Sigh. I've been deleted and blocked by yet another feminist page on Facebook....

Context is everything. If I turned up at a party with a load of well behaved children eating nicely and said "children throw food" and then, for example, did not give them anything to eat which might mark the walls if thrown, then I think that those nice children would rightly feel offended. Saying it is a "class description" is meaningless and incorrect. Children (as a class) do not throw food. Some do but most don't.

To continue the analogy, to say that "men rape" or men "search disgusting terms on the internet" would not be remotely fair unless men "as a class" did the above. As it is a small minority of men (at least in the former example), even if you use the excuse it is a "class description", it is an incorrect one and will clearly be offensive to men and to all women who do not believe it is a fair description of most men.

"Go yersel Garlic". Sorry that's Scots for I agree.

I can pontificate for hours on why working practices should be radically restructured in ways that will prove family-friendly! Trying to summarise the (my) principle succinctly, it reflects the IT concept of 'redundancy'. Every server has at least one twin - in Cloud implementations, each has thousands of potential twins - that will automatically take over when the first goes offline.

Our labour/business practices still base themselves on a scarce-resource model. There is only one right person for each job; things are organised so that all the 'one right' people are in business at the same time. If several 'one right' people are missing, it's a problem. Only it's a fallacy. The principle became dominant in the Industrial Age, when the 'right people' were the entire population of a mill town. Now we have machines doing all that shizz, so there's a far wider choice of human resources. Greater choice should lead to greater flexibility.

I think that is my sort of goal OneMoreChap, a world where dads come home early...in fact, a world where no one is allowed to work full time. Sigh. But them I'm just rather anti-consumerist and I know far, far too many people who value holidays and takeouts and big houses and new clothes too much to ever move over towards my world.

Does the dead ant dance ROTFLMAO about 9-5 presenteeism. That's so 80s.

Try 8-6 and 24/7 on the Crackberry.

I notice now a lot of older fathers are going sod it and taking the afternoon off for kids - presumably because they have reached a level where they ain't straining to get ahead.

I think "enough" is a good destination - but I'm told many bankers, for example, use the money as an analogue for winning - cf. the many thousands spent on lunch after bonus days.... sufficient would never be enough for people driven that way. may the banking report will help change that.

I player bloody apple auto correct.

No need the for the sad face PQ, come the revolution sista the fact that huge numbers of people ALL want change will mean that you will exchange freely and with a glad heart some, not all of your privileges. Same as me, same as many men.

BTW, you should get on inlayer and listen to Radio Scotland as the discussion has moved on to how men dominate the work place, it's a very good discussion. Call Kay if your looking.

I think if you use phrases like overthrow the patriarchy you are leaning towards a traditional revolutionary approach.

If you said subsume, absorb, replace things might be different?

I think the current system harms both women and men, the harm may be assymetrical but it's there. Whether you frame the current system as "The Patriarchy" or take an intersectional approach and adopt the idea of kyriarchy the harm is apparent.

What I still find less obvious is what will the different system look like, and how we get there.

In other words, not only do I not have a map, I don't know the destination.

I just know I don't want to be here - but I know I have to start from here.

PQ I was struggling earlier to summon up the vocabulary to respond to your post at 07.24, a sign more of the complexity of what I want to say to your good points. More about my lack of ability this morning rather than not knowing what I want to say, this is by way of a pre apology if I am clumsy with my phrasing.

As it happens I am listening a debate on radio scotland at the moment about a proposal of the scottish parliament to fund child care up to the age of 15 to allow predominantly women, but in reality all parents to be fully involved in work. I think you and I would both agree that in principle the object of this law if it were introduced would be to reduce the barriers faced by women mainly, to have the same choices in life as men. I can imagine that as a feminist hegemony (as opposed to a patriarchal) this law would be welcomed. To introduce it though would either mean a root and branch reorganising of work, as well as the funding to pay for it. The excellent scandinavian examples are all only excellent because people pay so much tax. My personal view is that for the Scandinavian level of child care, social care, welfare, happiness, I would pay that higher level and more.

BUT we have no such unity amongst feminists just the same as amongst other groups. More to the point we have know shared acceptance amongst women that paid childcare is either a problem or a solution to a problem. How would then a feminist hegemony impose upon those that do not agree or want to contribute to the social good (some of whom will inevitably be women. I do regret having to say it, as from a disabled activist point of view I would want my world to look a certain way, but I cannot have that as the only way to make change truly effective, the only counter to the patriarchy and capitalism, is a huge mass of people willing to co-operate.

I disagree with curry that nonviolent protest, or that sheer numbers alone will not force the super rich, and the henchmen of capitalism to run for flea. People power has worked, Ghandi is still taught as a power for good whilst Hitler is taught as an example of evil, there is something to that, in a different thread though?

See I don't think a violent revolution would work anyway. Feminism is all about changing attitudes as much as anything. I am not sure that the way to change attitudes is to undergo a violent revolution.

However other methods will inevitably be slower and much more gradual but hopefully have a longer lasting effect.

Within feminism itself there is much discussion about how freedom from oppression can be achieved. Liberal Feminists tend to subscribe to garlics thought i.e. work within the system we have. Radical feminists think that we will never achieve freedom in the current system that has been set up by men, for men so starting again is the way forward. And then there are various strands that overlap such as marxist feminism.

But I agree that aligning this to cummunism is a red herring. As Malinkey said communism has been implemented within a patriarchy. It has used its own forms of oppression to maintain it. Not wishing to speak for the entire movement (but going to anyway ), that is really not what feminists (liberal or radical) would want.

btw just to explain, I totally agree that violence is a tool of patriarchy and cannot succeed - I am not saying "Oh gosh I wish I was better with guns" I am saying it's a complete aporia and that is my whole problem

I am slightly ok with certain sort of violence in some contexts though

thanks promqueenwithin for that burst of positivity :)

TDoA How many males CEOs put blocks on homeworking? Don't know, probably loads.

I thought it interesting that Meyer - in a position of power, who had alterations made to the workplace to accomodate her kids... - would make such a change.
caroldecker said sufficient women will rise to positions of power and prove their worth and get to 50%+ on merit and thus change society - I wonder if they will. Or will they keep the system as it is? cf Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher and name many other women who've reached the top.

Do we need a critical mass of women at the top, or will we still have oppression of the disadvantaged by the advantaged?

I disagree that the overthrow of opression usually happens non-violently. It is a tactic of govts to decry violence by entities they do choose not to recognise, and make out that it is counter-productive, yet do you think anything would have happened in NI without bombs? Same with India. there are all these Anglo-centric wafflings in favour of the non-violence of Ghandi, but nobody would have even thought there was a problem without active armed rebellion. I have been thinking in so many contexts about how the powerful will only recognise a problem when you make it their problem. Violence is a way of doing this.

I have no stomach for violence. Nor do most of my friends. It is for this reason that I am honestly very doubtful about our chances in opposition to the patriarchy. Don't forget they have no such qualms about violence. It is also further problematised by the fact that even withholding of labour is effectively a sort of pre-violence whose effects are wrought upon our children. It is unthinkable.

Therefore for me feminism is more like religion. It is a space in my heart; a personal aspiration towards acting with dignity and justice in my own small sphere, requiring these towards me and mine whenever remotely possible, and holding a private, strengthening knowledge of the truth even when no one else agrees.

I wonder which male CEOs in the US put a block on home working?

caroldecker
What will happen over the next 30 years is that sufficient women will rise to positions of power and prove their worth and get to 50%+ on merit and thus change society

This I could see happening - if only because of the huge rise in university participation, workplace participation and continuing rise in female performance in science/math/tech. Far more female than male medical students - although I gather that ends up with many more part time doctors.

More young men failing in the education system, primarily white and Afro-caribbean (interestingly), also suggest a rise in the number of women in positions of power.

I do wonder if things will actually change... Marissa Meyer at Yahoo notably put a block on homeworking. Fine if your employer spend 10s of thousand of dollars for your personal creche as hers did... less so for ordinary workers.

Yy garlic.