What women (don't) want.

[feral chile]

I'm still waiting for that list of things which aren't male defined.

Our income is our income. It doesn't matter which of us has actually earned it. Neither has the right to a superior claim on it. We discuss how it's spent.

Housework is our work. It's not gender divided. Which means the garden gets neglected, as does DIY, because nobody likes doing it.

[eFestivals]

And it's not a male dominated environment because you say so, either.

true.

The proof is in the evidence I keep asking you for, but you won't give.

[feral chile]

I'm not sure I follow you. Do you not think it's a male dominated world then?

Too general.

If you'd asked me 30 years ago, it would have been an unequivocal yes. To every sphere of society.

I have no idea, statistically, what the male/female ratio is in different disciplines. businesses, which is one way of being male dominated. I'd guess t's better than 1980, but probably still not equal.

Language and gender bias - better, some has been eradicated by changing job titles etc.

Couples - far more equitable, though I suspect overall, women still get lumped with more housework and men with more DIY.

Male dominated suggests total domination though, as does your refusal to accept tony's experience.

Edited February 27, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Our income is our income. It doesn't matter which of us has actually earned it. Neither has the right to a superior claim on it. We discuss how it's spent.

Housework is our work. It's not gender divided. Which means the garden gets neglected, as does DIY, because nobody likes doing it.

And all of these things are not defined by male dominance?

It's not a male world that has decided what are the important things for a family to have, and it's not a male dominated world that has defined the environment that family should live within?

Follow thru on those thoughts. Don't say "I have an answer so it must be the answer".

[eFestivals]

No, it's how we all want it.

all 100% free of all male dominance...?

I'm sure you think so, and that's precisely where you're going wrong.

Edited February 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

No, it's how we all want it.

what about the things outside your control?

go and walk past your local police station topless. Then go and tell your wife to do the same thing. Let me know what happens.

[eFestivals]

All I ever said at the start of all this was that I wasn't bothered personally, it was you who launched into a massive feminist debate and demanded a retraction. I can't retract a personal reaction.

FFS! Now look, you've made a nice little old lady swear lol.

No, that's not what you said.

You said (paraphrased) women should proudly bare their tits for men, and anyone who disagreed had it in for women.

[feral chile]

And all of these things are not defined by male dominance?

It's not a male world that has decided what are the important things for a family to have, and it's not a male dominated world that has defined the environment that family should live within?

Follow thru on those thoughts. Don't say "I have an answer so it must be the answer".

Are you equating industrialisation with patriarchy?

You're talking about the overthrow of the whole capitalist system, then.

Which I'm not unsympathetic with, actually.

I'm struggling with where symbolic Male dominance and statistical male dominance are meeting, and which one we're discussing.

(As in, science is statistically dominated by men, in that more men are involved in it, therefore influence it more)

Is that what you mean, or are you referring to everything? Because women do have protections in law now that were unthinkable 30 years ago.

(sorry, quite amused myself that I'd made a Freudian slip and typed ale dominance, which is how I feel right now, since I seem t have developed a reaction to Guinness.)

Edited February 27, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

No, that's not what you said.

You said (paraphrased) women should proudly bare their tits for men, and anyone who disagreed had it in for women.

I don't think I did, I said I wasn't bothered by it, and you could equally say it was demeaning for men to assume they were obsessed with breasts.

Though since then, men have enthusiastically pointed out that they are obsessed with breasts, so clearly they don't recognise their own degradation.

(the above is a deliberate slant on the degradation of women argument, in case you missed the point)

[eFestivals]

Are you equating industrialisation with patriarchy?

No, I'm equating every single minute detail of society with patriarchy.

You know, as the patriarchy idea says, which you should know from what you've claimed.

Is that what you mean, or are you referring to everything? Because women do have protections in law now that were unthinkable 30 years ago.

Protections in law, yes.

What about protections from effect?

[eFestivals]

I don't think I did, I said I wasn't bothered by it, and you could equally say it was demeaning for men to assume they were obsessed with breasts.

demeaning or not, men like breasts, and they've engineered a set-up where they get what they like, and where what women might like doesn't come into any of it.

Though since then, men have enthusiastically pointed out that they are obsessed with breasts, so clearly they don't recognise their own degradation.

men like tits just as women like cocks.

Men are getting what they like, women less so.

I guess demeaned means something different in my dictionary, where it means much more "in control" than it does "demeaned"

(the above is a deliberate slant on the degradation of women argument, in case you missed the point)

Don't worry, i've not missed the point, but I think someone has.

[kaosmark2]

Thanks for the thoughts...

I DO need external validation. It very well may be a flaw of mine. I mean, I'm having counselling, I doubt myself a lot of the time. There are things that some people appear to be very sure of... and then, the more I inquire into these certainties, the more uncertainty seems to surface. Yes it's vague.. I am vague. I'm unsure.

As for the passive/aggressive thing, I apologise for that. Obviously (or maybe not so obviously...?) it's unintentional. But surely, the same thing can be said of Neil's 'methods'?.

I was trying to emphasise the sense that I don't think you're intentionally trolling, which is something Neil's accused you of in the past.

And yes, Neil is overly confrontational, insulting, abusive, etc. I've called him out on it before, and referenced it in that post, but he seems to further debate fairly often, though when he doesn't, things just descends into a slanging match, with numerous different people.

[feral chile]

No, I'm equating every single minute detail of society with patriarchy.

You know, as the patriarchy idea says, which you should know from what you've claimed.

Protections in law, yes.

What about protections from effect?

What do you mean by protections from effect?

I know what I thought you meant by patriarchy, what I'm trying to work ut is whether you see a way out of it, because if it invades everything, there isn't. But there is, otherwise the idea that patriarchy is wrong wouldn't exist.

So it doesn't invade everything. It isn't total indoctrination. just to be able to conceive that it isn't the only way means that it isn't omnipotent.

If you mean something less than total male dominance, and more majority view bias, then fine.

it's the totalitarian aspect, not the substantial slant in favour of men, that I'm objecting to.

But then, you'd have to allow for men like tony to be aware of the problem and to be actively trying to make life fairer in his corner of the world.

Otherwise, it all gets a bit Orwellian, or like the Matrix.

Edited February 27, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

What do you mean by protections from effect?

women get equal pay.

But who defines what that equal pay level is?

Etc, etc, etc.

I know what I thought you meant by patriarchy,

I meant patriarchy.

What did you mean? Clearly something different.

what I'm trying to work ut is whether you see a way out of it, because if it invades everything, there isn't.

If you can't see a way out of it the problem is your vision and not the patriarchy idea.

But there is, otherwise the idea that patriarchy is wrong wouldn't exist.

there you go - intellect altering effect!!!

So it doesn't invade everything.

it does until you tell me where it isn't which you keep failing to do.

it's the totalitarian aspect, not the substantial slant in favour of men, that I'm objecting to.

and it's the lack of intellect in your dismissal that i'm objecting to.

But then, you'd have to allow for men like tony to be aware of the problem and to be actively trying to make life fairer in his corner of the world.

I allow for all to be aware of it - but that doesn't mean that all are. Tony has today proved that he isn't.

[russycarps]

Well, thank fuck someone (you) knows how I we live our lives at home...?!

cant you see that you choosing not to be the dominant one* displays your dominance?

*or what your perception of this is anyway

Edited February 27, 2015 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

Well, thank fuck someone (you) knows how I we live our lives at home...?!

I know the society you and your family exist within, and I know you're each incapable of leaving the influences of that society outside of your front door.

Edited February 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

cant you see that you choosing not to be the dominant one* displays your dominance?

*or what your perception of this is anyway

who says it was tony who chose it? His wife might have chosen her partner well (as I chose mine) and, consciously or not, sought out a male who didn't have a strong dominant instinct? Maybe they jointly chose it?

Why does it have to be about dominance anyway? Obviously patriarchy does, but not everyone's looking to control others.

if we must talk about dominance, do you think women are incapable or unsuccessful at being controlling?

Edited February 27, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

cant you see that you choosing not to be the dominant one* displays your dominance?

*or what your perception of this is anyway

Maybe tony's wife is also choosing not to be the dominant one. And refusing to be dominated, maybe.

I really don't get this argument, because it just seems to be a total refusal to accept any female autonomy

[feral chile]

I know the society you and your family exist within, and I know you're each incapable of leaving the influences of that society outside of your front door.

completely, yes.

but you can work on it.

[feral chile]

What's the opposite of patriarchy?

Is it equality, or matriarchy?

That's why I prefer calling it sexism/gender inequality, though I can understand why the emphasis.

[eFestivals]

Why does it have to be about dominance anyway? Obviously patriarchy does, but not everyone's looking to control others.

hey feral, i know you won't like this, but ... more reading required.

Whether or not men are "looking to control others", they're schooled with the idea that they can and do.

No matter how much any person (male or female) tries to reject how society is, they cannot reject all of its influences. That environment has shaped everything of them.

The best we can do is identify what is clearly wrong and act against it - intellect over effect. But for full effect, each change needs to fully permeate thru society which takes time (generations), with each small step helping to open our vision to further issues.

[eFestivals]

completely, yes.

but you can work on it.

absolutely - but you're working on nothing at all if you're not identifying anything at all to be worked on.

[feral chile]

hey feral, i know you won't like this, but ... more reading required.

Whether or not men are "looking to control others", they're schooled with the idea that they can and do.

No matter how much any person (male or female) tries to reject how society is, they cannot reject all of its influences. That environment has shaped everything of them.

The best we can do is identify what is clearly wrong and act against it - intellect over effect. But for full effect, each change needs to fully permeate thru society which takes time (generations), with each small step helping to open our vision to further issues.

I agree with your analysis of socialisation.

But this feels like a conversation that was started 30 years ago, and it feels like you're denying any progress.

I'm sure that's not what you're saying (at least I hope it's not) but it feels like you're trying to talk to a pre feminist version of me straight out of the Valleys.

I've been there, gone through the feminist issues, tried to incorporate them into my life, no doubt missed a lot of sexist generalisations (because you need to say a lot more than 'patriarchy' to get people to see something they haven't noticed, you have to draw their attention to the assumptions underlying, for instance, division of labour).

I have done as much as humanly possible to live in an equitable environment myself, through careful life choices. it took time - I came from an incredibly male dominated environment, it took my midwife/health visitor to question my assumptions that I could ONLY be a wife and mother. I had never even heard of feminism or sexism before going to university (seriously) and it was a massive liberating experience, to have an understanding of why I was so pissed off with the world.

So I've done my level best since to live my life according to feminist principles. I questioned some of them, as did other feminists, and watched as feminism shifted and tried to adapt to a changing society.

As to why equality never produces a better outcome, is cynicism a male requisite? They (the power base) only give anything up if it suits them. I don't think that would change if women were in power.

I think power corrupts.

(too much Orwell, maybe).

[eFestivals]

We have one bank account which is totally shared. There have been times when I wasn't earning but my wife was. I stayed at home and looked after our girls. I was a house husband. I loved it! It wasn't my choice.

My dad left my mum and her 3 kids when I was 2. Her sister helped bring us up. I remember when I was at school and kids would be scared of having to face their dad if they did anything 'wrong' or bad at school. I remember thinking how lucky I was to not have a dad. I have never experienced a male dominated environment at home. My wife 'chose' me... I have lived most of my life not dictating situations. It may even be detrimental at times. If anyone says what goes in our home, it's either my wife or one of our 2 daughters.

To suggest I don't know the dynamics of my home while you (Neil or russy) do, is just weird

why do you think russy and me recognising the dynamics of society while you don't makes your take right and ours wrong?

[feral chile]

absolutely - but you're working on nothing at all if you're not identifying anything at all to be worked on.

But you're dismissing parity of power over household economics, refusal to accept gender defined roles within the household, refusal to accept that the man is breadwinner, the woman housekeeper, etc. etc. as irrelevant, as still patriarchal, and these are the very things that feminists wanted us to challenge 30 years ago. And we did!

These assumptions are what we worked on, and by providing role models for our children, hopefully we've made a small difference.

page 3 is a 30 year old battle, and to me, the very fact that it's still there proved its irrelevance.

Now, that's only my perception, and the fact that other women still feel threatened by t means that it's more powerful than I thought.

if you hadn't jumped all over me in the first thread, I might have felt able to discuss this more at the time. I was amazed, and shocked, that women I think of as strong and capable (more so than me) are affected so badly by casual sexism.

(I didn't even realise that horrible bestial porn was still around, so it's been a learning curve).