Its all one big conspiracy

So, with regard to these 'loose' conspiracies, they are creating doubt or desire in women's mind in order to sell them stuff. In which case, do corporations have a vested interest in women gaining greater financial power? As does this put them in conflict with other areas of a patriarchal society that seeks to keep women down? Or is it possible to have both simultaneously?

If I want to sell more perfume or deodorant to women, I don't benefit from there being a gender pay gap.

... although they'll often fight hard to maintain the status quo, changes to business models being expensive.

In that case, my perception is that conflict theory better describes what really happens in societies.

It's not directly relevant to the oligarchy of commercial controllers/conspirators, because they will simply exploit whatever happens.

Salvage, that adult did you an unwitting favour

Ah, cross-posted with you, Buffy. Thanks for the new words

I think - from observation, not theory - that functionalism works through a series of conflicts. Changes usually (not always) happen with a pendulum effect: the protesting faction sets up a huge stink and wins, to the detriment of the static faction. Then this gets noticed, there may be a couple more swings each way, and functional compromise is reached. A handful of the original combatants are metaphorically burnt at the stake; sacrifices to the new détente.

GirlFromIpanema how long is "a while"? I became a feminist when I was 4 years old and required to share my beach bucket with the boys.

I'm about to be 51. And I'm still angry.

not one but a million - or at least a hundred, since there are so few big corporations in control - conspiracies, in a loose shifting alliance, and it's primarily one aimed at making more wealth for the rich.

Yes, that's my mental picture :) Their tasks are to leverage whatever they can for profit: to buy, create and exploit markets, and to protect their revenues. They're not in the business of social change but are sensitive to it, as long as they're in competition. If they lose a handle on what their markets will stand for, and what they want, a more alert competitor can overtake them. This why ground-level change can work ... as long as governments don't stifle that change (it can still work, but then a lot of people have to die.)

Money has no morals, good or bad.

Oh I think in some instances nefarious planning does go on! How many posts do we get on MN about how companies don't want to employ women of child bearing age?

Mentioning again Susan Faludi's Backlash there is plenty of evidence of the fashion industry deliberating marketing and producing different (and in many cases, inappropriate or more sexualised) clothing despite the fact that smart black suits were the biggest selling commodity in the 80's for working women in the US. They did it for years, despite them not selling, until women practically had no choice. It's really hard to not think that is a conspiracy. Women you can go to work but only if you look sufficiently sexually appealing for men.

Scallops, they're using (and ignorantly reinforcing) gender to sell products thereby creating the multi-billion consumerist economy. It's not deliberately aimed at women, once againas you so eloquently put it, they just don't care that it is women who predominantly take the fall.

It does become so hard sometimes not to believe in a conspiracy. I sometimes think of it as not one but a million - or at least a hundred, since there are so few big corporations in control - conspiracies, in a loose shifting alliance, and it's primarily one aimed at making more wealth for the rich.

I'm always happy to get a free education off you Buffy, if you're offering! Don't think that's wanky in the slightest.

Buffy, I love it when you do stuff like that! I'm getting a free education

But I think your posts about the fashion/beauty products industry show how deliberate it is in some arenas.

Taking another example, the government knows that the cuts they are making disproportionally affect women. They just don't care.

Industries know that the workplace are set up for men as the default (or for people with minimal childcare responsibilities). They just don't care.

The government, police, CPS etc know violence is gendered. They just don't care.

NI know they are discriminating against women with their abortion laws. They just don't care.

That is what we mean when we talk about a 'conspiracy'.

No-one thinks there's a Patriarchy Committee that meets to devise secret plots against women! Feminism would be a damn sight easier if there were - we could just assassinate them

Also I disagree with the word "conspiracy". It kind of suggests all men have sat down together to work out how they can keep women down. While there was and is a certain organisation about some aspects of discrimination, certainly at a legislative level among other examples, a lot of it is in everyday attitudes and socialisation which is harder but not impossible to change.

I don't think there's neccessarily anything wrong with doing things to "fit in", whether it is shaving or wearing make-up or changing your name. What is important is that people acknowledge that socialisation exists, and while people may think they are freely choosing to do something, everyone is a product of their upbringing, community and society. Including the people who consider themselves enlightened individuals who go against the grain. I do shave various bits of my body and I changed my name. These are not completely free choices but it makes me feel happier to do so, just as your choice to do otherwise may bring you contentment.

Talking about men bonding over joking about women, one of the weirdest "jokes" I hear time and time again is that men are under the rule and thumb of their wives, a kind of winky "better check with the missus - we all know who the boss is!" type joke.

Loads of men I know do it, some affectionately some not, didn't even Obama do it about Michelle?, but even when done affectionately it's still irritating because I've only met a couple of partnerships where the woman is clearly dominant.

I wonder why

I don't use deodorant either (or antiperspirant for that matter) and I don't shave under my arms. Apparently I must be really smelly but no one has ever told me. I think that's pretty unlikely as I've been told plenty of other things about my appearance. I do have the dry earwax gene though, so probably genuinely don't have much BO (at least from my under arms anyway). I don't use smelly products mainly because they make me feel ill.

I did a marketing class a little while back and found it enjoyable but also abhorrent. There was an interesting moment in the class when the professor mentioned razors for women as being largely a marketing play used when the manufacturers of razors needed to make up for changing trends in men's shaving (I think it was the change from barbers to doing it at home), and there was a bit of an influx of breath around the room when the professor said that women didn't shave before then. It was depressing.

Since you asked, Tei ... I didn't use deodorant for years. Had to start when the menopause did. I suspect it's more genetics than anything else; some people do pong more.

YY to 'homosocial', though it's a new word to me. It's a tribal thing and is common across many species in their various ways. I did tons of work on this - understanding (and trying to manipulate) self-defined groups. It is all nebulous, but not actually that hard to pin down. Ime people who find it mystifying are those who over-estimate their cultural independence. Opinion-forming cliques are actually very self aware and can clearly describe their micro-culture.

Fascinating stuff! People are so odd, and also so predictable