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

[AnnieLobeseder]

...for daring to disagree with them on something they've posted.

Are they really so bloody-minded that they can't handle debate on their philosophies? I realise they get a lot of nasty trolling spam, but there's a world of difference between MRA nastiness and another feminist wanting to debate feminism!!

Is it just me?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Yy garlic.

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.

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

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.

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?

thanks promqueenwithin for that burst of positivity :)

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

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.

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?