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

I have some doubt that 94% of the best candidates for powerful jobs are male. I hope you're right about what will happen over the next 30 years. I do not share your faith. Why didn't it happen over the last 30 years?

You cannot legislate for certain % unless you accept the wrong people getting to the top. To use a silly example, a misogonist company board forced to have 50% female participation will choose the most compliant women available and replace if they cause issues. You will get the 50%, bit no power or influence. 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

Me, I'd be content with things transitioning from more or less how they are now (or, shall we say, were before the banking ripoff crisis), with vastly increased female and feminist presence in all fields of influence. 51% women and at least 50% feminist should do it.

I would vote for almost anybody that had plans in place to execute this.

It would seem that what is being proposed is that one dominant hegomany is replaced by another, feminism like any other politicle or social construct will lead to the subjigation of some, no not just men, but women who refute and who will never except feminism for their own idealogical reasons. Also as much as feminism has to offer it is still deeply split about some fundemental issues that have been rehearsed on fwr countless times. The issue of trans people being one, the freedom of choice to act in a way which provides personal freedom but still continues some of the fundamental objections of feminism such as pole dancing or glamour modelling.

Under feminism both of those activities may well be outlawed but the fundamental issue is that unless a proposal to teach people what to think exists, feminism like communism, andall other forms of political hegomany will need to deal with the issue of dissent.

I would suggest socialism, not communism which is far different, could provide the answer, most importantly though breaking down the power constructs that give a tiny number of men the wealth and the power, spreading the wealth and privilege to everyone equally will be more successful.

I do indeed - threads in this section!

I don't know anything about the site you linked, so can't comment, but glad you found it interesting.

Mmm.

As you say I would like to read more - both about these peaceful replacement of systems and about how feminism will get us there.

You wouldn't have a reading list to hand about either, would you?

A quick search took me to geekfeminism.org/2012/09/29/quick-hit-how-git-shows-the-patriarchal-nature-of-the-software-industry/ where cis privilege was mentioned in passing. Interesting but not very useful in suggesting how a transition to a post-patriachal society will take place.

Oh, whoops, missed the 'feminism will get us there how'. I know it's annoying, but this is one of those 'read up for yourself' times.

Thanks.

Yes, I agree there are always going to be moments you can pinpoint. But you could equally say (people do) that capitalism 'happened' in pretty much any century from 1300 onwards. Who knows, I bet some enterprising TV historian has claimed for 405AD as the moment it all started. My point is, it's really hard for us to tell once we're used to a system, how it grew up and when it really began.

I think that changes to the boundaries of modern nation-states is rather different, because those happen with a fair bit of paperwork, and you can date paperwork (to put it crudely). Whereas it is much harder to date the point at which one ideology took over from another.

MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik

[Excellent name by the way] 'kay, we'll get there via feminism... and feminism will get us there how?

Democracy? Well, I would have thought universal suffrage was possibly a pinpoint.

Capitalism? Well, the rather modified form we have now I'd guess Anti-trust acts around 1890 which were pushed into Europe in the 20s-40s?

I'd like to read some more about peaceful replacements of systems... even the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany weren't all that peaceful. Bloodless-ish, perhaps.

Any system has to have a heirachy because people are basically selfish - ie care more for their own than for others.
IMO the patriachy came about due to men being, on average, stonger than women, and this 'system' is in place in much of the animal world.
We have only been in a position, in the West, for 60 years or so when strength stops being the dominant force and other skills, particularly intelligence and emotional intelligence is dominant.
There are now more woman than men in most university courses and succeeding like never before, but it takes many generations to make change - most people in senior positions went to university in the 70's and 80's - think how much better things will be in 30 yrs time

i) I don't, because we'd have to hammer it out.
ii) Feminism.

I think in this context, communism isn't the best comparison and is maybe a bit misleading. The 'come the revolution' jokes are only jokes.

Replacement of systems actually is usually peaceful - and it's usually very hard to pinpoint when it happened. Think of capitalism, say, or democracy. I think it'll be slow and gradual, so it won't be a matter of setting up an 'alternative system', it'll be a matter of seeing that system emerge out of what we're doing now.

It's one of the things I have wondered about; if you accept that the issue is specifically the patriarchy, and you want it gone.

i) what do you see as an alternative system
ii) how do you see us getting there

Cynically the patriarchy has the systems, the weapons, and much of the resources.

Replacement of a system rarely comes peacefully pace the Velvet Revolution etc.

Not read that thread, TBH, but I feel as if I should say ... when I post 'come the revolution', I don't mean it literally!

I think it's hard to know what society would be like if we didn't have the patriarchy. It's valid to worry about it because it certainly could be frightening to see an attempt to replace patriarchy fail, in the way communism failed.

However (being feministy and all, sorry, because it is a glib answer): I could argue communism failed, not because the theory was good and the practice bad, but because it aimed to replace capitalism instead of striking at the root cause of harm, ie., patriarchy.

I've just gone back to that female privilege thread to see the last few posts. I'm not sure if I've overinterpreted them in my memory. But it seems like one poster does say that the world would be better. But may well be a minority opinion of one .

So, to pick up on scallopsrgreat's comment. I'm not sure what is meant by remove hierarchy as it creates oppression. I feel this to be true but this refers to all sorts of hierarchy obviously with the patriarchy being the top of the list. But doesn't this veer towards a model of communism? - great in theory, lousy in practice? Just airing some thoughts - I've been trying think what goal is behind 'removing the patriarchy' what kind of society will be created and whether people will be happier. Off topic majorly, so...as you were.

Would love to see evidence that feminists even think women should be 'in charge' BFG. A lot of feminists, especially towards the radical end want to remove hierarchy as it creates oppression.

I've never seen that either, but BFG might be joking?

Some posters on this board think the world will be better when women are in charge caroldecker.

I think the union point is valid and shows the difference to feminism. I believe the unions did a valuable job in the early years, but went too far in the seventies and beyond, and I do not support them now. Feminism hasn't yet got to that point and there is still much to do.

On whether women would rape, they do take part in genital mutilation in parts of the world, and there are also violent women who abuse their partners and I could easily believe they could rape them if it was an option. There are several examples of lesbian 'rape' around

I don't see how you'd get to that from here, Doc. I have to suck up a linguistic tic that strikes me as prejudicial, because I want to discuss feminism. Many others choose not to engage in the discussions because they find this tic offensive. I choose not to engage with extreme left or right political pundits for comparable reasons, but there's plenty of space in the middle where I won't be vilified for not liking a particular turn of phrase. This option doesn't seem available within feminism.

Apologies for garbledom above! I've had a small accident and am in small shock. (I shall treat it with beer, which won't help my clarity much ... )

Is feminism is somehow held to a different standard than other political movements?Like there are centre right Tories and right wing Tories or whatever, that's accepted but less so with feminism?

Oh, I do agree that "not a feminist" women are basically opting to stick with the winners - that is, be part of the patriarchy (and, necessarily, to play the part it requires of women) rather than sticking their heads above the feminist parapet. Same applies to gay, black, working-class, and so on. Taking that as a given, I still think feminism alienates more people than necessary by using lazy/generalised/prejudicial language. This certainly happened with Black Power: most of Malcolm X's rhetoric was rock-solid, for example, but he put off a lot of potential supporters & beneficiaries by tarring all whites with the same brush and wanting to set fire to them.

Since I'm currently suffering a great deal of vicious prejudice (scrounger with invisible disabilities,) I'm frequently revisiting the Just World fallacy. It totally explains why women abjure feminism, while still appreciating its benefits. I do, though, think feminists-as-a-class could do more to bring them into the fold. Individually, we do! I think Mumsnet is a pretty strong force for good in this respect, as it goes :)

Just catching up on this - PQW, I agree that Red and I were making the same point, just from different angles. Thank you.

To me, the most essential factor in the 'rape generalisation' is that rapists are responsible for rape, no-one else. Not a gender, not clothing, not alcohol, not locations ... just rapists. I make this point whenever anybody attempts the discussion which leads Red to make the 'potential rape' point, from either perspective. Being male no more implies potential rape than being human implies potential murder.

I hate to say it, but it could be an internally logical position to be a woman who is anti-what-feminism-is-trying-to-do-now, but pro-what-it-has-already-done. I mean: voting is fine, but it is true that ladies have to be pretty and it is wrong and unseemly to combat this. or something.

YY, I think that is true.