What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

If it's not agreed, it's not the norm

try telling that one to 18th Century slaves.

[eFestivals]

to become a norm, the majority must have agreed to it.

Not true.

People agreeing to go along with something is not the same thing as agreeing to it.

And a minority is perfectly able to make a much larger majority go along with something. That can be seen all the way thru from dictatorships to British 'democracy'.

So why would women do that?

Firstly, they have to realise that's what they're doing. In many instances in life they might not do, due to sexist socialisation being the norm.

Secondly, an alternative to change to has to show a clear benefit, when even within women the benefits of any change are often disputed, because they generally come at the price of something else.

And thirdly, they perhaps got agree to go along with that thing in the first place because that thing was more beneficial than the chaos that was before.

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

You start with wrong presumptions above, and you end up with duff conclusions like this one.

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

Why knows? Perhaps the answer is genetic.

It's not the sort of idea which psychologists tend to like, but it's a common perception that (as a generalisation) women are more passive and men more active. The male dominated society we very clearly do have could simply be a consequence that grew out of a genetic predisposition.

[feral chile]

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

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?

I know that, I know that both men and women have carnal instincts, can dominate each other, that's why laws are there at all, to avoid a free for all - though after the original one, of course, first dibs and all that. That's why having it all going in one direction - men dominating women, when women are equally capable of dominance, though obviously not necessarily physical domination - is being ignored.

Sexism is both an equality and a diversity issue. It's often about unconscious bias though - not outright oppression. Even people who are actively trying to overturn bias are having difficulty, because the issues are so complex. So intent isn't really important here, but I agree that it's the bias that's built ito the system that needs to be worked on.

Maybe it's just a semantic issue - I'm looking at who gets the fairest deal, and nobody does really.

[feral chile]

try telling that one to 18th Century slaves.

But women are not slaves, they're not powerless, they have a voice, they have influence, you've already conceded that, remember?

(I posted an article earlier about how even slaves could have influence, though clearly I'm not claiming that as a general point for all slaves, it was obviously an isolated case).

[eFestivals]

That's why having it all going in one direction - men dominating women, when women are equally capable of dominance, though obviously not necessarily physical domination - is being ignored.

But are women "equally capable of dominance"?

As individuals, then yes, all traits can be found amongst us.

But are women (as a grouping) as dominating as men (as a grouping)? Most people would say women are less dominating. They tend to defer to men, for whatever reason.

[eFestivals]

But women are not slaves, they're not powerless, they have a voice, they have influence, you've already conceded that, remember?

(I posted an article earlier about how even slaves could have influence, though clearly I'm not claiming that as a general point for all slaves, it was obviously an isolated case).

And all of those things applied with slaves too.

And just as with women (tho more-so for slaves), their power was limited, their voice less-listened to, and with limited influence - and with possible bad consequences back on them if they over-stepped where the lines where drawn in any specific situation.

And no, it wasn't an "isolated case" for slaves, they ALL had these things to some degree, tho 'trusted' slaves often got a fair amount more.

I'm not trying to equate women's situation to slaves, but I am saying that all of these things (power, voice, influence) always exist for anyone in any situation. What differs is how much beneficial sway they have to improve the circumstances of an individual in a specific situation.

Edited April 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

And all of those things applied with slaves too.

And just as with women (tho more-so for slaves), their power was limited, their voice less-listened to, and with limited influence - and with possible bad consequences back on them if they over-stepped where the lines where drawn in any specific situation.

And no, it wasn't an "isolated case" for slaves, they ALL had these things to some degree, tho 'trusted' slaves often got a fair amount more.

I'm not trying to equate women's situation to slaves, but I am saying that all of these things (power, voice, influence) always exist for anyone in any situation. What differs is how much beneficial sway they have to improve the circumstances of an individual in a specific situation.

well yes, I agree with all of this, I'm certainly not arguing that influence equals power, sometimes maybe, but it's indirect and contingent.

[feral chile]

But are women "equally capable of dominance"?

As individuals, then yes, all traits can be found amongst us.

But are women (as a grouping) as dominating as men (as a grouping)? Most people would say women are less dominating. They tend to defer to men, for whatever reason.

I don't know if women are equally capable of dominance, it's not really socially acceptable, and while that's obviously a gender bias issue (labelling), dominance, power, assertiveness, authority, influence...so vaue ridden anyway.

[eFestivals]

I don't think women 'defer' to men, generally. They're also less likely to need to dominate. Dominance isn't necessarily a good thing.

I'm not saying whether it's a good or a bad thing, I'm merely observing that it's there.

If it's not there, what's this discussion for?

[eFestivals]

very well done for disagreeing with yourself tony, that takes a special skill.

[feral chile]

very well done for disagreeing with yourself tony, that takes a special skill.

This is why we need a tighter definition of patriarchy - men hold the power isn't precise enough - what power, is it political, social, etc.?

What do you mean by power - exploitation, dominance, control, influence, status, privilege, etc. etc.

And do you mean most, all, power? What's your actual image of society?

Is it a generalisation, do you allow for exceptions, how do you measure progress,

How can we agree or disagree on such a vague, ill defined definition?

If I came across a situation where all the 'winners' were male, I'd want to be looking into what's happening in detail - could women apply, were there equal numbers of applicants per gender, if not why not? Why were males more successful if the number of applicants were equal?

So if it was recruitment, I'd be looking at the recruitment process t check for barriers, from the job advert, including language, job requirements, the assessment process, etc. When I had my statistics, I'd be asking the people interested in the vacancy (if I had access to them) to find out what barriers they thought there were. Then I'd be designing a fairer process.

I wouldn't have to be looking at a top down theory as such - I'd have to be looking at gender bias (also looking at other under represented groups, to check they matched demographics).

It's not an ideal system, because whatever classifications you use, some will still be disadvantaged - there needs to be provisions for carers, for instance, whether male or female, and you need to ensure that full time staff don't have an advantage.

It's way more complicated than a gender divide.

You keep accusing me of not seeing the big picture - I feel that it's the other way around, you can't divide people up merely by sex. Different backgrounds result in different opportunities, a true top down theory will recognise that we all have different starting points, so the disadvantage is already built in. Therefore, you have to look at specific cases, specific goals, under a very general top down ideal of fairness being the goal.

So, top down meets bottom up in diversity theory, because it sees beyond visible differences.

Gender isn't the pinnacle of top down, in other words.

Edited April 11, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

If not seeing everything as black or white, or right or wrong means I get perceived as disagreeing with myself, well... I know what I'd rather be

I agree, it's all a matter of perspective.

a breadwinner might not feel privileged at all, they might well feel enslaved, and his partner, in keeping house, feeding him, etc., is a fellow slave.

What's stopping a patriarchy model, in a full role reversal, then claiming that men are privileged because women are forced out of the home into work, forced into being wage slaves, while men have the freedom of the home and time with their children?

It's so subjective in places. And it almost seems to sabotage itself, by agreeing to that unspoken value that whatever males do, that's the good thing that we want.

If we focus on choice, and control, we might start getting somewhere. As in, taking control of our choices, not trying to control those of others.

[feral chile]

That makes as much sense as I could muster...

I don't see how having a more specific definition of 'patriarchy' would help though. If we can choose the definition, then the word becomes meaningless. Which, to me, it is.

I'd prefer to be looking at social barriers and removing them.

[eFestivals]

I'd prefer to be looking at social barriers and removing them.

requires seeing, too.

[eFestivals]

and whether the barriers are there due to patriarchy or whatever, doesn't matter if the barriers go

that depends if you want to treat the symptoms or the disease.

[eFestivals]

you could do both

you could, but it think it's unlikely that those who don't see the need for both would do, don't you?

while the world is whittering on about whether patriarchy is why things are the way they are, the actual effects can be dealt with

You get the perfect answer with perfect information. A solution concocted with imperfect information is likely to fail to some extent.

As we're seeing with what were claimed as the answers 50 years ago.

[eFestivals]

what perfect information?

Who knows?

We disagree about what that might be, with the result that one fight is undermining the other.

So whatever we have, it's not perfect information and so we're heading for a fuck-up.

[feral chile]

requires seeing, too.

Occam's Razor again - if a person is being discriminated against, end the discrimination. If there are barriers to public services, identify them and the causes, and develop an action plan for their removal.

societal attitudes are harder, granted, peer pressure's a bugger - but t can be questioned, challenged, eroded, by raising awareness.

nobody's saying we don't live in a biased society, both deliberate and unconscious - but we don't need to alienate half the population by using the patriarchy model, when we can use the diversity model and apply it to everyone.

feminism has often been criticised for having a white middle class woman's perspective - and I can understand female frustration at not being allowed to get a degree, and gain a profession etc., - but you wouldn't find so many mining communities with women clamouring for the chance to leave school at 14 to go down the pit. As happened in my family to the males.

Which is why, despite the violence of the late 70s and 80s that I blame on the decline of the pits and the economic turmoil associated with that, rather than patriarchy - you get the older generation of miners being very politically aware, and very much into self education - libraries etc., - because of the frustration of their lost opportunities. And they wanted better for their children, boys and girls alike.

Edited April 14, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/new-cardiff-bus-company-slammed-9230461

I found this interesting. They've featured both men and women, yet because of our culture, it feels that women were the ones objectified whether a male or female photo was used.

My secret (political activist) role model is featured in there too

Edited May 12, 2015 by feral chile

[russycarps]

I was just browsing the daily torygraph website hunting for some dung to throw at the snp lot, when I found this article.

Seems prince william is not just an inbred, parasitic waste of skin, but is also a vile sexist pig.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11637938/Prince-William-calls-Kate-Middleton-the-missus-casual-sexism-alert.html

[LondonTom]

I was just browsing the daily torygraph website hunting for some dung to throw at the snp lot, when I found this article.

Seems prince william is not just an inbred, parasitic waste of skin, but is also a vile sexist pig.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11637938/Prince-William-calls-Kate-Middleton-the-missus-casual-sexism-alert.html

Less sexist I think, he was just trying fit in with the ordinary folk wasn't he?

Is it that sexist? I am not sure, I think its just a slang term these days for lads who think they are Danny Dyer.

Edited May 29, 2015 by LondonTom

[kaosmark2]

The "get away with it" is worse in my mind.

[feral chile]

Less sexist I think, he was just trying fit in with the ordinary folk wasn't he?

Is it that sexist? I am not sure, I think its just a slang term these days for lads who think they are Danny Dyer.

I'm amazed young people use the term, I thought it had died out decades ago. It's a pet hate of mine, I have far more issue with the implications behind comments like these than Page 3.

Think about it - the and mrs - no identity of their own allowed at all.

kaosmark - agreed, the term goes hand in hand with that sort of attitude.

Apparently, mister derives from master, and missus from mistress (kept woman) so it's a direct reference to patriarchy.

I just hate the term - call me by my bloody name ffs.

Edited May 29, 2015 by feral chile

[gary1979666]

I'm amazed young people use the term, I thought it had died out decades ago. It's a pet hate of mine, I have far more issue with the implications behind comments like these than Page 3.

Think about it - the and mrs - no identity of their own allowed at all.

kaosmark - agreed, the term goes hand in hand with that sort of attitude.

Apparently, mister derives from master, and missus from mistress (kept woman) so it's a direct reference to patriarchy.

I just hate the term - call me by my bloody name ffs.

I really don't see anything wrong with it. I use it to refer to 'er indoors all the time.

Ok, that last bit was for effect, but it's just a slang term for wife. I use missus, wife, other half frequently - especially if talking to people at work, as they won't remember her name and it makes for an easy reference. None of it is meant in any perjoritive way and my wife has no issue with it.

Sometimes I think people look for offence where there's none.

[feral chile]

I really don't see anything wrong with it. I use it to refer to 'er indoors all the time.

Ok, that last bit was for effect, but it's just a slang term for wife. I use missus, wife, other half frequently - especially if talking to people at work, as they won't remember her name and it makes for an easy reference. None of it is meant in any perjoritive way and my wife has no issue with it.

Sometimes I think people look for offence where there's none.

It's a derogatory term for a mistress, actually. not wife. I'm a bit snobby about it as well.The effect it has on me is like hearing someone call someone 'coloured'. you know they don't mean offence, but it comes across as ignorant/of an older generation, when such terms were considered acceptable, even polite.

Are you seriously telling me you work with people who are incapable of remembering the names (or inferring the reference) of family members of their colleagues?

It's the 'the' bit that gets me the most, and it's an incredibly archaic term. My 60 year old husband used to say it 35 years ago.

What's wrong with 'my wife'?

I wonder if this in itself is a gender issue? I remember having conversations with male colleagues who referred to family members and friends by their relationship title, and wondered why they didn't use their name, it seemed strange to me.

He/she who must not be named, and all that.

Edited June 2, 2015 by feral chile