What women (don't) want.

[TheGayTent]

If a cure for one problem causes a different problem is it really a cure?

[feral chile]

13 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

Huh?

the cure becomes a new problem.

[feral chile]

It's not the solution that's the problem, it's people not really understanding it, or deliberately subverting it.

[eFestivals]

48 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

If a cure for one problem causes a different problem is it really a cure?

thank you. Better said than my gobbledegook.

[eFestivals]

35 minutes ago, feral chile said:

It's not the solution that's the problem, it's people not really understanding it, or deliberately subverting it.

Hearing them ceases to be about the significance of what they're saying, and instead becomes significant because they're saying.

Your 'cure' cannot avoid changing the emphasis in that way, and so people who currently feel* they're not being heard or taken seriously will continue to feel that way (while also suggesting to new people that that's what is taking place).

(* this is about the perception at the 'user' end of things, remember)

[feral chile]

I'll give you a few examples, to illustrate what I'm trying to say.

decades ago, it was recognised that people needed autonomy. one example is that elderly people in residential care lived longer if they had their own things around them.

Now, if you apply that to change: it's well established that all change is a potential stressor, whether positive or negative. It's also well established that how change is perceived can affect the level of stress the individual experiences.

To a seasoned behaviourist like me, I'd say humans adapt their behaviour to receive reinforcement. You could say we are motivated towards goals.

learned helplessness experiments (barbaric as they were) showed how having no control over changes (ie your behaviour had no effect on the outcome) caused learned helplessness (motiveless passivity,apathy - depression).

So - the theory goes that the kindest (and most effective) way to implement change is to involve the individual - to avoid learned helplessness etc.

Consultation is meant to be about explaining the rationale behind the change - the rules, if you like, to enable the individual to cope with it, and learn adaptive techniques. because if change is perceived as imposed, and nothing the individual does has any effect, they will either become disaffected, or resist, in an effort to retain purpose.

So - in a work setting, you'd explain why there's a need for change, what the new goals are, and how they can be achieved.

what you don't do, is tell your staff there'll be change, ask them what they want, then ignore everything they've said or put a spin on it to make it look like you're giving them what they want.

You can't understand this unless you understand the emotional impact on your intended audience.

So, listening to an emotional response isn't necessarily reactive at all, it's a reciprocal interaction - I did this, it was met with that, was that my intended result, reassess.

An emotional response is a reaction to something. often it's a reaction to the way that something has been delivered.

(and yes, my Contact Centre background is showing - among other observations and experiences).

Edited December 22, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Why not call it what it is? How to con people into doing your want. Better known as modern management.

It presumes that everyone is waiting with glee to be turned into a Stepford wife, who never challenges anything because they're not permitted their own thoughts and responses.

Some of us have seen it for what it is. An oppressor.

 

[feral chile]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Why not call it what it is? How to con people into doing your want. Better known as modern management.

It presumes that everyone is waiting with glee to be turned into a Stepford wife, who never challenges anything because they're not permitted their own thoughts and responses.

Some of us have seen it for what it is. An oppressor.

 

I can understand why you think that, I have mixed feelings about it. When it's done sincerely, as in, you're actually giving people a genuine say, I think it's a positive thing.

When it's done to help people cope with unavoidable change, it helps, because they can at least learn how to gain control over their own reactions and adaptation/coping mechanisms -  but it can be deceitful, and backfires hugely if spotted.

when it's done to people who are also familiar with or trained in the same communication skills...it doesn't end well.

There are so many times I've seen a policy written down, and know that there's a huge gulf between theory and practice.

[eFestivals]

46 minutes ago, feral chile said:

When it's done sincerely, as in, you're actually giving people a genuine say, I think it's a positive thing.

but that's the paradox. As soon as you make it compulsory for them to be listened to the sincerity starts to evaporate.

And it does nothing towards addressing the underlying issue, it's only about managing the person with the issue.

Whether that person wants to be 'managed' or not.

And as well, you started off talking about what could be perceived as a control problem, and your answer is to give the controller a new way of controlling.

[feral chile]

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but that's the paradox. As soon as you make it compulsory for them to be listened to the sincerity starts to evaporate.

And it does nothing towards addressing the underlying issue, it's only about managing the person with the issue.

Whether that person wants to be 'managed' or not.

And as well, you started off talking about what could be perceived as a control problem, and your answer is to give the controller a new way of controlling.

Well giving people a say is at the heart of democracy, so if you look at it that way, it's almost a right. Compulsory isn't always a bad thing if it protects people from dictatorship.

I don't have a problem with showing someone respect and as much say as possible in what happens to them - the principle of that is one I agree with.

it's when dishonesty and insincerity creep in - it betrays the ideal at the heart of it.

And yes, I absolutely hate being 'managed'. Particularly when it really is the sort of situation that you're outlining in much of what you say. And when you know full well the aim is compliance rather than genuine respect and concern for welfare. I still hate it even when I know there's no other way, and it's better for me to give in gracefully (which is what this is often used for in place of genuine reciprocal negotiation - to convince someone to capitulate in the face of negative repercussions).

Edited December 22, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

Well giving people a say is at the heart of democracy

you're misunderstanding what free speech is all about, cos there's nothing like that at the heart of democracy apart from with your silent vote.

[feral chile]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you're misunderstanding what free speech is all about, cos there's nothing like that at the heart of democracy apart from with your silent vote.

So why do you think that listening to feelings is opening the listener up to potential manipulation, while arguing that Corbyn should listen to his party and the electorate? Without this, you have a dictatorship, whether it's in politics or in the home/workplace etc.

politicians are meant to represent the interests of those in the contract, just as all other parties of a contract should be too (whether it's an employment contract or a more informal agreement.)

[feral chile]

https://youtu.be/gOk_qxkBphY

[feral chile]

I found this article this morning, analysing feminism and not-so-feminism in Harry Potter.

I read these books to my son as he grew up, and thoroughly approved of them, and enjoyed them myself, never feeling that there was something that I should be concerned about in the sub-text.

When my other 3 ere younger, Fantastic Mister Fox et al were popular, read at school etc., and I always felt uneasy, and added qualifiers when reading these.

And my favourite author, orwell, has oft been criticised for his depiction of Julia in 1984, something that I disagree with intensely.

So, I wondered what others thought of this analysis:

http://www.bustle.com/articles/136244-the-5-least-feminist-moments-in-harry-potter

Edited January 31, 2016 by feral chile

[feral chile]

This article reminded me of that huge page 3 argument, about women showing their boobs.

Clearly, I agree with the author of this article.

I just wondered if those who were opposed to Page 3, felt that this is the same issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/emma-watsons-boobs-prove-why-we-still-need-feminism_us_58b8bd55e4b02b8b584df9f4?section=us_women&

[TheGayTent]

I like boobs. I don't find Emma Watson attractive. 

I don't suppose that adds anything to the discussion, sorry. 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

This article reminded me of that huge page 3 argument, about women showing their boobs.

Clearly, I agree with the author of this article.

I just wondered if those who were opposed to Page 3, felt that this is the same issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/emma-watsons-boobs-prove-why-we-still-need-feminism_us_58b8bd55e4b02b8b584df9f4?section=us_women&

I wasn't in on discussions about page 3, but would let it be known that I felt really uncomfortable about page 3's presence. I can't actually recall buying The Sun - it would be a bit like buying a w*nk mag to my mind. I mean, there is no point at all to showing a topless woman on page 3 if what you actually want is to read some news.  As to whether it's a blow to feminism I'd say that it was. I'd say that it was because The Sun never had photos on page 5 of blokes with their cocks out. So, the photos were used to appeal to men (mostly) who were happy to see a woman in terms of sexual attraction only. It's this perpetuated limitation of what women are that gives rise to the need for a feminist movement. In an ideal world there would be no need for such a movement.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, feral chile said:

This article reminded me of that huge page 3 argument, about women showing their boobs.

Clearly, I agree with the author of this article.

I just wondered if those who were opposed to Page 3, felt that this is the same issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/emma-watsons-boobs-prove-why-we-still-need-feminism_us_58b8bd55e4b02b8b584df9f4?section=us_women&

hmmmm ... the answer to manipulation is a greater control by women of the manipulation process?

I'm not buying it. It's ultimately advocating toryism, that exploiting others via their desires is a decent and reasonable thing.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, TheGayTent said:

I like boobs. I don't find Emma Watson attractive. 

I don't suppose that adds anything to the discussion, sorry. 

Actually, I think it says a lot. Watson's take lives or falls on exactly that.

If you don't find her attractive then her attempt at manipulating others (or in this instance, you) via her sexuality fails, so she's gained nothing at all, and she hasn't caused a step forwards for womankind.

But it has re-enforced the idea that it's OK to regard women as sexual objects.

Edited March 4, 2017 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Actually, I think it says a lot. Watson's take lives or falls on exactly that.

If you don't find her attractive then her attempt at manipulating others (or in this instance, you) via her sexuality fails, so she's gained nothing at all, and she hasn't caused a step forwards for womankind.

But it has re-enforced the idea that it's OK to regard women as sexual objects.

This is always a tough one - I believe in choice, and having lived through uni in the 1980s, when patronising, middle class feminists were treating stay at home mums as traitors, and calling out married women as slaves to the patriarchy, while paying working class women a pittance so they could go out to work, and radical feminists were treating straight women as collaborators - I'm a bit sensitive to feminists telling other women what's feminist.

I have my own issues - I'm not stereotypically feminine at all, I regard make up and high heels, in the same way most feminists regard Page 3, as treating themselves as sex objects. I have to remind myself that I'm supposed to respect women's choices, and if they want to be stereotypically feminine that's their choice.

It just makes me aware that we're all judgmental, and that it's not easy deciding what's part of the problem and what isn't.

Is 'feminine' behaviour a sexist stereotype? Are women who avoid it simply aspiring to the male role model? Which is more sexist?

I don't know, and I don't think any feminist can tell me either.

BTW Neil, if that's all you were trying to say in the patriarchy discussion, I agree, you can't get outside the situation to work out what feeds it and what works against it - so all you can do is empower women to make their own choices, as they see fit.

Edited March 4, 2017 by feral chile

[feral chile]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Actually, I think it says a lot. Watson's take lives or falls on exactly that.

If you don't find her attractive then her attempt at manipulating others (or in this instance, you) via her sexuality fails, so she's gained nothing at all, and she hasn't caused a step forwards for womankind.

But it has re-enforced the idea that it's OK to regard women as sexual objects.

I thought the Gay tent said a lot, whether that was deliberate or not, I'm not sure.

No comment at all on Watson's views or politics.

[feral chile]

I can't believe this is still a feminist issue. way back in the 80s I was having runins with colleagues, who took offence at the pic I had of a man stepping out of the sea, with exposed chest. I was asked if it was appropriate for the office.

A bit more appropriate than the one you have in the customer office downstairs, I said - which showed a woman in nothing but ripped stockings, looking as if she'd enjoyed being violated.

My pic had been put up in protest of that one.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I've just read an article on BBC News that's about an Air India flight that took place last week. The flight was the first all around the world flight with an all women crew. In addition all checking in staff, handling crew, engineers and air traffic control crew were all women. Air India says that it's part of the celebrations for International Women's Day on 8th March.

I would have posted a link but my copy and paste facility is broken.

[feral chile]

25 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I've just read an article on BBC News that's about an Air India flight that took place last week. The flight was the first all around the world flight with an all women crew. In addition all checking in staff, handling crew, engineers and air traffic control crew were all women. Air India says that it's part of the celebrations for International Women's Day on 8th March.

I would have posted a link but my copy and paste facility is broken.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-39165670

here you go

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I've just read an article on BBC News that's about an Air India flight that took place last week. The flight was the first all around the world flight with an all women crew. In addition all checking in staff, handling crew, engineers and air traffic control crew were all women. Air India says that it's part of the celebrations for International Women's Day on 8th March.

I would have posted a link but my copy and paste facility is broken.

yep, India is very forwards with that sort of thing - in some areas, anyway - including women PM's with Indira Gandhi and her daughter-in-law.

I'd guess it's cultural for that part of the world, because a woman leader in Bhutto perhaps isn't what you'd think for generally-conservative Pakistan.