Suicide-a feminist issue?

whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

It's time for the computer game settings link, isn't it...?

"o should there be some sort of hierarchy of which things impact us most - and then work out where patriarchy fits into that?"

That's intersectionality; feminists often discuss and acknowledge that black women, disabled women etc have disadvantages of further prejudice on top of sexism.

unexpsoc wrote - "A working class boy from a Northern shit-tip town ... Two men - both with physical disabilities
I couldn't help thinking that perhaps this white privately-educated well-connected woman hadn't realised there are OTHER issues which have an equal or greater impact on your life chances"

Were there any working class women from a Northern town or any women with physical disabilities?

MM and slug - but I am much more impacted by other aspects of my identity. I see my gender as only one of those. I will give you a personal anecdote as an example. I remember having a conversation with a colleague of mine in a central team in a HQ for a very large corporate. This was FTSE100 in the City of London by way of context.

She said "It just is harder for women, you couldn't possibly understand". As I turned around and looked at the rest of the team (which again, for context was led by a woman that reported into another woman) and saw

A working class boy from a Northern shit-tip town
A child of Bangladeshi immigrants
A child of impoverished Indian immigrants
Two men - both with physical disabilities

I couldn't help thinking that perhaps this white privately-educated well-connected woman hadn't realised there are OTHER issues which have an equal or greater impact on your life chances (this is purely from a work / career point of view).

The point I am clumsily trying to make is that whilst I might have benefitted from being born a man, other aspects of my identity more than made up for that to kick me in the teeth.

So should there be some sort of hierarchy of which things impact us most - and then work out where patriarchy fits into that?

Not sure that is coming across the way I want it to.

Even if you are raised to reject these issues, you still benefit from them. You are paid more, leaders of businesses/councils/the country all reflect you and your needs. Your issues are treated as important and mainstream rather than as "special interests" Your gender and it's issues is reflected on the screen and in media. When you speak, people listen. You are not told to stop being shrill/aggressive etc.........

In that sense, every man is a patriarch: even if they do not have these things, they are absorbed in a cultural story that says they are entitled to them. Yes, even if a man is gay and has no interest in sexual relationships with women, he still lives in a culture where women are for these things. That is their purpose, according to this cultural story we are told.

It is this entitlement to these things that men are inculcated with that leads to a great number of the issues that feminism regards as oppressive.

That is a really interesting take. Does that mean even if you were raised and believe none of the above things to be true, you are STILL a patriarch? That if you are raised to reject them (or raised and then choose to reject them) you are still a patriarch?

Certainly, I come from a long line of families where women rule the roost quite considerably. And if I was ever found to think this way I would have been for the high jump.

In that way, am I stained by who I am, rather than what I do? Doesn't that sound a bit familiar?

Because of pregnancy/breastfeeding, women have often worked at home whilst also supervising children, then the children could begin working alongside them. So a woman might spin, a younger child might card (comb out) the wool, a man might collect the wool from sheep farmers - or have an entirely different job such as working a field.

Don't forget the even pre IR, farms were probably worked by more people than their owners and the families.

Thanks slug that is a really interesting article. It also makes me wonder (and my knowledge of history in this area is non-existent) how long has the world of work been quite so skewed towards patriarchy?

Was patriarchal ownership of occupations enforced as part of the industrial revolution? Until then, I imagine if you owned a mill the whole family worked, if you owned a farm the whole family worked etc. In those cases would it be a family by family case of who was in charge?

I realise I might be confusing several issues here.

There is a discussion to be had about the feminization of the workforce. This thread has used examples of men's work e.g. binmen and coalminers, as dangerous and masculine.

However, women did work down the mines in exactly the same numbers as men right up until Victorian times when pictures of them stripped naked to the waist caused a scandal. This is pretty much true of all heavy dangerous jobs. Women have always done them but many men choose to ignore the fact.

It's also true that the more men do a job the higher the status and wages. As a job becomes feminised, the status and wages drop. This can be seen in secretarial work, teaching and lately medicine. The reverse effect can be seen in IT where the early 'computers' were all women. As men joined the profession, wages rose and women were forced out.

As for binmen, that bastion of masculine dangerous working conditions, keeping it all male benefits men

Well no not at all you have Human Rights which covers it all don't you think?

So, assuming a human rights movement covers all of the issues / problems faced - what is to ensure that it leads to appropriate outcomes for all people? Wouldn't we just end up with the same challenge - ie being accused of hijacked to look after rich, white men ahead of everyone else?

Or do you believe everyone will suddenly change not only years of experience and history, but their own social conditioning and jump on board?

Or would you set it up to be some sort of arbiter of what was right for different groups and fight on individual issues?

No Koko the gorilla shouldn't get the vote. Digression over.

Well unless like certain Romans you want horses to stand for public office, I'd be inclined to deny them certain rights.

Well, maybe that is only because you are conditioned to think that. Should Koko the gorilla have a right to vote? Do we do it on an animal by animal basis? (sorry to digress - just another interesting topic).

Well unless like certain Romans you want horses to stand for public office, I'd be inclined to deny them certain rights....

I think that's a dangerous misnomer misogyny is ubiquitous across society, a woman is no more or less likely to suffer domestic abuse according economic/social status.

Well no not at all you have Human Rights which covers it all don't you think?

I think the non-human animals might disagree with you on that.

Even a man at the bottom of the pile can hate women.

Actually, I think that men at the bottom of the pile could hate women MORE, if they have been so trained to do so. I am not sure if it is a Mao quote or made up - but "keep them stupid, keep them poor and give them someone to hate". I think in a lot of cases men blame women for where they are - unfairly.

Well no not at all you have Human Rights which covers it all don't you think? Also I'm not saying you claim personally that your maligned, but MRAs do claim a feminist conspiracy. It is to that I am referring.

I'm also coming around to thinking the problem isn't just patriarchy. After all not all men are patriarchs, however misogyny can be present anywhere. Even a man at the bottom of the pile can hate women.

Well society as it has stood historically and to a lesser extent today is a men's movement. It's setup by and for men. It's also somewhat worrying that men who feel maligned and put upon who create the counterculture MRA groups, seem to pratfall straight into the same pit of mysogyny as societies before.

Purely looking at my own experiences and lifetime, I would say that society is set up to ensure that power and privilege remains with a small minority of people. The fact that means the status quo is maintained as much as possible might also continue to perpetuate patriarchy. A very large number of companies I have worked for have had female chief executives at one time or another. In order for me to feel maligned, who is actively maligning me? Not a word I would use.

The only solution I can see is a fair an equitable society that is issues based rather than gender based. That takes as a self evident truth any life is as important as the next.

So does that mean an end to all "rights" movements? If so, then how do we achieve it. I tend to agree with the solution - just don't know how we would get there.

I interpreted slugseatlettuces 7.42 post as being directed at me, apologies if that is not the case.

palmer yes - and i must have missed the one where you provided evidence of me saying "childbirth is not dangerous". Instead you responded with high handedness and smuggery.

Since you're so keen on evidence maybe you can provide some to support your ludicrous assertions that the reason women are not equally represented in the scaffolding industry is because that industry "actively" excludes women ? Can you provide an example of this active exclusion, remembering that anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

I work for a global bluechip company with 400,000+ employees, it's lead by a woman. That is both personal experience but is also a verifiable fact. I find it interesting that you appear to be implying that she would be unable to influence or shape the company and it's culture to a significant degree. Is that your belief ? Or do you accept that women are able to shape and influence many industries these days ?

Well society as it has stood historically and to a lesser extent today is a men's movement. It's setup by and for men. It's also somewhat worrying that men who feel maligned and put upon who create the counterculture MRA groups, seem to pratfall straight into the same pit of mysogyny as societies before.

The only solution I can see is a fair an equitable society that is issues based rather than gender based. That takes as a self evident truth any life is as important as the next.

Argh - posted that before I had finished.

Just re-read and my other minor point was a misread so ignore it.

I do have a question though - people are challenging as to why we need a men's rights movement? Whilst I am not sure it is a rights movement that is needed (any more), that is a really helpful challenge - so my starter for ten is:

Is there an identifiable social ill (or ills)?
Does it attach specifically to a sub-group of society?
Can we identify causes and solutions to it?
Is it currently unrepresented by other movements?

But as a counter-question, why SHOULDN'T there be a men's rights movement? I mean from an idyllic we can stop it being taken over by knobs perspective.