Something that's been bothering me

Wasn't there an estimate that equality in the workplace will be achieved in about 150 years if we carry on at current speed

Heard very different timescale to that. I guess it depends on who is doing the storytelling and for what purposes.

I haven't given up, and I've been a feminist for a very long time.
I have trouble with the idea that intelligent women who are capable and competent are waiting for men to end the patriarchy without feeling that women as a force could refuse to buy into acceptable, polite, normal behaviour and ask why it is expected and then choose to refuse to be part of it. But that is now seen as victim blaming, whereas I see it as enabling and empowering the previously unaware.
No one is responsible for being the recipient of a sexist attitude, that is the perpetrator's responsibility.
But it is up to the individual how they respond, and the idea that women will continue to comply until men free them of those expectations doesn't make sense to me.
I'd rather liberate myself.

sunshine - no, it made perfect sense I think!

Well what benefits are there in society to men if certain changes happen?

They do exist.

Its about selling an idea. And you don't need to sell to the establishment. Not in this country. For all its flaws and weaknesses in democracy, its still pretty good at changing attitudes that don't fit with what the conservative (little c not the tories) establishment might like.

Find common ground and problems men (and women) have and work from there. Men are certainly not the enemy and are more willing to support if you allow them to. This is what I mean about building bridges and breaking misconceptions. Too often feminists are guilty of making something a 'feminist' issue when actually its a problem for society. By labelling you put it in a box where its almost 'someone else's problem'. Make it society's problem and you make it everyone's problem. Sell ideas to a wide audience rather than an elite or narrow one.

I personally think there is a subtule but core difference between patriarchy and the establishment. If you hold to the belief that the patriarchy is everywhere and inescapable you really do drown in your own ideology. I think women are a lot freer to do what they want, if you don't let yourself get too caught up with ideas of patriarchy and a "can't do" attitude from that. Negativity never achieves.

I'm utterly baffled by this idea that only men can change society thing, whilst at the same time doing everything possible to alienate them. Thats an action that suggests, either you've given up, or you don't want change. Talk about reinforcing the idea that women are weak. Bizarre.

Plus I think you shouldn't loose sight of how revolutions work. You can have an "overnight revolution" but it doesn't mean its actually happened over night. It takes a long time for pressure to build, something snaps and changes, but it doesn't change what everyone thinks about it. You end up with a long hangover from the revolution as it filters down and deeper things with a culture take a generation or two to get widespread support. I'd question where we are in that cycle. Are we at the start or towards the end?

Sorry, not clear - my last was to dust, not sunshine.

I agree with what you say sunshine. And when I said before 'we' need to accept women as they are, I mean all of us, the whole of society. Society needs to accept being a woman is just as good as being a man.

One of the ways I think the patriarchy really knocked feminists down since the 70s is in encouraging this idea that in order to be successful, a woman should really be more like a man. It seems to me that is at the root of this thread. So we get to the point where a certain kind of voice is identified as being child-like, sexualized, and feminized, all at the same time and all of these reinforcing the others. I find that so deeply creepy. And the thought process being to seems to be that a voice that is definitively not a man's voice is both female and childish - as if those two groups are almost merged together by virtue of both being Not Men.

Ok that makes no sense at all now there's been other posts.

That doesn't mean the premise is wrong, though. I think we all agree it's depressing when feminism doesn't make as much headway as we'd like, but that's no reason to give up.

Anyway, what do you think? What is the answer?

If we look at history, some amazing women have launched campaigns to improve women's rights and equality, but every single measure that went through and became law did so because men took up the cause and ran with it.

Little has changed. Yes, women should stand up and do as much as they could to overturn inequality in the workplace but only if they are comfortable with doing so. If they lose their job they face a lot more obstacles to finding further employment than the average man. But when women do band together to fight inequality it's wonderful. And they are doing it. In their droves. Feminism is experiencing a resurgence, feminist groups are very active and leading female politicians fight for their beliefs - often in the face of great ridicule. Witness the lambasting of Harriet Harman for example.

Men and our male leaders are not doing as much, and in some cases are actively sabotaging things. To then say women aren't doing enough feels a bit like victim blaming to me, though I accept the argument that the oppressors will never stop oppressing without first being made to feel that their oppression is wrong and should change.

Wasn't there an estimate that equality in the workplace will be achieved in about 150 years if we carry on at current speed (and I think that was before the recession)? I think we're going in the right direction but it's just too slow. And the reason it's too slow is because those in power (mainly male), whether that's power in the workplace or in the law, may not actively seek to oppress women but if women are the casualties of another objective they do not care. We are seen as collateral damage and that makes me very very angry indeed. The measures put in place by the coalition would look very different IMO if men were receiving the fallout that women are.

'If we accept women as they are, and don't assume or expect they'll fake, change, adapt, accommodate themselves and their bodies, then we're on the right track.'

That's the premise that a lot of the feminists I knew in the 70s worked from, but since then we've had even more pink/blue raising of children, ever skinnier ideals of female beauty, even more adaptation of the body to try and achieve the perfect shape. Superwomen with jobs and children still doing wifework
It has dismayed me how much ground has been lost rather than gained over the last decade or so.

You know what dust? Start a thread about that and we can all discuss it without it being embroiled in all of this. And then maybe we can all get a sense of each other's ideas instead of being interrogated (which it does feel a bit like right now).

I think I covered it TBH dust. If we accept women as they are, and don't assume or expect they'll fake, change, adapt, accommodate themselves and their bodies, then we're on the right track.

''The workplace, perhaps with a few exceptions, is institutionally sexist. The reason that is, is the men who hold the power in most workplaces don't want that to change and systematically discriminate against women in a variety of ways.'

So how to effect change? How to enable women to refuse to act up to the expected stereotype? How do we stop men from benefiting from a patriarchal structure designed to support them?

Presumably we could wait for men to wake up and say
'Hang on, I'm in a position of great privilege and the world is exactly how I like it, and I can get away with all sorts of discriminatory behaviour, and be paid more and own the world. Well, that's not fair...'
A few men might indeed become individuals who see things from a feminist perspective, but I doubt the majority would.
Or is there a better way than to wait for the oppressor to lift his boot?
Instead of yelling 'It's not fair' and getting a shrug in return, or indifference because it doesn't affect them in the same way.

That's the change I was asking about Doomcats. Is there an alternative as well as asking men to change?

so you keep posting to demonstrate non-engagement?
nyac,if mn or posts irk you so much maybe hacpve a wee break

I said I wasn't engaging with your questions.

That's no reason not to rebut your attacks.

dust - what change are we talking?

With regard to the OP - I think this thread took a bizarre tangent at the start and stayed off topic. I posted earlier to point out (as others have) that there is nothing wrong with women who have high, breathy voices and it is disconcerting (to say the least) that we can't just stop with that.

I'm sure some women do make accommodation with the patriarchy and change their voices just as they change things about their hair or faces or bodies. As a feminist I feel strongly that women should not be pressured by society to do these things, and that currently they are pressured by society. But IMO commenting on women's voices and assuming they're put-on is just as un-feminist and plain rude as assuming all large-breasted women have had boob jobs. We should accept women as they are, then maybe society will start to do the same.

Oh I'll point out the crap you're coming out with about me. Like claiming I'm pressurising you. I'm not. You painting me saying I'm not interested in conversing with you as pressure is just more BS.

lol,posting to tell someone you're ignoring em
and don't care
priceless

Then don't engage.

I'm not pressurising you. I just said I wasn't going to engage with your questions after you'd attacked me, pointed out we had history and you recognised me, but still wouldn't say who you were. Like I said one-sided BS doesn't interest me.

Thank you, but it doesn't bother me, nor am I going to be pressurised into something I don't want to do by being guilted into it, or being accused of having a hidden agenda to squish Nayac.
Being an empowered woman and all that, I'm resistant and resilient.

How would you effect change Doomcats?

agree doom cats,anonymity is the premise and point of mn
if nyac seeks knowledge,and corroboration of posters then shell not find it online discussion forum

ive been accused of mn stalking,aka disagreed
so me not concurring was construed as stalking
but fatal flaw,being I don't take note of names
all words on a screen to me

I'm probably going to get shot down for this, but look, this is not on. This website is anonymous. No-one has to say 'who' they are. In fact I'd go so far as to say it could be dangerous - some women on here have damn good reason not to use real names or to identify old posting names. You should know that nyac. If you don't want to engage I doubt anyone thinks you have to, but it is really out of line to ask someone persistently to identify themselves.