What women (don't) want.

[midnight]

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.

Yes, there are disadvantaged men too. But even disadvantaged men are in a more powerful position than similarly disadvantaged women. At least that is the opinion of the black women who introduced Intersectionality into the feminist debate, and I would not want to argue against them, because I think they have a good point. And worldwide, a lot more power and wealth is held by men, although in population terms, they are the minority.

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

I'd like to think so too.

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.

Yes, Some of my money is on "lack of confidence" as a reason.

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.

Ok, good reason.

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.

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

I can argue the former (men used to be the main breadwinner), and then look at solution, can't I? I mean, this is not an either/or case, it's a case of problem/solution to me. There are lots of solutions to the problem of combining work and family (usually considered a women's problem, isn't it?): more flexible working hours, men doing more of the child care and household chores, both parents working part-time instead of one very reduced hours, more stable locations (as you suggested), part-time work not being considered as showing lack of commitment to your job, good and affordable child care.... I could go on a bit. But look at this:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/fertility-analysis/cohort-fertility--england-and-wales/2011/sty-1-in-5-women-are-childless-at-45.html

Of the women born in 1965 (that's the cohort just a little bit older than me, they should now be at the peak of their working lives), 1 in 5 do not have any children at all. 20% of my generation. That's a lot of women. Where are they in the professional hierarchy?

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

Yes, a theoretical construct is just that, it can't solve anything, it just tries to explain things. I get the impression that you consider patriarchy as something you can take or leave - if you don't accept it, it won't affect you. Have I got that right? In that case, we will never agree and I will just have to let it be.

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.

Abolutely. All disadvantaged and under-represented groups should be considered wherever possible, and women are one of them (although they are actually the majority of the population).

Edited February 12, 2015 by midnight

[Bisque]

From past experience women like being cooked the odd meal, days out, kittens, snuggles, sex down by the fire & *ahem* being "licked out"

[eFestivals]

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

And you got nothing right about the double-standards I was highlighting, an awful start.

[gary1979666]

From past experience women like being cooked the odd meal, days out, kittens, snuggles, sex down by the fire & *ahem* being "licked out"

You stay classy Couchy!

[feral chile]

Patriarchy - it's not that I have an issue with believing in it, it's just that I think focusing on it might obstruct diversity.

If we started looking at what the barriers to opportunity are, whatever that opportunity is, and whichever part of society we could classify disadvantaged people under, we can try to deal with the barriers in a fair way.

One of my main problems with feminism as I understood it in the 1980s was that it was driven by middle class working women who wanted parity with middle class men. And, at that time (I know it's changed since), the movement was focused on that particular aspect, and so working class women felt ignored and dismissed. The underlying assumption was that being the primary carer was undesirable, and dumped on women. And feminists devalued it as much as society. And also, as middle class women at that tme tended to rely on paying working class women to care for their children, they were not fighting foe equal pay for them.

I wanted to see the emphasis on promoting child raising as a positive. Because I felt feminists were falling into the trap of retaining gender specific values instead of raising the status of those values.

It's an argument that can go various ways, which is why I'd like to see society looking at how to improve things for everyone, and every profession etc., without referring specifically to gender.

It's more complex than gender bias, I think, because a lot of jobs that require something that's intrinsically satisfying are underpaid.

With patriarchy, it's more that I think if you accept it, you can't get out of it, because everything falls under it. I think you can accept it while looking at things from other perspectives.

I was watching something last night about capuchins. It's been widely reported so you probably already know about the gender specific mating rituals, but I entertained myself throughout the programme by relating it to patriarchy.

So, one sex of capuchins try to attract the attention of a lone capuchin of the opposite sex, who's oblivious to them and only wants to find food. The their sex compete for the lone capuchin, they follow the capuchin around all day, they flirt, they pout, they make whining calls,they pull the capuchin's fur, and in one group they eventually resort to throwing stones at the capuchin to try to attract its attention.

Now, from a patriarchal point of view, you could interpret this behaviour as a group of males harassing a lone female, if the group dynamics were gender specific in that particular direction. Or, you could interpret it as a dominant male having control over competing females, if the gender differential was in that direction.

So, the same group behaviour can be interpreted to demonstrate patriarchy, if that's your ideological preference. (The same argument could be used to support matriarchy, which is what I'd be tempted to do, as I like playing devil's advocate, and tried to do in the other thread).

The point is, with any kind of ideology, there's a risk of it becoming dogmatic, because everything can be interpreted any way we choose.

And that's no more helpful than all the evolutionists wanting to say that women are naturally faithful, and men naturally promiscuous, in order to maintain a sexist value system.

I'm a pragmatist. I'd join someone in prayer if I thought it would help them, to me, placebos work, so who cares if they're technically placebos etc. etc.

So I'd look at what we value, which is equality and diversity, or we wouldn't all be so engaged in discussing it. And then look at how we want to achieve it, both in terms of what inequalities we want to look at, and how to equalise them.

And parts of the feminist struggle against patriarchy I'm all in favour of - we should value caregivers of either sex, and we should make it financially viable for people to choose how they want to live their lives.

And I think we should question everything. It's not that I don't believe in patriarchy. I just think that attempts to solve it often are unintentionally supporting it, so we might as well just challenge inequality and listen to what people actually want.

(I'm thinking particularly of themes we've already covered, concerns that attempts to equal ourselves are still revealing compliance with masculine values - careers, sexuality, material success, status, etc. etc. - since there's no way to prove which actions would subvert this and which supports it, there's no way to judge success).

Edited February 12, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

And some things are quite hard to challenge. Gender specific toys are frowned on, and whle I wholeheartedly agree with this, it was much easier for me as a girl even in the 60s to play with cars etc., and get into fights, than it would have been for boys to play with dolls.

I always gave a mix of toys to my 3 kids, and I also insisted on calling action men dolls, because the double standards annoys me.

But I can imagine what would happen to a 6 year old boy if he told his mates he played with dolls. At least in certain areas, even today.

So, it's quite difficult to challenge, when it's not you who would suffer the consequences.

Edited February 12, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

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 don't like it, I hate pink..

I'll resist patronising other women who do like pink by commenting on whether it's sexist and reinforcing gender stereotypes.

But it reminds me of the whiter than white ads.

And those seriously irritating car ads that used to be on, claiming that to be truly individual you should buy this particular car.

[feral chile]

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

I can argue the former (men used to be the main breadwinner), and then look at solution, can't I? I mean, this is not an either/or case, it's a case of problem/solution to me. There are lots of solutions to the problem of combining work and family (usually considered a women's problem, isn't it?): more flexible working hours, men doing more of the child care and household chores, both parents working part-time instead of one very reduced hours, more stable locations (as you suggested), part-time work not being considered as showing lack of commitment to your job, good and affordable child care.... I could go on a bit. But look at this:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/fertility-analysis/cohort-fertility--england-and-wales/2011/sty-1-in-5-women-are-childless-at-45.html

Of the women born in 1965 (that's the cohort just a little bit older than me, they should now be at the peak of their working lives), 1 in 5 do not have any children at all. 20% of my generation. That's a lot of women. Where are they in the professional hierarchy?

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

Yes, a theoretical construct is just that, it can't solve anything, it just tries to explain things. I get the impression that you consider patriarchy as something you can take or leave - if you don't accept it, it won't affect you. Have I got that right? In that case, we will never agree and I will just have to let it be.

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.

Abolutely. All disadvantaged and under-represented groups should be considered wherever possible, and women are one of them (although they are actually the majority of the population).

And women are also part of other disadvantaged groups, and part of some privileged groups.

And likewise men.

So - I'd be looking at why society is disadvantaging people, ad if it's because they're being discriminated against because of gender, then it needs to be addressed, But a woman might be being discriminated against because she's disabled, and she just happens to be female.

It might be my diversity training kicking in - first you ask the person involved how you can help, you don't assume you know what the problem is.

Edited February 12, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I'd be interested to know what people think of this article. As I was writing these responses, I remembered actually giving up an English literature course because of the feminist bias in it - I mentioned part of that view, that scientific discourse is masculine and therefore not to be trusted - and there was a feminist critique of my beloved Orwell, they seriously didn't like his portrayal of Julia and called him a misogynist.

I'm extremely protective of both Orwell and Julia, because he gave Julia a lot of the main insights in 1984. Orwell was critical of dogmatic political ideology, and totalitarianism, and believed that it was dangerous, and the hope of rebellion lay with the proles, because they didn't give a shit about ideology and just lived. He saw them as subversive, and Julia as the embodiment of rebellion. The article kind f matches my own thoughts, and some of the comments kind of match some of my concerns. Though I've mellowed, but I certainly would have agreed more vehemently when I was younger.

https://slutocracy.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/feminism-in-george-orwells-1984/

"The girl with dark hair was coming towards them across the field. With what seemed a single movement she tore off her clothes and flung them disdainfully aside. Her body was white and smooth, but it aroused no desire in him, indeed he barely looked at it. What overwhelmed him in that instant was admiration for the gesture with which she had thrown her clothes aside. With its grace and carelessness it seemed to annihilate a whole culture, a whole system of thought, as though Big Brother and the Party and the Thought Police could all be swept into nothingness by a single splendid movement of the arm. That too was a gesture belonging to the ancient time. Winston woke up with the word ‘Shakespeare’ on his lips.”

― George Orwell, 1984

Edited February 12, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I like midnights idea of "chipping away" at things

anything else seems to be divisive, and ultimately self-defeating.

yes, I agree, it's what we tended to do throughout the previous decades, trying to teach our children to respect, trying to avoid sexist 'women always' 'men always' type of remarks, avoid gender stereotypical roles, trying to split the housework etc.

I do have a problem with housework, because to me it's the symbol of patriarchy right there. This is because, as I was growing up, I was brought up by a very conventional set of grandparents, even by the standards of the day. So my grandfather would come in, take off his coat, bag etc., and dump it all in the living room, and then tear my nan off a strip for the mess in there. And I can remember the time he called her in from the kitchen where she was busy to deal with a fly that was bothering him. It's made me resent housework to an irrational extent. And also, I think she influenced me because she'd be quite irreverent behind his back.

it's even caused me to be lippy in work, in the old days when women were expected to do the tea round for the men, I'd do it, but be major stroppy about it. And I absolutely exploded once when I got into work to find the male staff had used my office to do some work after I'd left, strewn takeaway wrappers and dirty cups everywhere, and the first thing my boss (the owner of the company) said' was 'you should clean up this mess, it's a disgrace'. Needless to say, they cleaned it up.

I never got disciplined though - they probably put it down to being a stroppy teenager (or PMS )

All the office women used to terrorise the men though - they were scared of the old secretary, because if you pissed her off she'd say want a cuppa? and when you said yes, she'd say 'kettle's in the kitchen'. You'd know then, you were in for weeks of shit off her. And the middle aged office lady - I once found her pinning the company director up against the wall, with one leg wrapped around him - he was terrified. And she frightened the young waiter at my engagement party by making eyes at him all night. And the young girl used to tell tales of what she used to do to her husband's toothbrush when he pissed her off. And every time the boss told her off, she'd sweetly make him a cuppa. I used to cringe at the thought of what she would do to it.

So it was never all one way.

Edited February 12, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I like midnights idea of "chipping away" at things

anything else seems to be divisive, and ultimately self-defeating.

I agree. We should be doing something about chipping away at privilege. Though I keep thinking I'm doing my bit to challenge patriarchy, and I keep getting told I'm failing to acknowledge it. So I'm confused.

Did you catch that Pankhurst video in that link I posted?

The other video, about the protests, is in relation to controversial comments made in The Myth of Male Power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Male_Power

Edited February 12, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

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?

if they want to win my vote, they should try recruiting Jason Momoa to campaign on their behalf.

he could patronise me into next week.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/94/3c/14/943c144f9128d56fce6a00a895b0369a.jpg

Edited February 12, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I don't understand, either, how feminist literary critics despise scientific discourse but love Freud, considering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freudian_Coverup

[feral chile]

From that kind of perspective it's easy to see why you might not want to be a part of it.

but to not do it, or not want to do it, is, in a perverse way, perpetuating something....(?)

I think

I try not to think of jobs as being for men or women.

Exactly, to be controlled by something, even if you're being perverse, is still control.

But then, if we apply that logic to my hatred of housework, and look at how we've been arguing about sexuality...

how do you break free of it, maybe I just hate housework? Maybe I'm being a loyal feminist? maybe I'm still being controlled by patriarchy?

How can you tell, and does it matter? The housework has to be done, so we don't all die of food poisoning or disease.

Edited February 12, 2015 by feral chile

[midnight]

Humph. I've just typed a lengthy response to some of this, and when I pressed "post", it all disappeared.

I'll try again tomorrow.

[midnight]

And you got nothing right about the double-standards I was highlighting, an awful start.

I've no idea where you're coming from with this. I thought your original comment was made in jest - my response certainly was.

[eFestivals]

I like midnights idea of "chipping away" at things

anything else seems to be divisive, and ultimately self-defeating.

I notice that you think the dividers only exist within your opposition, same as Feral does.

Self-deluded, much?

[eFestivals]

I've no idea where you're coming from with this. I thought your original comment was made in jest - my response certainly was.

It was 100% jest.

Last night I was kicking myself at my choice of reply. What I really should have said was...

"oh, I've found another thing women don't want. Subtlety".

Perhaps that works for you a bit better?

In case you've missed it still....

Women want a man to do the DIY, and women don't want to be taken for granted.

While taking men for granted, as the DIY-er.

I'm merely pointing out that women do just about all of the same things as they spend their time condemning men for.

[eFestivals]

No. It's the same for men and women.

It's certainly true for both men and women.

But what isn't true is what you said, that "chipping away" at things isn't divisive. It cannot be other than divisive.

Changing anything at all create a divide, for all of the time that anyone is against that change.

You're spouting a version of what Feral has been saying, that there's no divisions when everyone agrees with her. It's a version of life for the idiots who don't have their own thoughts and so go along with the crowd irregardless of whether it's the right path or not.

[kaosmark2]

It's a version of life for the idiots who don't have their own thoughts and so go along with the crowd irregardless of whether it's the right path or not.

And Barry isn't even in this conversation.

[feral chile]

It was 100% jest.

Last night I was kicking myself at my choice of reply. What I really should have said was...

"oh, I've found another thing women don't want. Subtlety".

Perhaps that works for you a bit better?

In case you've missed it still....

Women want a man to do the DIY, and women don't want to be taken for granted.

While taking men for granted, as the DIY-er.

I'm merely pointing out that women do just about all of the same things as they spend their time condemning men for.

You do realise I agree with this, don't you?

(And tony I suspect?)

[feral chile]

I just wrote a long reply and lost it. so I'll start again.

The 2 links I posted were offering an alternative interpretation of the balance of power. The suffragettes were campaigning for female suffrage at the same time as men were dying in WW1, who came from countries with universal suffrage, and who couldn't vote. The suffragettes, and others, gave out white flags to men who wouldn't die for them, as it was their duty to protect women.

It was a male only draft.

The Myth of Male Power argues that men are in fact valued less than women, as they traditionally do higher risk jobs.

It could be that there are more men in higher paid jobs, because these jobs are not intrinsically rewarding, and they're more under pressure to seek jobs with monetary reward than intrinsic reward.

And that this is caused by their role as breadwinner, which is not a privilege but a disempowerment.

[eFestivals]

Chipping away at a system that is divisive isn't divisive

PMSL.

Don't those who don't want things chipped away at feel divided from your chipping away?

FFS.

You might as well rephrase that as "there's no divisions when everyone agrees with me", because that is ultimately what your take on things means. It cannot mean anything different to that.

Next up, will you be saying that everyone should be tolerant - apart from when you're intolerant of those you think are intolerant?

[eFestivals]

And Barry isn't even in this conversation.

but tonyblair is, and he's more than making up for Barry's absence.

Edited February 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

It's certainly true for both men and women.

But what isn't true is what you said, that "chipping away" at things isn't divisive. It cannot be other than divisive.

Changing anything at all create a divide, for all of the time that anyone is against that change.

You're spouting a version of what Feral has been saying, that there's no divisions when everyone agrees with her. It's a version of life for the idiots who don't have their own thoughts and so go along with the crowd irregardless of whether it's the right path or not.

ok, so do you think a divide between those who want unity, compassion and understanding between genders/people (diversity awareness), and those who want to promote male oppression and female victimhood (feminism/patriarchy), is more or less divisive, or just different?

Edited February 13, 2015 by feral chile