What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

Does patriarchy exist? Yes.

Can I reject it? Yes.

If not, why not?

I think it's because patriarchy is universal, and omnipotent, and everywhere and in everything. Like God.

So to deny its power is to deny reality. To think is to be patriarchal. Because patriarchy is so ingrained that we can't think outside it.

Except for neil. Neil s the only one who lives outside the patriarchal system, is exempt from all patriarchal tendencies such as trying to assert superiority and dominance, and is the only one who can see truth in the world.

And we're heretics.

Keep the faith, brother. Resistance is futile.

[feral chile]

I've just found an article that seems to suggest I support radical feminism in principle, so maybe it's being misrepresented in this thread? (not that I label myself at all, personally, as I don't like labels).

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feminism/g/radicalfeminism.htm

Radical feminists tend to be more militant in their approach (radical as "getting to the root") than other feminists are. Radical feminism opposes existing political and social organization in general because it is inherently tied to patriarchy. Thus, radical feminists tend to be skeptical of political action within the current system, and instead tend to focus on culture change that undermines patriarchy and associated hierarchical structures.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/feminism/a/feminism.htm

There are many differences within the constellation of ideas and groups and movements called "feminism" on:
•what counts as unfairness, discrimination or oppression
•what in culture produces the disadvantages women experience
•whether the goal is equal treatment of women and men, or whether it is equal respect in different roles
•which women's experiences are taken as normative -- do women of different races, classes, age groups, etc. experience inequality in significantly different ways or is the common experience as women more important?




Bolded bits I most agree with/am concerned with.

We're forgetting, that what we're fighting for is women's right to choose. Whether we agree with that choice or not is irrelevant.

So, women shouldn't ONLY be housewives and mothers, but should be respected if they choose to be.

Women shouldn't ONLY have to show off their breasts, but it's their choice.

Women should be allowed to reach the top of their career ladder, but not feel pressured to do so.

Etc.

And so should men.

it's about having the choice.

Edited February 15, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

Yes, I think a man can be a feminist. The point would be that, if we could accept people for what they were, men also would be free from gender stereotypes, could express their emotions, show sensitivity etc.

I will say, though, that all the literature nowadays says that radical feminism isn't anti men, and that it's widely misunderstood.

In that case, the radical feminists I encountered in the 80s clearly misunderstood it as well, because they refused to have male support, and also turned up in gay clubs and were seriously spiteful to gay men in there. They lived in fear of them.

I know this for a fact because I was heavily involved with the feminist movement at that time, until I got disillusioned with the class hatred and men hatred amongst the particular university group I was involved with.

I didn't just read about it, I was part of it.

Edited February 15, 2015 by feral chile

[midnight]

There certainly are strands of feminist thinking that can be interpreted as anti-men, girls like this one make my eyes pop (not just the original blog, but some of the comments to go with it) :

https://witchwind.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/utopia-what-would-a-womens-society-look-like/

Whohee. Not sure why she wants to keep this small number of isolated men once they've cleaned up the mess, as women will experiment with parthenogenesis? Perhaps just in case it doesn't work out.

Anyway, there's overkill in every movement and it doesn't mean we have to run with it all. Although, as an old hippie, I like the idea of living with our natural surroundings wherever possible, instead of "conquering" them (there's a figure of speech that shows up a certain type of thinking!), as a heterosexual woman with a son to boot (and plenty of male friends), I can only give this stuff the cold shoulder. But some people really seem to think that this is the logical conclusion of feminism. (No one send this link to Paul Elam's website, please, he'll have a field day!).

I can see why the middle class focus didn't do much for you. When I was about 19, in the 80s, a friend gave me The Feminine Mystique to read. It was already an old hat by then, but new to me. As I ploughed through the descriptions of misery amongst housewives in US-american suburbs and the idea that having a job would make their lives so much better, I kept thinking: that's all very well, but girls, do you have any idea how bl**dy knackering it is to have a job, several children & a household to run? And how much housework and responsibilities your older children will end up with at a young age? Because I'd been there, my mother worked full time, my father often worked long late hours, and she was always exhausted, and I was left to look after my younger brother and a mountain of washing up when I got home from school. Then I realised these women would employ a housekeeper. Ah.

But that doesn't mean that the basic feminist idea, that women should not be in a sub-ordinated position, is wrong. I do think feminism is widely misunderstood, and that is one of the reasons why a lot of younger women try to distance themselves from it with something like" "but I do like men!" - erm, yes, so do I (although not all of them, but then again, I do not like all women either). And I would certainly accept men's opinions and support.

One of the biggest problems is that we are struggling with a mindset. I think I read it somewhere in one of Simone de B.'s books, that it isn't just about gaining power and financial independence, but about the entrenched belief of men - thinking of themselves as something naturally superior to women, and that is what is so hard to tackle (I'll try to find the proper quote when I have time). I'll never forget the day my brother said to me "I'm not having a girl telling me what to do!!". He was about four and I was seven, and my mother had asked me to make sure that he came to no harm whilst she was doing something else. Of course he liked doing dangerous things as 4-year-olds do, and when he came out with that sentence (he'd been trying to climb up a window, and I'd told him to stop), I was thunderstruck (that's why I remember it so well). I knew what he was like and I'd expected him to say: "I won't have you telling me what to do." But the fact that he based his refusal on me being a girl was really quite something.

Edited February 16, 2015 by midnight

[midnight]

Can a man be a feminist?

Would there be any point?

What is a man who supports women's issues?

I'm in an inquisitive mood....

There's this guy who's trying to have a public stab at it - quite entertaining too.

Apols if you know him already:

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/faq/

[midnight]

I didn't say that you were subtle. I made a general comment to the thread which you replied back on - having missed what I was getting at (which I'm happy to admit wasn't the clearest; even my missus didn't get it).

It was meant as a light-hearted interjection, as well as a healthy reminder that whatever gender we are we're still the same species and so subject to many of the same failings - because nothing is addressed for the better by women making the same mistakes as men.

Quite.

[midnight]

Which part is, all of it, or one or other of the statements?

The dilemma I'm finding myself in, is if challenging patriarchy is also failure to acknowledge it, how the hell do you challenge it?

And does patriarchy assert that men have power (but that's subject to change)

Or men are more powerful (which isn't?)

Because, so far, all I'm hearing, from (I was going to say from advocates of patriarchy, I know that's not what they mean), is that patriarchy exists, everything falls under it, and no argument could stand against it, and all resistance is patriarchal and therefore futile.

So the second one then.

So what's the difference again between patriarchy advocates and feminists?

Whereas focusing on barriers to equality avoids value bias to an extent, though equal what is obviously a value (as in equal pay, equal protection under the law, right to office etc).

I'm getting confused between feminists asserting patriarchy exists universally and eternally (since they refute claims that men can be disadvantaged and it's all a myth, and claims that it happens everywhere and has always happened, which anthropologists dispute, and patriarch advocates themselves.

because it feels like the same message - 'men have all the power, just accept it'.

I thought it was a question about the alternatives to patriarchy.

It seems to me that a lot of the debate turns on the use of certain words and how they have been applied. So what does "reject" mean - not to acknowledge the existence of something, or a desire to actively resist it - people seem to be using it with different meanings. Also, you've said several times that I am one of those who "advocate" patriarchy, but advocate to me means to publicly recommend or support something, and I really don't think that this is what I'm doing. But I don't think of it as a way of thinking, I think of it as a problem to gnaw away at.

There's a lot of stuff to pick up on, I can't believe that you all have spent the weekend doing this - you're definitely more dedicated to the cause than I am!

And you don't have young children!

Edited February 16, 2015 by midnight

[eFestivals]

You decide you're own interpretation of what anyone says.

No tony.

When you say you reject racism, you're doing so because you accept racism exists for you to be able to reject it.

So also, when you say you reject sexism, you do so because you accept sexism exists.

You've said you don't accept the existence of patriarchy (a 'version' of sexism). Fine.

So please tell me some things which do not suffer an effect from male definition, and then you'll have proven yourself right.

This is filtered through your own unique definitions of words

really? Then please tell me someone cn reject racism when they don't accept racism exists.

This process serves to prove that you're correct and you win.

or alternatively, it shows the failings in your own arguments.

You know, by showing that you don't reject the idea of racism, and that you only reject being racist - because you do accept the existence of racism.

It's like the rantings of a mad person.

says the man who asked if there's only one version of patriarchy. :lol:

[eFestivals]

All I'm saying is that the idea that patriarchy is based on - that men SHOULD rule

PMSL.

You've read about patriarchy, yeah, and there's nothing in any further reading could possibly inform you to a greater extent?

[eFestivals]

Does patriarchy exist? Yes.

hurray - we're getting somewhere.

After weeks of you arguing against me saying "patriarchy exists", you now admit that it does.

All you need to do now is to kno0w what it is that you say exists, so you don't ask dumb questions like "there's only one patriarchy....?"

[eFestivals]

But reading what?

about patriarchy.

The thing where just about every post of yours screams "I don't know what patriarchy is".

You would need to be more precise in what you think I'm misunderstanding/misremembering/unaware of, because it's either missing reading or possible misinterpretation of what I've already read.

You've already accused me of trying to bully you into a male dominated view.

If you believe there's nothing you can learn and that everything you've posted shows you get what you've said you agree exists, then you've no need to ask that question of me.

So which is it? Do you know enough or do you know you need to do do more reading?

[eFestivals]

Except for neil. Neil s the only one who lives outside the patriarchal system, is exempt from all patriarchal tendencies such as trying to assert superiority and dominance, and is the only one who can see truth in the world.

Am I seeing those flaws in your arguments because I'm a man trying to bully you, or is it because you keep on demonstrating how little you understand patriarchy?

I'm sure you can work it out.

[eFestivals]

I've just found an article that seems to suggest I support radical feminism in principle

care to tell me where you're undermining patriarchy, then, so that you fit the definition you posted?

You don't undermine it by ignoring it, as you said women should do.

You don't undermine it by saying women should go along with it, as you said women should do.

You don't undermine it by being non-divisive, as you said women should be.

So I'm wondering where it is that makes you fit that definition?

[eFestivals]

I thought it was a question about the alternatives to patriarchy.

It seems to me that a lot of the debate turns on the use of certain words and how they have been applied. So what does "reject" mean - not to acknowledge the existence of something, or a desire to actively resist it - people seem to be using it with different meanings. Also, you've said several times that I am one of those who "advocate" patriarchy, but advocate to me means to publicly recommend or support something, and I really don't think that this is what I'm doing. But I don't think of it as a way of thinking, I think of it as a problem to gnaw away at.

There's a lot of stuff to pick up on, I can't believe that you all have spent the weekend doing this - you're definitely more dedicated to the cause than I am!

And you don't have young children!

Nicely put midnight.

Still, things have progressed for the better. We've now got two people who have stated clearly that they accept the existence of patriarchy, after them having spent an age trying to tell me I'm wrong for saying patriarchy exists.

[russycarps]

Can a man be a feminist?

Would there be any point?

What is a man who supports women's issues?

I'm in an inquisitive mood....

A lot of men purport to be feminists to try and get into womens pants.

[eFestivals]

I think you do undermine it, in many situations, by ignoring it

yes, I ignore it so much I've been bringing it into the debate when you and feral have been rejecting it. FFS.

Meanwhile, perhaps consider your own question of "is there only one patriarchy...?"

PS: i'll be ignoring the wonderful brain of tonyblair from now on, unless he actually manages to say something of any sense, and about the subject under discussion. I won't indulge his trolling 'and?''s anymore, and I certainly won't again fall into the "lets have an argument about something else because this is all beyond my tiny brain" thing that he does any more.

Edited February 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

you're the one saying there's only one patriarchy

and I'm the idiot?

:lol:

More tony, please more, much much more.

If only you actually realised how funny you are.

Edited February 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

a suitable example of you choosing the meaning of what someone has said to help you 'win',

because that's so important to you

and I'm the idiot?

when you use the word 'patriarchy', tony, what do you mean?

Some of us work from what is previously defined. Do you think you are?

What is important to me is beyond your comprehension, clearly.

Edited February 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I'm going by any dictionaries definition.

so can there be more than one?

[eFestivals]

What??!!

You asked the question to me that was "there's only one patriarchy...?"

So I'm asking you if there's one, or more than one?

Edited February 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Patriarchy, to me, is a concept and a reality. Like religion (perhaps), it is defined but open to interpretation. And like a lot of concepts, there are contradictions within it.

I recognise that we live in a patriarchal society. But I also reject most of how it is defined where I can. At home mostly.

All very nice, but can you answer the question please?

Is there more than one?

[eFestivals]

Patriarchy, to me, is a ...

To you?

Does that mean there's your own personal definition to it, that's different to all other definitions?

That there's more than one patriarchy?

Or is there just one - a fully academic one - definition for patriarchy?

[eFestivals]

everything only exists as each person perceives it

so the dictionary definition you said you go by isn't what you go by after all?

And instead you're making it all up for yourself out of nothing?

[eFestivals]

one argument, not one patriarchy

Eh? How come?

You said you're working from the dictionary definition (actually: an academic definition) of 'patriarchy'.

How can there then be more than one definition of what it is?

Edited February 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

meanwhile, back at the ranch, I said "that's not what patriarchy says", and you disputed that statement of mine, asking "there's only one patriarchy...?"

I'm working from the academic definition, where there is just the one fully-defined definition.

What different definition are you working from?

Without you saying, it's not possible to have a discussion with you about it.