity deals with more group divisions, and recognises that we can all fall into more than one, we're still all scrabbling around on the floor fighting for the right to the scraps from our masters' table.

Wake up.

Edited April 10, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Diversity Interventions:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/how-to-make-your-company-less-sexist-and-racist/388931/

[eFestivals]

So you're telling me that half the population, of equal intelligence, has agreed to this myth of male superiority, without anything in it for them?

1. it's not agreed - or otherwise you must be fighting an unnecessary battle.

2. it's not a myth - or otherwise you must be fighting a battle that's already been won.

3. who said there's nothing in it for them? 'A benefit' is not the same thing as 'best benefit' or 'no benefit'.

This is what I'm getting at. You're building your own construction, that you then have reason for rejecting.

Wake up.

indeed. Edited April 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Sexism would be an equality and a diversity issue, because it involves stereotypes.

Sexism is a rights issue, because it's about oppression.

And this idea that men can't control themselves around women - patriarchy says that women are blamed for provoking men. Certainly women are at physical risk here. But is patriarchy saying that men are so weak minded that they can't help acting on impulse? That they're so primitive that they still think and act like animals?

Human nature shows that both men and women are so weak minded that they can't help acting on impulse at times . Yes, humans ARE so primitive that they still think and act like animals at times.

Perhaps try a little more of the science you say you're coming from?

[feral chile]

1. it's not agreed - or otherwise you must be fighting an unnecessary battle.

2. it's not a myth - or otherwise you must be fighting a battle that's already been won.

3. who said there's nothing in it for them? 'A benefit' is not the same thing as 'best benefit' or 'no benefit'.

This is what I'm getting at. You're building your own construction, that you then have reason for rejecting.

indeed.

If it's not agreed, it's not the norm - to become a norm, the majority must have agreed to it. So why would women do that?

You've conceded that women have influence, so it's not because they never had a say in allowing men to assume (presume?) power.

So why, then, did half the population allow the other half to shape cultural norms? or collude with the creation of those norms?