Something that's been bothering me

So if the only people who can effect change are those in power, and as women we can do little to seize power as we are weak and vulnerable and constantly undermined, we have to wait for equality to be offered to us, then by raising a son with feminist ideals and an awareness of the patriarchy I'm doing more to undermine it than anything else I might choose to do or think or protest.

You're right SAF. It is victim blaming. It's as simple as that.

i think it overlaps with other areas of victim blaming. it is easier to think that women do this to themselves and could change it if they wanted to than face how vulnerable we can be.

so women conform to rape myths and it offers them an artificial sense of protection from being raped because they wouldn't wear a short skirt/get hammered and go to a party with a guy/get into bed with someone they didn't want to have sex with/etc. it's a security blanket rather than face the truth that if a rapist targets you the chances are you're going to get raped and there is nothing you can do to ensure you never come into a rapists sights.

or women blame women who get into abusive relationships - call them weak or violence disposed etc to assure themselves it could never happen to them when in reality they're just lucky that they haven't fallen in love with a man who turned out to be an abuser eventually.

if women can put down other women who behave in certain ways they can delude themselves that they can achieve equality, be taken seriously, be equals to men at work by not doing x, y or z. in reality they can't because no matter what behaviour they adopt sexism will still be there in the form of sexist men, sexist conditions etc.

meanwhile nothing changes because women are busy picking at each others behaviour instead of focussing on the real enemy.

Exactly IAOS. It is men as a group who rape, attack, murder, sexually assault, sexually harass, stalk women and girls. It is that violence that underpins all male dominance and female submission.

The number of women committing any of these acts is infinitesimal.

what is rapism?
undoubtedly some men are ghastly, and if that's your work environment then that us grim
is porn on work pc tolerated? eugh

It is obvious and clear, but people won't talk about it and instead want to blame women at every turn.

This thread is a great example. The OP's husband almost got a free ride, in the scramble to talk about babydoll women who apparently are behaving in a "sexist" way.

If we don't talk about how women behave, say for the next twenty years, and focus solely and carefully on what men do to women then things are likely to change.

lets talk female and male sexism
your habitual preoccupation with male sexism overlooks and diminishes females are sexist too. despite mimed IRS accounts on this thread of impact of female sexism upon other women

let's talk sexism, yes
it's pernicious impact
and that female and male perpetrate sexism

Can we just talk about how men attack women full stop. How they undermine us, criticise us, make our lives difficult for us e.g. in the workplace.

Even talking about how men turn us against each other, is still talking about women.

I would really like to talk about male behaviour full stop. That's the problem. That's what needs to change.

but you see saf, it isn't as clear cut as not rocket science

yes maybe in some areas there are unanimity and clarity, but not so in all difficult social moral decisions. and yes thats why we have judiciary to make and interpret law.and why people agitate on a range of issues

ok,your post was somewhat tetchy
but yes ideologically I find it challenging determining when state dies or doesn't intervene

sometimes it's obvious and clear cut,and the state gives professionals a range of statutory duties, and applies sanctions to behavior considered dysfunctional

sometimes it's hotly contested

You know radical feminism means going to the root, going to the root of the causes of patriarchy and misogyny.

So the lib fem approach would be to take the OP at face value, and not notice the power dynamics involved in a man reporting to his wife about women he disrespected and viewed in a sexist way. The discussion can safely stay on women and what they are doing wrong, because it's not scary, it's not challenging to men (men might actually fight back whereas women have the whole of patriarchy ranged against us supporting criticism and undermining of us). That's the liberal approach. It never goes very far, but it does offer the opportunity for a nice line in misogyny when criticising women e.g. "simpering", "babydoll women", "dipshit girly behaviour".

On the other hand radical feminism takes its analysis as far as it can go. So why do women behave in a submissive manner? Well that's because men dominate and oppress us. It's not a fantasy, it's a reality. Submission is a survival response when you're being dominated. Women's oppression is real and it's caused by men. It's not just a few women behaving "wrongly" because they apparently don't know any better. It's the men behaving in an oppressive, sexist or misogynist way that we need to look at, because by taking their behaviour apart and analysing it we will begin to change things.

And of course there's the other analysis - that this guy was simply imagining it because he has a demonstrably sexist attitude to women, and needs to scrape together some very tenuous excuses as to why that is justified. That is still my guess in this situation. If that's the case, why we are still talking about women, and not him and what he did, and what other similar men do to women is anybody's guess.

This question asked why feminsim apparently doesn't hold women responsible for sexism, I think a better question would be why doesn't liberal feminism want to hold men accountable for theirs.

and i think my answer made my position clear - at the point that your behaviour is abusing others then there needs to be intervention to protect people. as i said not rocket science and just a detraction.

perfectly composed thanks.

do try keep composed saf

I am exploring the balance if when a state intervenes in behavior eg smoking ban, and when it doesn't eg prostitution

now you may ideological favor big state intervention
I more favor a case by case basis

now some would ban pg women smoking and alcohol,as it is potentially harmful
others see this as a state intrusion and control and unacceptable

so this is valid for discussion,and it is an ideological biggie.when does state intervene, and when does it not

of course we remove choices - decide some choices are not valid - that's what a society is ffs and why it has a legal system.

sure things that only effect you are personal but things that effect others are different eg. a pedophile cannot choose the sexual partner and practice he wants without abusing a child so we say no to that choice because we deem a childs right not to be abused as greater than a man's right to have sex with a child because he wants to.

none of this is rocket science obviously so again, arguing for arguing's sake and refusing to move on into discussion so as the discussion moves on grabbing a few words from a post and tangenting off into a polemic argument about that.

"dipshit girly behaviour"

This is sexist.

"I also disagreed that the poster was necessarily MCP"

You attack women, but you can't see when men are being sexist. How is that feminist? Seriously, how?

your preoccupation is male sexism
you minimise female sexism or dismiss it as function of patriarchy

"getting on together"

I don't think this thread progressed at all.

The topic still ended up about being women and what they should do, instead of addressing concrete sexist male behaviour which we saw on this thread and needs challenging.

Feminsim isn't about women getting together within our continuing oppression, it's about ending sexist and misogynist male behaviour.

removing choices?
uneasy with that, if adult has capacity, can understand ramifications, weigh up pro and cons then as much as I may not like the choice I don't feel state or others should necessarily remove choices

I see that as problematic in a gamut of other areas too eg
illicit drug use
whilst knee jerk reaction may be well just stop it,remove the choice.it's not that straightforward

to moderate and change behaviors,the individual has to
wish to change the behavior
make active conscious behavioral modification.

it is notoriously hard to remove choice and facilitate change

I dislike polemic arguments and ranting, so I tend to leave once it begins in any scenario. I like discussion and debate, and the most informative are often held between people that don't agree with each other but respect the argument.
That's not because I want women to be quiet and concilliatory and not rock the boat, more that I switch off when being lectured or harangued. I've zoned out of staff meetings because of that.

i dunno - i think sometimes it would have to be about removing choices from women. i would like to see prostitution stop for the sake of all of those that it isn't a choice for and is forced by circumstances and the system. that would mean removing the choice to do it for those few happy hookers who see it as a valid choice. likewise i'd like to remove a woman's choice to watch another woman being raped on camera - because her choice to want to wank over the abuse of other women doesn't interest me in the slightest as something to preserve.

sorry. thinking aloud.