What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

Because you have to apply to schools when they're 4 and most kids haven't made their minds up by then [/cynic]

(I say that as someone who did baptise our first and has applied to a catholic school knowing the fact she is baptised pretty much guarantees her a place - the school is at the end of our road but distance/catchment rules don't apply to catholic schools. My husband and I are both baptised catholic, but it's still totally hypocritical of us!)

It's understandable though, thinking about it I can remember lots of parents doing it to get their kids into Church schools when we lived in an inner city area. I was young then though, idealistic, stubborn, a passionate atheist (as you can only be if you've ever believed to start with, I suspect), and less pragmatic than I might be now

Edited February 7, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

People derive pleasure from giving pleasure. Why do girls give men blow jobs? What's in it for them?

Well also, it might be an opportune moment to confess/mention/pretend to ask for that expensive purchase you've just made.

it's always best to broach a difficult subject with someone when they're in a more relaxed frame of mind.

Edited February 7, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grace-anne-stevens/my-transgender-life-transitioning-at-age-64_b_6615476.html

I'm not sure how this relates to patriarchy etc., if at all.

It feels as if it's part of a problem we have with forcing a gender division on people, but it's not something I understand at all well.

I know there are some who argue that we're not simply male/female masculine/feminine. but more a mixture that only results in a classification with reproductive organs.

I always felt that I'm me, I happen to have female reproductive organs, and the rest of my 'gender' is culturally determined, so that often people think I'm quite butch, but only because of cultural values determining what's seen as masculine and what's seen as feminine.

But for transgendered people, it clearly goes much deeper than that. They identify with gender as a fundamental part of self.

So maybe there isn't a self separate from what just happens to be your sex and gender.

I really don't know. How much is a social construct?

I can't imagine what it must be like to have felt you've lived a lie about your sense of self, for 64 years.

Edited February 8, 2015 by feral chile

[LondonTom]

Because you have to apply to schools when they're 4 and most kids haven't made their minds up by then [/cynic]

Don't think thats cynical really, just honest! Most people do baptism (or similar things) partly out of tradition and a reason to have a big family party and also to sadly get into better schools.

I can understand it, basically as soon as my sister and me were in our secondary schools, church slowly died out as a thing we done, even at Christmas/Easter! In my borough basically the only secondary schools that got the 5 GCSE A-C standard was the all boys and all girls catholic schools, the other schools came no where close (and from all accounts, were just horrid places to be.)

Anyway like you said baptism, is just bit of paper/candle unless you really believe in it all. Any mutilation is horrid and sadly the only way it seems to catch those who do it, is if its something is wrong and a Doctor has to take a look.

Apart from that, I guess more education that its completely unaceptable but if its ingrained so much as a tradition, I don't think even that does alot of good.

[russycarps]

imagine going to watch that film, or reading the book.

fucking hell.

[jump]

How about we have a movie eroticising Jimmy Saville next, or the Yorkshire Ripper - is there any lengths to which people's bigotry and hatred of women's rights wont stoop?"

I doubt Jimmy Saville or the Yorkshire Ripper would be big enough to have porno versions made of them otherwise there would be one already.

[russycarps]

well, as I've been reminded, it takes all sorts.

but whether the book or the film is any good or not, I think the discussions are interesting.

I can see why some people feel threatened by certain types of behaviour being encouraged

well neither you or I have seen the film or read the book so how can we possibly comment on it?

I also suspect the person who wrote that rant hasnt read the book or seen the film either.

If they have read the book or seen the film, the question is why would they do so if they knew it was going to rekindle bad memories?

Something doesnt add up.

[LondonTom]

Its an intresting one. I've read from a few people who claim to be properly into BDSM its nothing representive of the fetish and is more along the abuse lines.

I guess it becomes where do you draw the line on censorship on these sorts of things....

[eFestivals]

Does the book, in it's way, promote abuse of women?

I've not read it.

But surely, unless it's literally saying "go and commit abuse", it's not promoting abuse?

Some people might be influenced to abuse as a result of reading it, but that's a different thing.

Or are we humans not smart enough to separate fiction from real life?

[russycarps]

how many books and films glorify violence and murder?

It's absurd to be outraged over works of fiction.

[eFestivals]

Well, it would be good to think we can separate fiction from real life. But as has been said, what we watch does affect the way many people think or behave (otherwise why would advertisers spend the squillions they do?)

Advertising is a bit more subtle.

We know we're reading a book, a work of fiction. It's not real.

I'm not trying to suggest that no one might be badly influenced by it. I'm saying that for the vast majority of us it doesn't have that affect.

If we were to take an extreme line with everything we do because there's potential for something bad to come from it - in much the way it is to blame a work of fiction for what some (a very small proportion) might choose to try and make real - then what in life would be acceptable? We couldn't work because we might cause harm to others; we couldn't drive because we might cause harm to others; etc, etc, etc.

As a society, we choose to separate 'something' from the unwanted consequences of having that 'something', until such time as we come to believe that the unwanted consequences are having too large an impact.

I would have thought there were far more explicit 'somethings' impacting into male/female relationships/abuse that needed acting against long before we got down the list to what can't be much more than the racier Mills & Boon's, but perhaps I'm getting what the book is about all wrong.

[feral chile]

I thought it was a very bad Mills and Boon with porn thrown in. badly written porn at that.

what bemuses me is that women rave over the books. Some abused women say it's spot on, which is ironic, as it's not supposed to be about domestic abuse.

To give you an example of the controlling, ridiculous, nature of what goes on in there, the man says to the woman

'you can come now'.

That did it for me, I fell about laughing.

BUT - I've only read the first book, and know nothing about BDSM, so maybe the real thing wouldn't be for me either.

What I felt uneasy about was that, at least in the first book, the man was rich, powerful and controlling, and the girl was a virgin, and in love, and therefore willing to go along with what he wanted.

It was all on his terms, he was supposedly damaged and therefore allowances had to be made.

I'm not sure how it ended though, maybe the balance of power changed later on.

I couldn't read it and take it seriously though - it's only the public reaction to it that's made me take it seriously since.

There again, I'm not a fan of the Twilight films either - that girl needs rescuing by the men too much.

Edited February 10, 2015 by feral chile

[bunique]

Well it was born out of Twilight fan fiction so the comparisons are apt!

It does romanticise (or attempt to) a controlling relationship that is not (I'm reliably informed by those in that particular world!) an accurate reflection of a BDSM - Dom/sub relationship - in which the submissive ultimately holds the power because they can stop proceedings at any time. And outside of the rules/roles of that relationship, there is no stalking, control as there is in 50SOG.

The amount of posts I see on Facebook and elsewhere from women "wishing they had a Christian Grey" in their life does concern me because in reality the relationship described in the book is textbook domestic abuse/control. Is that really what these women want (no - they want to be lavished attention on, not told when to orgasm - or not!)? Is it what young girls should be aspiring to? (That's a criticism more levelled at Twilight - which I admit to not having read)

Anyway, the most offensive thing about the film is the lack of beard on Jamie Dornan. How to turn an absolute stunner of a man into a disappointment overnight #objectifyingallovertheshop

[feral chile]

Well it was born out of Twilight fan fiction so the comparisons are apt!

It does romanticise (or attempt to) a controlling relationship that is not (I'm reliably informed by those in that particular world!) an accurate reflection of a BDSM - Dom/sub relationship - in which the submissive ultimately holds the power because they can stop proceedings at any time. And outside of the rules/roles of that relationship, there is no stalking, control as there is in 50SOG.

The amount of posts I see on Facebook and elsewhere from women "wishing they had a Christian Grey" in their life does concern me because in reality the relationship described in the book is textbook domestic abuse/control. Is that really what these women want (no - they want to be lavished attention on, not told when to orgasm - or not!)? Is it what young girls should be aspiring to? (That's a criticism more levelled at Twilight - which I admit to not having read)

Anyway, the most offensive thing about the film is the lack of beard on Jamie Dornan. How to turn an absolute stunner of a man into a disappointment overnight #objectifyingallovertheshop

I was really disappointed with it, I thought it was going to be really dark, not a candy floss version of a subject which has so much ambiguity. I suppose in a way, that makes it all the more disturbing.

There's nothing romantic about control.

[midnight]

Haven't read the 50 Shades, and I don't think I will (unless someone wants to commission a review and pay me handsomely for the time it takes to read it, then I would re-consider). Someone once quoted me a line from it, something like "my inner goddess dances the salsa", is that really in there? Hilarious, but my life is too short.

I've looked it up on Wikipedia, though, and it seems to be mostly a story about a damaged (handsome & wealthy) man being cured by the love of a good (and innocent) woman. Bless. And don't try this at home, if you have a real control freak on your hands.

Can't comment on the BDSM aspect of it, as I wouldn't really know what I'm talking about, but I can see that it might make some people uncomfortable if that kind of thing goes more mainstream, as they might fear being expected to experiment where they rather wouldn't. Just say no, folks. But I can say that with ease now, not sure I would have been so confident 20 years ago, when I was more in the age range of the protagonists.

If you look at it as just a fantasy, it's no big deal, horrid things happen in Game of Thrones and no-one seems to worry that they will be enacted in the streets later on (sorry GoT fan, I'm sure it's much better than this flick, I was just trying to think of something slightly otherworldly -dragons!- with a gruesome story line). Problem is, that 50S is set in what looks like the real (wealthy western) world, I wish they'd put a dragon or a flying pig or something totally bizarre into these films to show them up as the kind of weird fantasy they are.

But I can't really say to what extend it endorses controlling behaviour and domestic violence etc, because I've neither read nor seen it, so I best shut up about it.

[midnight]

regarding people who adhere to patriarchy, the reason I asked that rhetorical question, was that I'm confused as to where the hope lies.

What the vision of the alternative is. There's something tautological about it, because every move a woman makes to get free of it, gets subsumed into the ideology. 'Ah, that's not a free expression, you're conditioned by patriarchy'.

It's a bit like determinists, stating that everything is caused. So when you argue for free will, they look back and say, yes, but that reason for your action was determined by everything that you've experienced, and everything that's gone before to bring about your response. So therefore it's caused, and free will is an illusion'.

Of course, if you see the world like this, it's likely to be true (taking aside quantum mechanics, which apparently disproves causation, but I don't really understand it, so I can't really comment).

My argument has always been, however, that free will is our awareness of ourselves as causal agents, so although we're part of causation, it's not all about us being acted upon, but as us acting upon the world, as well. So free will is not only real, our belief in it, and the fact that we react based on our belief in it, affects the very causation that determinists adhere to. If we were passive, and just allowed events to wash over us as if we were rocks, causation, and the future, would be different.

And this is my objection to the patriarchy argument, because there feels like there's almost a fatalistic attitude towards it.

It feels to me like the God concept - if we had scientific evidence that an alien terraformed our planet, and we could start to understand it, you'd have believers denying that was God, and that the alien must be working through God somehow. And the atheists would argue that it proved God didn't exist. Because God is defined as indefinable. You can't point to something and say 'that's God, right there'. I think the God concept itself disallows any physical evidence for the existence of God, since God is outside physical laws. therefore neither side could accept an observable or measurable entity as proof of God. I don't think there would ever be a way to prove or disprove God, because the concept is spiritual, and not open to empiricism. Faith relies on not having proof.

Patriarchy feels like that - a concept that will be made to fit everything, because we can't see a way out of the patriarchal bubble.

And yet, by the unanimous disapproval of patriarchy displayed throughout this debate, there's clearly at least wiggle room.

I know I'm not being very articulate here, it's more a feeling that we've trapped ourselves within the ideology. It's not a denial that historically, men have held the power and controlled concepts, so that masculine values are given higher status.

it's just, I've heard feminists denounce science or scientific discourse for being masculine. And while I can appreciate the objection that there's more men than women working within, isn't that actually perpetuating the perception that science is for men?

I feel something similar is going on with human sexuality. It feels at the moment as if people are arguing that sexuality is for men.

And it has further ramifications - if we perceive that we live in a patriarchal society what's to encourage women to think they have the power, or the place in society, to change it? And what would be accepted as a genuine change, and not just a patriarchy-conditioned perpetuation? It's like we're saying society is really for men. And everything women do is really for men. And of more concern, that everything women can (ever?) do is for men.

I won't accept that.

Sorry to pick up on this so much later, I've been a bit busy over the last few days.

I wouldn't say I adhere to patriarchy, it isn't a believe system like Christianity. And I tend to stay well clear of determinism if I can (it makes me feel vaguely suicidal). So no, I too won't accept that it is impossible to change things. If we need to have an -ism that could fit with a lot of things that are popping up in the debate here (poverty, transgender, disability, race etc), about different forms of oppression for different population groups, it probably would be Intersectionalism (though that's a tricky one).

I think identifying an existing problem is the first step to doing something about it. Why should we not try to do something about male privilege? Because of it's nature, I'm sure I'll only be able to chip away at it in tiny bits and pieces in my lifetime, and I certainly need to pick my battles wisely. Some things have got better over time, then there is a backlash, another step forward, and so on. I'll try to chip away where I can. Getting the men in my own family to acknowledge the mere existence of male privilege would be quite some achievement for me. Differences between people or groups of people are not the problem, but building a hierarchy based on inevitable differences is.

[russycarps]

what do you pretty little things think about the pink labour bus then?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/10/pink-bus-labour-women-mps-kitchen-table-tour-female-voters

patronised? condescended? or couldnt give a shite?

[gary1979666]

what do you pretty little things think about the pink labour bus then?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/10/pink-bus-labour-women-mps-kitchen-table-tour-female-voters

patronised? condescended? or couldnt give a shite?

It's a brighter version of UKIP Purple!

[bunique]

Not sure there was any other colour they could have chosen that hasn't already been claimed by another party. The Tory response amused me as I can't think of a single policy they've proposed that will promote equality and/or family life

[LondonTom]

Not sure there was any other colour they could have chosen that hasn't already been claimed by another party.

Could have used Red?

"Lucy Powell, one of the party’s new general election co-ordinators, said Labour was taking its message female voters because they wanted to “have a conversation about the kitchen table, and around the kitchen table” rather than having an “economy that just reaches the boardroom table”."

....while cooking the dinner before their husbands get home I guess.

[fred quimby]

So 12 pages in

do we have a summary yet of what women want and don't want.

[eFestivals]

do we have a summary yet of what women want and don't want.

Yep.

They want men to do the DIY, and they don't want to be taken for granted.

[fred quimby]

Yep.

They want men to do the DIY, and they don't want to be taken for granted.

Cheers Neil. saves all the reading

[feral chile]

Sorry to pick up on this so much later, I've been a bit busy over the last few days.

I wouldn't say I adhere to patriarchy, it isn't a believe system like Christianity. And I tend to stay well clear of determinism if I can (it makes me feel vaguely suicidal). So no, I too won't accept that it is impossible to change things. If we need to have an -ism that could fit with a lot of things that are popping up in the debate here (poverty, transgender, disability, race etc), about different forms of oppression for different population groups, it probably would be Intersectionalism (though that's a tricky one).

I think identifying an existing problem is the first step to doing something about it. Why should we not try to do something about male privilege? Because of it's nature, I'm sure I'll only be able to chip away at it in tiny bits and pieces in my lifetime, and I certainly need to pick my battles wisely. Some things have got better over time, then there is a backlash, another step forward, and so on. I'll try to chip away where I can. Getting the men in my own family to acknowledge the mere existence of male privilege would be quite some achievement for me. Differences between people or groups of people are not the problem, but building a hierarchy based on inevitable differences is.

This thing about male privilege though - sure, there are statistically more men in positions of authority than women, but there are plenty of disadvantaged men around, too.

Things are changing, and with the internet and teleconferencing, I think we'll finally start to make advances.

There's lots going on at the moment looking into why women don't get the top jobs, a lot of the time it's because they don't apply for them. Now they've started looking at why that is, for any under-represented group, and not just women. They've done that by asking what barriers stand in the way.

From personal experience, mobile grades would be an issue, because I wouldn't be prepared to move my family in pursuit of a career enhancement.

Now, you can look at why men are more prepared to do this, and why women are prepared to go wherever the man's job takes them.

And you can argue, successfully, that due to patriarchy, the man has historically been the main wage earner and so his job took priority.

Or - you can look at mobility as a barrier to advancement, and move to reduce this as a job requirement.

Even though patriarchy might well be at the base of the problem, as a theoretical construct it won't solve anything.

What will, is looking at the stats, identifying the under-represented groups, which will include lots more than gender, then finding out how to equalise them, by asking what needs to change. And the government, and employers, being prepared to implement the changes.

Edited February 11, 2015 by feral chile

[midnight]

Do you accept that some men want the same change that some women want?

Yes.

what do you pretty little things think about the pink labour bus then?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/10/pink-bus-labour-women-mps-kitchen-table-tour-female-voters

patronised? condescended? or couldnt give a shite?

I won't get my pretty little knickers in a twist over that one. Some multicoloured pychedelic swirly pattern would do it for me, if they wanted extra attention, but I'd say they should have stuck with red, as it's the labour colour, and pink as code-colour for girls has had some bad press in recent years (toy shops etc. No, not THOSE toys, children's toys). They mention that about 9 million women don't vote, that worries me much more than the silly colour of the bus.

Could have used Red?

....while cooking the dinner before their husbands get home I guess.

Yes, should be red.

But Tom, I hate breaking this to you, it is quite possible to cook/serve up a great dinner and chat merrily around a kitchen table without any husbands in sight.

Yep.

They want men to do the DIY, and they don't want to be taken for granted.

Yes! You got 2 out of 87451 right. Not bad for a start, keep going.