What women (don't) want.

[eFestivals]

I'm sure I'm just as capable of being sexist as everyone else.

We're all capable of being sexist, but we're all also capable of trying to put it aside.

You're being consciously and deliberately sexist in what I'm thinking should be an academic discussion.

Perhaps you're not treating this as an academic discussion? In which case, why all the questions for trying to get to the bottom of things?

[eFestivals]

do you mean medically?

Not really, because so little of it is to do with real medical needs.

Tho it's probably been sold that way.

[feral chile]

We're all capable of being sexist, but we're all also capable of trying to put it aside.

You're being consciously and deliberately sexist in what I'm thinking should be an academic discussion.

Perhaps you're not treating this as an academic discussion? In which case, why all the questions for trying to get to the bottom of things?

I wasn't aware that I was being sexist throughout this discussion, therefore it's not consciously sexist, whatever else it is.

[feral chile]

Not really, because so little of it is to do with real medical needs.

Tho it's probably been sold that way.

well what then? Do you think women are under pressure to reproduce? Are you talking contraception, abortion, what exactly?

[krisskross]

If I'm understanding Feral correctly, shes saying there is no point debating patriarchy because its impossible to change the past. Its only possible to change things moving forward. Accepting patriarchy is one thing, but as soon as you reduce the debate to patriarchy, there is no room to move forward from it.

We cant re-write history and celebrate an equal number of male and female (for example) scientists because there just were not an equal number going back through history. That is not to say discoveries by Marie Curie were not important, just that men made 10x, 100x the number of discoveries. What we can do is educate girls that the only reason men made more discoveries is that there were more men in a position where they could make discoveries. From that its then possible to have an equal number of male/female scientists and it will filter through in time to having equality.

[krisskross]

We're all capable of being sexist, but we're all also capable of trying to put it aside.

You're being consciously and deliberately sexist in what I'm thinking should be an academic discussion.

Perhaps you're not treating this as an academic discussion? In which case, why all the questions for trying to get to the bottom of things?

This is a long way from being an academic discussion. Mainly due to you belittling people throughout. I've never experienced any discussion where people throw around insults. It might happen a lot outside of the discussion but that's a different problem. The other thing is that there is a complete lack of evidence to the majority of anyone's arguments. Dont kid yourself this is more than a discussion on a forum about festivals.

[eFestivals]

I wasn't aware that I was being sexist throughout this discussion, therefore it's not consciously sexist, whatever else it is.

what, when you said I couldn't have a valid contribution or opinion because I was a man, that wasn't deliberately and consciously sexist?

Women are infected by the fact of patriarchy no less than men, in case it's passed you by. Any time you take a line like that, you're dismissing your own view too.

Edited February 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

This is a long way from being an academic discussion. Mainly due to you belittling people throughout. I've never experienced any discussion where people throw around insults. It might happen a lot outside of the discussion but that's a different problem. The other thing is that there is a complete lack of evidence to the majority of anyone's arguments. Dont kid yourself this is more than a discussion on a forum about festivals.

When it gets into the realms of the idiocy where people claim words can't be defined, I'll call that person out as the idiot they are. If they believed what they said they couldn't have been making sense of things to make a comment like that.

Now, less move on from the morons and to those with a brain.

The rest is trying to be approached in a meaningful way, but when some one said says "you can't have a valid view because you're a man", we're back into the illogical.

[eFestivals]

Women have a say in how their babies are born now.

it's still very much male-defined tho, and do note that I'm not saying something is free of all female influence when I call something 'male-defined'.

[feral chile]

When it gets into the realms of the idiocy where people claim words can't be defined, I'll call that person out as the idiot they are. If they believed what they said they couldn't have been making sense of things to make a comment like that.

Now, less move on from the morons and to those with a brain.

The rest is trying to be approached in a meaningful way, but when some one said says "you can't have a valid view because you're a man", we're back into the illogical.

Are you referring to me when you said that last bit? I can't remember saying that.

[feral chile]

what, when you said I couldn't have a valid contribution or opinion because I was a man, that wasn't deliberately and consciously sexist?

Women are infected by the fact of patriarchy no less than men, in case it's passed you by. Any time you take a line like that, you're dismissing your own view too.

I don't think I actually said that.

I know I said I was reacting in a more defiant manner because it was a man telling me men held all the power.

Interestingly, I was watching something on TV last night that suggested, when a man's attracted to a woman, that gives her power over him.

Since all this discussion is based around male attraction, how come that's not seen to be the case?

And no, it hasn't passed me by that women can be infected. I'm saying that the whole feminist theory of patriarchy is infected with it. Which is why it produces disquiet in me.

it also is why I question my disdain for overt femininity, in all its 'man'ifestations. And why I question whether my Joan Jett lookalike asprirations are not just as male defined as theirs. Or whether I'm being a feminist. Or whether being a feminist is also male defined anyway.

But there's no way to prove it either way, is there? The only thing we can try to do is be aware of our biases, and try to accept others.

Edited February 20, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

If I'm understanding Feral correctly, shes saying there is no point debating patriarchy because its impossible to change the past.

but patriarchy is not only the past, it's the here and now too.

And, for as far as I can see, the future too.

Accepting patriarchy is one thing, but as soon as you reduce the debate to patriarchy, there is no room to move forward from it.

it's a view, but one that doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.

We cant re-write history and celebrate an equal number of male and female (for example) scientists because there just were not an equal number going back through history. That is not to say discoveries by Marie Curie were not important, just that men made 10x, 100x the number of discoveries. What we can do is educate girls that the only reason men made more discoveries is that there were more men in a position where they could make discoveries. From that its then possible to have an equal number of male/female scientists and it will filter through in time to having equality.

But it's so very much more than just the genders of scientists. It's all of science too.

So all you're doing if patriarchy isn't attempted to be addressed is schooling a new generation of scientists with patriarchy, and nothing regarding patriarchy has changed.

You might even conclude it's a great win for men, because men have now got women doing more of the work, allowing men to put their feet up more than they did already.

[eFestivals]

Are you referring to me when you said that last bit? I can't remember saying that.

I'm paraphrasing, but yes. You said that.

[eFestivals]

I don't think I actually said that.

it's one of those "read back on your on own words" things again, where you can find the full truth and drop the false version.

Interestingly, I was watching something on TV last night that suggested, when a man's attracted to a woman, that gives her power over him.

Since all this discussion is based around male attraction, how come that's not seen to be the case?

when has this discussion been based around male attraction?

And no, it hasn't passed me by that women can be infected. I'm saying that the whole feminist theory of patriarchy is infected with it. Which is why it produces disquiet in me.

but not enough disquiet for you to provide a rational case to back up your dismissal. Just a dismissal.

[feral chile]

I'm paraphrasing, but yes. You said that.

I think I was worrying that this was why I was rejecting your argument, is that the comment you mean?

If so, I was questioning my own bias, and I've kept it in mind since, which is one of the reasons why I've toned down my attitude (ie neil isn't 'patriarchy').

[feral chile]

it's one of those "read back on your on own words" things again, where you can find the full truth and drop the false version.

when has this discussion been based around male attraction?

but not enough disquiet for you to provide a rational case to back up your dismissal. Just a dismissal.

Page 3?

The sale of female images for male sexual gratification? And the link between male attraction to the female form and male dominance/patriarchy? That male attraction towards women involves their objectification?

Shit, if this hasn't been what this discussion's been about, then I really haven't understood it!

[eFestivals]

is that the comment you mean?

it wasn't 'a' comment, but something you did a number of times over many different days.

And you were rightly treated disparagingly because of it.

[feral chile]

it's one of those "read back on your on own words" things again, where you can find the full truth and drop the false version.

when has this discussion been based around male attraction?

but not enough disquiet for you to provide a rational case to back up your dismissal. Just a dismissal.

well, it's been rational enough for me, though perhaps not as articulate as I'd like.

[eFestivals]

Page 3?

The sale of female images for male sexual gratification? And the link between male attraction to the female form and male dominance/patriarchy? That male attraction towards women involves their objectification?

Shit, if this hasn't been what this discussion's been about, then I really haven't understood it!

that's merely one example of patriarchy. I've put it forwards as an example because it's such an easy one.

Edited February 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

it wasn't 'a' comment, but something you did a number of times over many different days.

And you were rightly treated disparagingly because of it.

You're right, I was deliberately patronising towards you, and I apologise.

[eFestivals]

well, it's been rational enough for me, though perhaps not as articulate as I'd like.

the rational case would be if you could tell me something which isn't male-defined, as I've kept asking.

[eFestivals]

You're right, I was deliberately patronising towards you, and I apologise.

Thank you.

It's fucking frustrating when I'm trying to properly discuss, and you start with that sort of bollocks.

[eFestivals]

Sometimes it is just the mother who decides how she wants the baby to be born.

a decision she makes in a patriarchal environment, where the examples she has of what is 'approved' is defined by...?

Edited February 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

that's merely one example of patriarchy. I've put it forwards as an example because it's such an easy one.

it's a bit of a complicated example though, because for heterosexuals, we do have a vested interest in attracting each other.

And attraction does involve being an object of desire.

plenty of women fee that being desired makes them feel powerful.

And plenty of women feel exactly the opposite.

and then some think that objectifying men (making men the object of desire) gives them power.

And some people of both sexes just want to get laid

[feral chile]

the rational case would be if you could tell me something which isn't male-defined, as I've kept asking.

it would make more sense if you asked me to define something that wasn't value-ridden. It's not a question really of male defined, more that the negative connotations are often assigned to females.

sexually permissive - slut/stud.

sexually repressed - prudish, frigid - is there even a word for a sexually repressed male?

Edited February 20, 2015 by feral chile