A chatty, questions and random comments thread

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

There used to be a lovely 'Chat' thread where we could all be silly or just comment/witter on about stuff, and I've not seen it since this place got renamed to 'Chat'. Would it be a good time to have another random chatty thread going? I think there are some newbies having a look around after the thread about calling yourself a feminist, so maybe it would be a nice thing?

So people can ask random questions or make comments without feeling they have to jump right in to an ongoing thread or write an OP, if they don't want to.

vasela "for me feminism is about freedom from misogyny, and goes hand in hand with general freedom from misoxeny (hatred of strangers)."

In this are you essentially speaking about 'othering'?

"not so much that men are getting together to oppress women, but that very large numbers of (i.e. most) men continue to display maladaptive and illiberal misogyny."

I'd like to understand whether you believe the common maladaptive behaviour is something inherent in anyone born male, or whether it originated elsewhere.

Also, do you believe that the Taliban for example, who have formalised misogyny and have literally mandated misogynistic oppression of women, are maladapted separate individuals who happen to behave in accordance with one another, without actually 'getting together to oppress women'?

"In this are you essentially speaking about 'othering'"

Yes.

Re. the getting together - meant to add that they do "get together" in that they validate each other and perpetuate misogyny.

I think my problem is that I find the idea of the patriarchy as often expressed seems too unbeatable and immutable. It seems too solid a structure, as if there's nothing to be done except resort to e.g. separatism.

Haven't answered half your questions yet (still thinking) but need to get to bed.

and yes, of course in some societies there is a particularly large degree of formalised misogynistic oppression of women. But what is it at the end of the day except pathological hatred?

"I think my problem is that I find the idea of the patriarchy as often expressed seems too unbeatable and immutable. It seems too solid a structure, as if there's nothing to be done except resort to e.g. separatism."

Right, I get it now. But I suppose you can zoom out a bit to a perspective that looks at the world in entire century chunks. From out there - there is no doubt about it - bit by bit, slowly, with backlash following progress -patriarchy is being smashed! Feminism is winning. And if you think of the amazing achievements of radical feminists and their separatist spaces - such as rape crisis, women's refuges, and the recognition of 'domestic violence' and rape within marriage, coining phrases such as 'sexual harassment' and so on - it doesn't seem a 'resort', but an important, powerful and revolutionary part of the global patriarchy smashing. Our lives and rights as women have been greatly improved by it.

Also I don't actually use the term 'the patriarchy' as it conjures images in peoples minds of a very literal conspiracy which is unhelpful. 'Patriarchy' alone will suffice. I believe in looking at the facts, and the facts speak of global male dominance. Although historically I'm sure there have been many times and places (like the Taliban) when males have literally got together to devise ways to 'control women' - usually under a religious moral guise or more earthy orchestrated raids to 'steal' women as concubines, the channels by which the overwhelming number of positions of power and influence in the world are held by men came to be, are complicated. But the way to describe what we see is patriarchy.

"and yes, of course in some societies there is a particularly large degree of formalised misogynistic oppression of women. But what is it at the end of the day except pathological hatred?"

Well it is very targeted hatred, and complex. Because this means that in ones own home men have to hate their own wives, sisters and daughters - and much as this hatred can be encouraged by the powers that be, it is difficult to turn people 'against their own' without using techniques of shame, guilt, fear, flattery and divide and rule, etc. So it is more than pathological hatred, it is orchestrated, encouraged, codified, policed and invisiblised hatred. It is also a hatred that the hated take upon themselves and punish themselves and their own kind with less and less input required from the haters.

Individuals can look into themselves - What am I ashamed of?, What do I feel guilty about?, How to I get approval?, Who am I encouraged to view as my enemy? and so on, and the pattern starts to reveal itself - the complexity is thrown into sharp relief and you see a much bigger picture than simply pathological hatred.

Radical feminists believe the only way to get rid of the oppression of women, is to get rid of patriarchy as a whole. But they dont all actually believe that is possible.

Some believe it is possible and argue that there were matriarchial societies in the past and we can have them again. Others, such as myself, think we will never get rid of patiarchy. In this case the only thing we can do is to try and make it less harmful to girls and women - so fighting for changes in the here and now.

For example most domestic violence shelters were initially set up by radical feminists, they were at the forefront of the campaign to get rape made illegal in marriage, etc.

I find this sad Eats: "Others, such as myself, think we will never get rid of patriarchy."

How about in the Nordic countries that are pretty far ahead with it? Even in say, 200 years time in the UK?

I am fully confident that patriarchy will be smashed, but its a matter of time, and it will happen by generations of women and girls fighting for their rights in their 'here and now'.

Yes it is sad and I really hope I am wrong. But whether I am or not, I still think radical feminism makes most sense as a political theory.

"I still think radical feminism makes most sense as a political theory."

Absolutely! It is the only unflinchingly truthful feminism. It is totally robust and stands up to all scrutiny.

food - thanks! (about the PIV ... sorry, catching up slowly).

joyful - oh, but you sound as if you know people who are good about sex! Which is fantastic. I do know people like that now, but I'm not sure as a teenager I did. How much that says about PIV and how much about the surrounding context I don't know. I just think it is all quite interesting, relationship dynamics.

I didn't know anyone who thought we'd never get rid of the patriarchy - I'm going to need some time to think about that! - but I can do find it the most convincing way of thinking about power structures. But I suppose a huge amount of the time, it doesn't matter what you call it, it just matters what you do and how you react to what you see going on with women's lives. I have friends who don't know what to call themselves, who're just every so slightly beginning to think 'oh, maybe I'm a feminist' but they are getting out there are getting active about what's going on in America at the moment with reproductive rights debates - it's not stopping them from acting.

Btw, I don't want a matriarchial society, and I don't believe that is a radical feminist ideal at all, is it? It's great to imagine but ultimately not the ideal?

I think radical feminism makes most sense, too, in terms of the need for total overhaul - I feel much closer to it than to liberal feminism. It's just the prevailing view of patriarchy that I take issue with.

FoodUnit - I agree that it's orchestrated and policed, and extremely complex. I still think it's pathological hatred, though. Which is not at all to reduce it - it's just an approach to countering it.

It sometimes seems as if too much emphasis is placed on the need for women to fight (although of course we have to) and to smash something that will, like a regime, remain in place until we've finished smashing it.

But in terms of it being the men who actually need to change, it seems more helpful to me to view it primarily as a problem of misogyny rather than patriarchy. Bringing boys up to "like" women is something that it's possible to focus on - bringing them up not to be part of patriarchy doesn't feel like that.

(At the moment, I think too many people would say the need is to bring boys up "not to be sexist." Which plays into the whole "it's all about what you say - you're not allowed to say this and that".)

Going out there and saying "you all hate women (or lots of you do)" isn't necessarily the way. But we do need to be more confrontational in challenging men to think about whether they really like women.

I think I find much of radical feminism too Marxist-like in the way it views the conflict (I don't mean actual Marxist feminism - just the similarity in the way the problem is viewed). But in other ways I do identify with it.

Am I right in thinking it is the 'class' analysis you don't like (strikes you as Marxist and insummountably huge-looking)?

I do agree with confronting men with their misogyny too, but without changes to the overarching structures all the efforts by individual women, no matter how life-consuming, will evaporate as people naturally fall back in line with the prevalent male-centred worldview that upholds male dominance.

Confronting huge numbers of individual men on their misogyny in my time, even being quite convincing, I've seen they return to life as normal. Whereas by taking part in organising I've seen some actual cultural shifts that make misogyny seems less acceptable and normal in a structural sense.

"Am I right in thinking it is the 'class' analysis you don't like (strikes you as Marxist and insummountably huge-looking)?"

Yes, that's it.

The thing is, I would say that cultural shift/overhaul can be achieved - indeed, has to be achieved - by dealing with male misogyny. When I say "confronting" or "dealing with", I'm not talking about individual women's efforts - I mean organising.

To rephrase, maybe - I'd say the problem is not that men as a class are oppressing women, I'd say the problem is that too many men are misogynistic (to a greater or lesser degree, and sometimes without realising or admitting it, of course).

That's interesting, I find that much harder to think about than that men as a class are oppressing women, though I have a suspicion people find the 'men as a class oppressing women' more immediately offensive (you know, when they think you mean their DH/all men ever are evil, which none of us do AFAIK!).

I think that there are lots of situations in which an individual man isn't acting in a misogynistic way, but still women are being oppressed because of the patriarchy, and I find that hard to explain in terms of individual men's misogyny. Take for example the way that medical research goes - there's an absence of work on, say, the menopause or period pain. That's not because individual men misogynistically say 'ah, these women's issues are just not important' (though some no doubt do), or because companies say 'oh, there is no money in developing drugs/interventions for women' (though some do). It's a cumulative effect of the patriarchy. IMO.

Though you could explain that in terms of millions of men and women being to some tiny degree misogynistic, too, I know. I just find it harder to see that way.

This confuses me: "To rephrase, maybe - I'd say the problem is not that men as a class are oppressing women, I'd say the problem is that too many men are misogynistic (to a greater or lesser degree, and sometimes without realising or admitting it, of course)."

It seems that you see misogyny as a huge common thread, but take exception to speaking about the large pattern it makes. ...

A bit like saying "we can speak about termites, but no point talking about termite hills".

Or am I missing something?

I think the absence of work on menopause is to a degree misogynistic.

For me it's easier to view the whole thing that way, because misogyny seems ultimately easier to "get rid of" - given what we now know about brain plasticity etc.

FoodUnit - yes, it makes a big pattern, the way I see it, but I just wouldn't call that pattern patriarchy.

"For me it's easier to view the whole thing that way, because misogyny seems ultimately easier to "get rid of" - given what we now know about brain plasticity etc."

So is what you are saying that you don't think class analysis is untrue, but you find it impractical?

"it makes a big pattern, the way I see it, but I just wouldn't call that pattern patriarchy."

What would you call that pattern?

Mmm, I'm not sure misogyny is easier to get rid of.

I think we need both approaches in tandem - we need to think about individuals and how to stop people being misogynistic, but I think we also need to think about larger structures. After all, if you can make a shift in a big structure, away from misogyny, it's much faster and more dramatic than making a change in an individual.

LRDtheFeministDragon Fri 21-Sep-12 10:09:01
Take for example the way that medical research goes - there's an absence of work on, say, the menopause or period pain.

Difficult area to look at surely?

Less spend on testicular cancer than breast cancer?
Gerontology specifically benefits more women than men?

STIs are a major problem, with infection rates being higher in women, and often the impact being more severe. Lot of this down to unsafe sexual practice by men, and often contraception avoidance by men. Still means a huge asymmetric spend.

Not really difficult, no.

Look at viagra.

Does genontology benefit more women? I wonder about this. More women live to older ages than men, but is care for them better? I know when my granny was dying we kept coming across the same old examples of things designed assuming the norm was male, even in a female geriatric ward. So things were all the wrong height for little old ladies. It was seriously Not Good.

STIs are a good example - though of course you have to remember that anyone who has bumsex also has high risks, which sometimes gets forgotten about.