When women say no and mean yes

[Rosa Partizan]

well, this is a difficult topic for me, because recently, I had an online discussion about this and was called out by some person for victim blaming. It all started with a thread on another board (shouldn't open threads on other boards but this one anyway :lol:) where I talked about a friend of mine I sometimes go out with (in a group of friends). She has a "special" kind of flirting. When she says no, she means yes. Yeah, you read it right. She likes to act like she's untouchable, she will be mean to the guys she's interested in, and when it comes to situations like "may I kiss you", "wanna come home with me", she will say no, hoping that the guy keeps going. If he does not so and actually backs off, she's pissed.

I have a massive, massive problem with that. It perpetuates all this "no means yes"-bullshit and makes some guys believe that a no is a yes in disguise. However, I am NOT saying that it's EVER EVER a girl's fault when a guy does not respect her "no". No matter what experiences a guy has with women and how often no meant yes, he has to back off immediately when she says no. Unfortunately, all this fucked up yes means no-(and rape)culture is something that some women take part in. And with this behavior, they make life harder for their fellow ladies.

So, what do you think about that? Am I really blaming the victim?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I don't think why would anyone think you are victim blaming. Your position seems absolutely sensible to me.

On an absolutely related note, I will leave this here:
https://www youtube com/watch?v=b4hNaFkbZYU

Can't post links yet. :(

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

She sounds really immature. People who play games like that aren't worth anyone's time. If a woman says 'no' it means no. If she says 'no' but means 'yes' then tough luck for her because she's not going to get *anywhere with men who respect women. (edit)

Women can be just as susceptible to this rape culture patriarchy bullshit as men. Women play their part.

[Rosa Partizan]

She sounds really immature. People who play games like that aren't worth anyone's time. If a woman says 'no' it means no. If she says 'no' but means 'yes' then tough luck for her because she's not going to get any action.

sadly enough, she's getting laid quite regularly, because there's a ton of guys who're like "no = she just doesn't know she wants it".

[ArisVelouxiotis]

I don't understand the reason she does that.To test the guy on how much he is "devoted" to getting laid/kiss etc.
You aren't victim blaming here.She is clearly doing that on purpose for her own reasons which like I've mentioned before I don't understand.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

*Shrug*
Your friend has a deeply problematic strategy for negotiating desire in the context of patriarchy.
Probably the guys she ends up hooking up with are some real assholes.
Probably if she's just worried about getting dick, it doesn't matter that they're real assholes.
Mind you, I think it's probably safe to say that it's something less than good politics.

[BIXX]

I'm with you rosa, your position makes sense to me. It doesn't seem like victim blaming unless you use some really convoluted and flawed logic.

Saying you're victim blaming would be kinda odd in this context.

[Sinister Intents]

I agree with Xena and Echo. This also reminds me of how my ex would talk to her ex... Also a dude I had hung out with recently uses the whole no = yes thing to justify the disgusting way he treats women, and he wonders why he can't hold a relationship with the shit that he says. He also stated to me that some women deserve to be raped. This is someone I'm not going to be staying friends with...

[Invader Zim]

I don't understand the reason she does that.To test the guy on how much he is "devoted" to getting laid/kiss etc.
You aren't victim blaming here.She is clearly doing that on purpose for her own reasons which like I've mentioned before I don't understand.

Actually, it is perfectly explainable. People are attracted to the unobtainable. By being unobtainable, or presenting themselves as such, they heighten their appeal.

It is a phenomenon I've noticed repeatedly, particularly when I was in a long term relationship during which I received far more interest from the opposite sex than I ever did or do now that I'm single. Similarly, I've found that having slept with people a few times their interest wains because the the basic psychological attraction to what was previously unattainable has been attained. That, or maybe I'm just shit in bed. Regardless, by making one self unobtainable (either through conscious strategy or subconsciously) people heighten their attractiveness and are, therefore, more likely to have a greater range of potential partners from which to choose. From a (very) base biological perspective (albeit, thinking only in hetero-normative terms) this, when it comes to reproduction, this is a winning strategy: For males because it increases the potential range of partners and for females because it allows a greater degree of selectivity. Obviously, this is a highly crude form of biological determinism and ignores the huge influence of socially constructed mores developed across the span of human society, but it was nonetheless an interesting hypothesis I read a few months back.

Similarly there is a great deal of appeal in being 'chased', the object of another person's desire. After all, who does not enjoy being pleasantly surprised by flirtation from an individual to whom you are attracted?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

well, this is a difficult topic for me, because recently, I had an online discussion about this and was called out by some person for victim blaming. It all started with a thread on another board (shouldn't open threads on other boards but this one anyway :lol:) where I talked about a friend of mine I sometimes go out with (in a group of friends). She has a "special" kind of flirting. When she says no, she means yes. Yeah, you read it right. She likes to act like she's untouchable, she will be mean to the guys she's interested in, and when it comes to situations like "may I kiss you", "wanna come home with me", she will say no, hoping that the guy keeps going. If he does not so and actually backs off, she's pissed.

I have a massive, massive problem with that. It perpetuates all this "no means yes"-bullshit and makes some guys believe that a no is a yes in disguise. However, I am NOT saying that it's EVER EVER a girl's fault when a guy does not respect her "no". No matter what experiences a guy has with women and how often no meant yes, he has to back off immediately when she says no. Unfortunately, all this fucked up yes means no-(and rape)culture is something that some women take part in. And with this behavior, they make life harder for their fellow ladies.

So, what do you think about that? Am I really blaming the victim?

Well simply put, if she says no then she deserves the response her flirting entails, absolutely nothing.

[Tenka]

I suppose she's only interested in walking dildos at this point. But if no means yes for her, what means no? I can see how someone a bit blind to nuance could see victim blaming implied by such a question. Probably a creep (one she didn't fancy, anyway) would have to get extra creepy before she could make a negative meaning clear.

[synthesis]

But if no means yes for her, what means no?

(probably triggering)

Probably stuff like calling for help with increasing volume and intensity.

[Lanfear]

I don't see how you can be accused of victim blaming at all

[BIXX]

(probably triggering)

Probably stuff like calling for help with increasing volume and intensity.


I wish spoiler tags worked on tapatalk. Did not like. It didn't trigger me but it certainly made me feel ill.

[Lily Briscoe]

I think any sort of feminism that concerns itself with passing moralistic judgement on the way individual women you know conduct their sex lives is pretty much completely worthless. Maybe someone like 'The Garbage Disposal Unit' can go set your friend straight :rolleyes:

[Thirsty Crow]

I can think of a legitimate scenario where a woman saying "no" in all probability means "yes".

Imagine a cake evenly sliced. There's a group of friends, and only one slice is left. A guy asks her, do you want that last piece. She says "no, just go ahead".

[Thirsty Crow]

I think any sort of feminism that concerns itself with passing moralistic judgement on the way individual women you know conduct their sex lives is pretty much completely worthless. Maybe someone like 'The Garbage Disposal Unit' can go set your friend straight :rolleyes:
That's not moralism what Rosa engaged in:


It perpetuates all this "no means yes"-bullshit and makes some guys believe that a no is a yes in disguise.This is an assessment of effect. Not an abstract argument over morals.




So, what do you think about that? Am I really blaming the victim?
Well, the argument that you're blaming the victim falls right apart at the very start: namely, there is no victim here in the case of your friend at all.

So what does "victim blaming" mean here? Nothing, really, probably just an unreflected reaction to what seemed like a bad position.

And I do think that in such public situations this kind of behavior might reinforce this "no=yes" story.

[Lily Briscoe]

That's not moralism what Rosa engaged in:

This is an assessment of effect. Not an abstract argument over morals.

I think the entire way of viewing oppression/the patriarchy/whatever by focusing on questions of whether the conduct of individual women amounts to 'participating in' "rape culture", or engaging in "self-objectification", or 'perpetuating' the patriarchy... I think this approach is based entirely in moralism... in judging the lifestyle and behavioral choices individuals make and whether they are sufficiently 'empowered' and 'non-patriarchal', as if "the patriarchy" is something that individuals opt in or out of by making the 'right' choices, rather than something structural that people are inherently confined by.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think the entire way of viewing oppression/the patriarchy/whatever by focusing on questions of whether the conduct of individual women amounts to 'participating in' "rape culture", or engaging in "self-objectification", or 'perpetuating' the patriarchy... I think this approach is based entirely in moralism... in the lifestyle and behavioral choices individuals make and whether they are sufficiently 'empowered' and 'non-patriarchal', as if "the patriarchy" is something that individuals opt in or out of by making the 'right' choices, rather than something structural that people are inherently confined by.
This is your misreading of what Rosa wrote; to repeat, and it's there written clearly, the user argued not about self-objectification, but on tangible effects of this kind of behavior. Reinforcing the acceptance of this bullshit framework "yes=no" cannot be reduced to any silly story about "opting out of patriarchy"; quite the opposite, the argument is not that it is possible to opt out, but that certain behaviors reinforce something.

You're writing waay too much into the argument.

For instance, Rosa could have approached this from another angle; claiming that her friend is degrading herself and thus failing to live up to the standards of the (self)empowered woman. But the fact is she did not do this.

[synthesis]

I'm not sure if I should continue to use spoiler tags, since it's pretty clear we're talking about very triggering subject matter, but I'll do it at least one more time.


I wish spoiler tags worked on tapatalk. Did not like. It didn't trigger me but it certainly made me feel ill.

I'm sorry. The basis for that statement was that rape culture is complicated by the fact that women are supposed to be passive recipients of male attention, and therefore women who do engage in "saying no and meaning yes" are naturally going to find different ways to express a genuine "no." That's not to say that it's a woman's fault if she's not more vocal about her non-consent, or worse, that it's not rape if she doesn't do so, which would obviously be victim blaming in a really terrible way; that's why I didn't bring up physically fighting back, as it's all tied into the fear of further violence if the assault is resisted, and it's all too easy for such a statement to come across as victim-blaming or rape apologism.

But the idea of "no means no," as an absolute, doesn't intrinsically apply to the day-to-day lives of people who are actively navigating the structure of rape culture - it should, but it doesn't - and in those cases people's actions aren't going to make sense if you don't think there can be varying degrees of "no." Again, it's the opposite of an ideal situation; this is (supposed to be) analytical, not prescriptive.

I'm open, of course, to hearing why this line of argument is completely wrong and reactionary. If so, help me understand what's reactionary about it; it's not something I see as set in stone, just an observation, and I understand that I may not be viewing it in the proper framework.

[human strike]

'No' only means 'yes' when it has been negotiated beforehand and it is mutually understood that that is what it means. In such a situation it is a very good idea to use safe words or safe actions that indicate an actual 'no'. I take it people don't think that constitutes perpetuating rape culture?

[Zukunftsmusik]

'No' only means 'yes' when it has been negotiated beforehand and it is mutually understood that that is what it means. In such a situation it is a very good idea to use safe words or safe actions that indicate an actual 'no'. I take it people don't think that constitutes perpetuating rape culture?

the topic is on incidents where no means yes, though in a setting where this isn't cleared by those involved. I don't think anyone is saying what you're arguing against

[human strike]

the topic is on incidents where no means yes, though in a setting where this isn't cleared by those involved. I don't think anyone is saying what you're arguing against

I'm not making an argument, only asking a question.

[PhoenixAsh]

I am going to take the probably hugely unpopular position and say: "yes you are and everybody who agrees with you is dead wrong." In fact....I am even going to be more unpopular by saying that your opinion itself perpetuates patriarchy.

This hinges on the assumption that: The victim here is "woman". As being the target of a patriarchal system which perpetuates rape culture.

And it assumes you are saying that her behavior is wrong because she perpetuates a patriarchy created myth...rather than saying it is wrong because you think it is stupid.

When you do so...you are creating the reality that her behavior is in fact responsible for perpetuation of a myth and this is denying the fact that the myth exists outside of that individuals behavior and is used to legitimize and disguise the real problem:men thinking they are allowed to do whatever the hell they please because women exist for their convenience and pleasure ..and therefore make up reasons which are sometimes true to be able to continue to do so by posing these incidents as a general truism so they are absolved from any responsibility for their own actions. This is not women doing that...this is MEN doing that.

I will illustrate why you are victim blaming by transposing the no means yes myth with another myth: women who dress provocatively are asking for it or If she didn't want to have sex why did she invite him into her apartment/make out with him/etc.
A woman who dresses provocatively in order to draw attention of men to have sex with them....is NOT responsible for perpetuating the myth that women who dress provocatively want sex. Or a more asinine one: if you make out with a guy to have sex with him...you are NOT perpetuating the myth "if a woman makes out with you she wants sex (or is leading you on so...)".

See where I am going?

So when you say her behavior is wrong because it perpetuates a male invented myth in order to absolve them from any responsibility...then you are in fact saying: You did that. You create that myth....to the victim of that myth. In fact...you are regulating her behavior because of patriarchy...and are therefore...well...ironically...perpetuating patriarchy.

And this is not true. She is not creating that myth. Men create that myth. Patriarchy creates that myth. It is women who are the victim and target of these myths to absolve themselves and to regulate female behavior. "If a woman doesn't act a certain way....well then obviously she was asking for it...because we all know that..."

So while it maybe UNWISE to go walking alone in skimpy clothes in a bad neighborhood...it is NOT EVER your fault you get raped. THAT is the other person doing that. So while it maybe unwise for her to act like she does...it is however never ok for guys to use her behavior as some carte blanche for all women...and THAT is the problem: guys and patriarchy.



This all is based on the fact that human communication is NOT based solely on words. It is based on a combination of things. On interaction, body language, context, words, tone, pitch. And the incongruity between what we say and do is sometimes part of the message.

The sentence "officially you are not allowed to get coffee outside the official break times".... doesn't JUST mean what it says. It can get a whole different meaning depending on context, pitch, body language. When I shout it I am probably very angry at a breach of rules. When I wink and nod my head. I am probably indicating "but I'll allow it for this time".

The same with flirting.

It is your communication partners responsibility to assess the context of the situation and when there is obvious misjudgment the approach needs to stop immediately....and That is the problem here. Men do not think they need to. They are the issue. So rather than decrying her behavior...which is perfectly normal and fine (and a lot of men do this too)...men's entitlement behavior is the issue and should be addressed. Men feeling that they can generalize women and do not need to get clear consent or do not need to adjust their behavior are the problem. Women should be able to safely behave how they want without needing to fear men feeling that they can do just whatever the hell it is they please to do. Women's behavior should not be regulated. Men's behavior needs to be regulated.

[Zukunftsmusik]

I'm not making an argument, only asking a question.

Well, I think the answer to your question is both given and that the question itself is off topic (if this comes off as condescending that's not my intention).

[blake 3:17]

No means no.

[Zukunftsmusik]

No means no.

Are you even trying?

[Invader Zim]

No means no.

An interesting abstract, I'll have to read the full article while at work:

'We investigated whether women ever engage in token resistance to sex--saying no but meaning yes--and, if they do, what their reasons are for doing so. A questionnaire administered to 610 undergraduate women asked whether they had ever engaged in token resistance and, if so, asked them to rate the importance of 26 possible reasons. We found that 39.3% of the women had engaged in token resistance at least once. Their reasons fell into three categories: practical, inhibition-related, and manipulative reasons. Women's gender role attitudes, erotophobia-erotophilia, and other attitudes and beliefs varied as a function of their experience with token resistance and their sexual experience. We argue that, given society's sexual double standard, token resistance may be a rational behavior. It could, however, have negative consequences, including discouraging honest communication, perpetuating restrictive gender stereotypes, and--if men learn to disregard women's refusals--increasing the incidence of rape.'

Muehlenhard CL, Hollabaugh LC., 'Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to sex.', Journal of personality and social psychology, 1988 May; 54(5): 872-9.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3379584

[BIXX]

I am going to take the probably hugely unpopular position and say: "yes you are and everybody who agrees with you is dead wrong." In fact....I am even going to be more unpopular by saying that your opinion itself perpetuates patriarchy.

This hinges on the assumption that: The victim here is "woman". As being the target of a patriarchal system which perpetuates rape culture.

And it assumes you are saying that her behavior is wrong because she perpetuates a patriarchy created myth...rather than saying it is wrong because you think it is stupid.

When you do so...you are creating the reality that her behavior is in fact responsible for perpetuation of a myth and this is denying the fact that the myth exists outside of that individuals behavior and is used to legitimize and disguise the real problem:men thinking they are allowed to do whatever the hell they please because women exist for their convenience and pleasure ..and therefore make up reasons which are sometimes true to be able to continue to do so by posing these incidents as a general truism so they are absolved from any responsibility for their own actions. This is not women doing that...this is MEN doing that.

I will illustrate why you are victim blaming by transposing the no means yes myth with another myth: women who dress provocatively are asking for it or If she didn't want to have sex why did she invite him into her apartment/make out with him/etc.
A woman who dresses provocatively in order to draw attention of men to have sex with them....is NOT responsible for perpetuating the myth that women who dress provocatively want sex. Or a more asinine one: if you make out with a guy to have sex with him...you are NOT perpetuating the myth "if a woman makes out with you she wants sex (or is leading you on so...)".

See where I am going?

So when you say her behavior is wrong because it perpetuates a male invented myth in order to absolve them from any responsibility...then you are in fact saying: You did that. You create that myth....to the victim of that myth. In fact...you are regulating her behavior because of patriarchy...and are therefore...well...ironically...perpetuating patriarchy.

And this is not true. She is not creating that myth. Men create that myth. Patriarchy creates that myth. It is women who are the victim and target of these myths to absolve themselves and to regulate female behavior. "If a woman doesn't act a certain way....well then obviously she was asking for it...because we all know that..."

So while it maybe UNWISE to go walking alone in skimpy clothes in a bad neighborhood...it is NOT EVER your fault you get raped. THAT is the other person doing that. So while it maybe unwise for her to act like she does...it is however never ok for guys to use her behavior as some carte blanche for all women...and THAT is the problem: guys and patriarchy.



This all is based on the fact that human communication is NOT based solely on words. It is based on a combination of things. On interaction, body language, context, words, tone, pitch. And the incongruity between what we say and do is sometimes part of the message.

The sentence "officially you are not allowed to get coffee outside the official break times".... doesn't JUST mean what it says. It can get a whole different meaning depending on context, pitch, body language. When I shout it I am probably very angry at a breach of rules. When I wink and nod my head. I am probably indicating "but I'll allow it for this time".

The same with flirting.

It is your communication partners responsibility to assess the context of the situation and when there is obvious misjudgment the approach needs to stop immediately....and That is the problem here. Men do not think they need to. They are the issue. So rather than decrying her behavior...which is perfectly normal and fine (and a lot of men do this too)...men's entitlement behavior is the issue and should be addressed. Men feeling that they can generalize women and do not need to get clear consent or do not need to adjust their behavior are the problem. Women should be able to safely behave how they want without needing to fear men feeling that they can do just whatever the hell it is they please to do. Women's behavior should not be regulated. Men's behavior needs to be regulated.


While I think that would of course be an ideal situation (and I find a good amount of your argument (if not all) convincing), the issue is convincing men to care. I honestly don't care how people flirt as long as everyone is safe in the situation, which seems to be kinda what you are saying here.

I think the reality of the situation is that it's kinda in between, on further thought. Like, someone should be able to flirt how they want, but the responsibility also lies with the person they are flirting with to read the situation properly. But the person who is flirting in ways that could potentially perpetuate myths should consider how to send the right signals.

I am honestly kinda conflicted here and have a feeling I will go back and forth a lot.



Are you even trying?


Would you mind elaborating?

[Rosa Partizan]

Phoenix, I'm sorry, but this is a really disappointing answer, especially because I thought my stance on patriarchy has become clear enough during the last three months or so.

I even wrote in my initial post that it's ALWAYS the guy's fault who gives a fuck about a no, always, no matter what experiences he made with women beforehand. Let's not fool ourselves in the belief, however, that women can't perpetuate patriarchy, too. Yeah, it's their loss, but still, some women do it. And why? Because patriarchy made them believe it's perfectly fine if they do so.

Your example with this short skirt and making out in one's apartment is kinda messed up. Neither do clothes nor making out necessarily mean that the woman wants to get laid. As I said before, nothing, except a yes, is an invitation for sex. However, there is no direct connection "clothes --> sex" as it is with "saying no and meaning yes --> sex".

You know what they say about people who suffered from domestic violence as children? They pass is on to their children. So why for fuck's sake does this not go with women suffering from patriarchy? There are even plenty of women who don't believe that patriarchy exists anymore in the Western culture. The biggest trick that patriarchy pulled was making women believe it didn't exist.

I know what I'm talking about, I used to be kind of an anti-feminist. I divided women in 2 categories and wanted to get recognition by guys. That's how I became responsible of keeping patriarchy alive. Not me alone, of course, but I became a tiny part of this big whole culture, and I kept it running.

Almost nothing you do is totally "personal". As a very well-known German feminist put it "The private is political". Everyone forms society, every time they interact with someone. Let's repeat myself for the third time. Again, it's not the woman's fault when her no is serious yet ignored. But we ALL have our part in this, even if it's something that is bad for us in the long run.

Sorry for this kinda too short and not elaborated and probably grammatically super duper faulty post. I'm tired and fucked up and no native speaker. Take these errors and shove them up your ass (not you, Phoenix).

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

When a man rapes a woman, it's always the man's fault. Of course, if a woman goes about saying "no" but meaning "yes" in the context of everyday flirting, yeah that reinforces rape culture. It undermines women who actually are trying to MEAN something when they say "no". That's not victim blaming, it's merely acknowledging the consequences of communicating in a particular manner.

[PhoenixAsh]

Phoenix, I'm sorry, but this is a really disappointing answer, especially because I thought my stance on patriarchy has become clear enough during the last three months or so.

I even wrote in my initial post that it's ALWAYS the guy's fault who gives a fuck about a no, always, no matter what experiences he made with women beforehand. Let's not fool ourselves in the belief, however, that women can't perpetuate patriarchy, too. Yeah, it's their loss, but still, some women do it. And why? Because patriarchy made them believe it's perfectly fine if they do so.

Your example with this short skirt and making out in one's apartment is kinda messed up. Neither do clothes nor making out necessarily mean that the woman wants to get laid. As I said before, nothing, except a yes, is an invitation for sex. However, there is no direct connection "clothes --> sex" as it is with "saying no and meaning yes --> sex".

You know what they say about people who suffered from domestic violence as children? They pass is on to their children. So why for fuck's sake does this not go with women suffering from patriarchy? There are even plenty of women who don't believe that patriarchy exists anymore in the Western culture. The biggest trick that patriarchy pulled was making women believe it didn't exist.

I know what I'm talking about, I used to be kind of an anti-feminist. I divided women in 2 categories and wanted to get recognition by guys. That's how I became responsible of keeping patriarchy alive. Not me alone, of course, but I became a tiny part of this big whole culture, and I kept it running.

Almost nothing you do is totally "personal". As a very well-known German feminist put it "The private is political". Everyone forms society, every time they interact with someone. Let's repeat myself for the third time. Again, it's not the woman's fault when her no is serious yet ignored. But we ALL have our part in this, even if it's something that is bad for us in the long run.

Sorry for this kinda too short and not elaborated and probably grammatically super duper faulty post. I'm tired and fucked up and no native speaker. Take these errors and shove them up your ass (not you, Phoenix).

Same here. Not a native speaker either.

But what is your argument? Because right now I am not reading anything
which indicates any serious argument except: everything you do is political because some German feminist said so and both sexes have responsibilities.

And I seriously disagree with your assessment of that statement which originates back to the 60's and means that women's personal realization of the reality of their situation is as valuable as (direct) action and women should seriously look at power dynamics beyond legislation/government. It does NOT mean that women should adjust their behavior to not antagonize male entitlement mythology.

The problem is that in saying that she perpetuates the system of rape culture. Which you did in OP. Makes her responsible for that rape culture continuing to existing. This is in fact making her behavior the defending party here instead of men's behavior in perpetuating a myth and all that that entails. This is essentially blaming a woman for man's behavior. No matter how you try to cut it.

Even arguing we share the mutual responsibility is playing into a patriarchal mode of thought. No. We do not share the responsibility. Men have the responsibility. Women have the responsibility to no longer accept men's entitlement. They do not have the responsibility to "shelter themselves from it"...and that is which you are basically arguing.

Basically that simply comes down to telling a woman to behave...or not to behave.... in a certain way...as not to play into or play off of some men invented system of "fucked if you do; fucked if you don't." Because that is the reality of patriarchy.

This has nothing to do with your proven position on patriarchy. It has everything to do with falsely analyzing what is actually going on here. Almost everything a woman does will be in some form or another be used to justify an existing myth or perpetuate abuse. Everything. So accusing her that when she says no means yes perpetuates the myth of no means yes is...utter bullshit. Why?

1). This perpetuation doesn't depend on her.
2). This myth has no basis in fact whatsoever regardless of individual behavior
3). Contrary to the overwhelming evidence of the contrary...the myth still exists; will continue to exist...UNLESS we address the myth and it

The fact that you think that wearing a short skirt/provocative clothing doesn't relate to sex is also entirely your opinion and doesn't in anyway shape or form address the fact that the male created myth that is most certainly does mean that exists and that for men in general that myth is as much a reality as the no-means-yes myth. Which kind of proves my point.

Now...you argue that abuse is passed on to the children and argue that this is also the case of patriarchy. While abuse being passed on is a generalization with some strong correlation....I am not disputing the statement you make here nor that this counts for patriarchy. What I am going to indicate is that your argument hinges on your proven views on patriarchy to argue that you do not perpetuate patriarchy in labeling her behavior as wrong because it perpetuates a patriarchal myth. Yet your own argument about patriarchy being passed on kind of argues that you too are able to perpetuate patriarchy because patriarchy is also passed on to you. This may sound horribly complicated...but basically it boils down to this: Just as men are a product of patriarchy...so are women. And just like men who are aware of and opposed to patriarchy still have patriarchal reflexes....so do women.

And blaming an individual woman for perpetuating a myth that exists and operates completely independent of her existence....is judging behavior of a woman and saying she should or shouldn't behave in a certain way. And that is what patriarchy does: telling women what to do and what not to do. "If you behave in a certain way you won't get mistreated, abused or raped. If you don't behave in that way you are free game." You are still defining a woman's behavior off of men's behavior.

The myth is the problem. Not some woman who may or may not substantiate a certain myth by incident. Because every make entitlement myth has some incidents that will back it up. Simply put...all men on this forum know women who dress provocatively to get male attention. So the myth that all women who dress provocatively to get male attention...is just as much founded in female behavior as the no-means-yes myth.



So you can be disappointed. But I strongly disagree with your assessment. This is nothing personal or a personal attack. But I do think your assessment is a form of subconscious victim blaming and I do not think she is responsible for perpetuating a no-means yes myth at all.

[PhoenixAsh]

When a man rapes a woman, it's always the man's fault. Of course, if a woman goes about saying "no" but meaning "yes" in the context of everyday flirting, yeah that reinforces rape culture. It undermines women who actually are trying to MEAN something when they say "no". That's not victim blaming, it's merely acknowledging the consequences of communicating in a particular manner.

Right. Except that you are of course negating everything except words when you address communication and reduce actual human communication to about 20% of the total. Words represent just 20% of communication needed to understand a message....the rest is tone and body language.

And by applying the same logic you are...the reality of the situation is that when a woman uses provocative clothing in order to get sexual male attention she is undermining women who wear provocative clothing because they bloody well feel like it but want to be left alone. Because that is the reality of behaving in a certain way...and thereby perpetuate the myth that women who dress provocatively want sex.

Sorry...but that doesn't fly. The logic is faulty and the culpability is getting twisted.

[Lily Briscoe]

This is your misreading of what Rosa wrote; to repeat, and it's there written clearly, the user argued not about self-objectification, but on tangible effects of this kind of behavior.

I don't think I misread anything, actually. The mention of "self-objectification" was a reference to comments made in one of the spate of other threads on here recently in which there is this same tendency of massively overstating the role of certain behaviors of individual women in "reinforcing" whatever aspect of patriarchy and essentially neglecting structural factors, or - at best - implicitly consigning them to secondary importance. Personally, I think structural factors are determinant, and I think that the over-emphasis on culture and individual behaviors by certain forms of academic and social media-based feminism basically serves to obscure this.

Anyway, with regard to the OP discussing "tangible effects of this kind of behavior"--what tangible effects were discussed? 'Taking part in the "culture of no means yes"' and "mak[ing] life harder for their fellow ladies" were the closest things I could find in the OP to "tangible effects", and I can't say I find either of those things particularly "tangible". Unless there is some alternate definition for the word "tangible" with which I'm unfamiliar? So let's be clear: what are the "tangible effects" of this individual woman's sexual behavior?

I mean, even if we're just dealing with this on the level of "culture", there is a pretty widespread tendency in society to see rape as resulting from women conducting their sex lives in 'irresponsible' ways. And you, among many others in this thread, are arguing what? That the 'irresponsible' sexual conduct of an individual woman contributes in whatever small way to a situation where large numbers of women are raped...?


Reinforcing the acceptance of this bullshit framework "yes=no" cannot be reduced to any silly story about "opting out of patriarchy"; quite the opposite, the argument is not that it is possible to opt out, but that certain behaviors reinforce something.
I don't see how the idea that the sexual conduct of individual women "reinforces" the patriarchy is the opposite of the idea that patriarchy is something individuals can opt out of. They seem to fit together just fine. If a woman can "contribute" to patriarchy by going to a nightclub and flirting in a particular way, then surely by extension she can opt out of contributing by not going to a nightclub and flirting in that way? The conclusion I see from this way of understanding things is that some women, based on things like their sexual behavior, are more responsible for patriarchy than others. And of course, by this logic, women in gender studies departments at universities are less culpable for the oppression of women than the legions of apathetic working class women who go to nightclubs and flirt "irresponsibly" and fuck in ways that some people disapprove of.

At any rate, I had been hoping more to engage with Rosa herself, who is certainly perfectly capable of speaking on her own behalf, but maybe some other time I guess.

[Invader Zim]

I've found a very interesting article/book chapter on this available here:

http://www.ecem2007.psych.uni-potsdam.de/social/projects/files/ambigous-comm-sex-intent.pdf

[Invader Zim]

Right. Except that you are of course negating everything except words when you address communication and reduce actual human communication to about 20% of the total. Words represent just 20% of communication needed to understand a message....the rest is tone and body language.



So the word "no" actually means only 20% of "no", and that both men and women must negotiate the meaning of the verbal 'no' with remaining means of communication (pitch, tone to non-oral bodily communication)? That combined with the fact that regularly both men and women behave in one fashion while actually wanting to behave in an entirely different fashion - i.e giving consent but not really wanting to, and its polar opposite as being discussed in this thread, denying consent but both wanting and intending to engage in sexual activity with the person they are denying?


And by applying the same logic you are...the reality of the situation is that when a woman uses provocative clothing in order to get sexual male attention she is undermining women who wear provocative clothing because they bloody well feel like it but want to be left alone. Because that is the reality of behaving in a certain way...and thereby perpetuate the myth that women who dress provocatively want sex.

Sorry...but that doesn't fly. The logic is faulty and the culpability is getting twisted

It doesn't fly because it is a faulty analogy.

[PhoenixAsh]

So the word "no" actually means only 20% of "no", and that both men and women must negotiate the meaning of the verbal 'no' with remaining means of communication (pitch, tone to non-oral bodily communication)? That combined with the fact that regularly both men and women behave in one fashion while actually wanting to behave in an entirely different fashion - i.e giving consent but not really wanting to, and its polar opposite as being discussed in this thread, denying consent but both wanting and intending to engage in sexual activity with the person they are denying?

Actual words make up 20% of conveying the meaning of person to person communication.

And you accurately pin point here that this also count for yes. A yes equally doesn't always mean yes. And in fact spoken consent isn't always intended consent.




It doesn't fly because it is a faulty analogy.


No actually it is not. In fact it is a perfect analogy. Its myth vs conclusion.

Myth: No means Yes
Reality: Some women mean yes when they say no; Most don't.
Applying the logic of OP: women should not say no when they mean yes because their behavoir reenforces the myth.
Conclusion of logic: problem is women's behavior


Myth: women who dress provocative want sex
Reality: some women who dress provocatively want sex; most don't
Applying the logic in OP: ....women should not dress provocatively because their behavior enforces the existing entitlement myth.
Conclusion of logic: problem is womens behavior.

You can see that the logic is extremely faulty...and scewes reality.

The reason why you think the analogy is faulty is because you want to see the link between behavior and sex and therefore judge the behavior to the relevancy of factual correlation based on reality...however the myth is not dependend on any fact or reality but based on false generalizations made by men. The false generalization by men is actually the problem. Because the whole reason why these myths and rules exist in the male mind is to enable them to do whatever they want regardless of what a women does. It is not that the behavior of women determines the myths or patriarchy at all. Which is a direct consequence of the logic of OP...and many members here.

So saying that a woman has any responsibility for men behaving like sexists or perpetuating the myths men hold to justify their behavior....well...that is extremely silly because it applies that women should stop behaving in any way at all that enforces male stereotypes and myths.

[Dagoth Ur]

I think it's more often that she meant no and then later after it happened anyways she says she meant yes to make it seem like she wasn't raped.

[BIXX]

I think it's more often that she meant no and then later after it happened anyways she says she meant yes to make it seem like she wasn't raped.


Out of curiosity, then why does she get mad when they don't continue to ignore her "no"?

[Dagoth Ur]

Some girls are crazy.

[Rosa Partizan]

Phoenix, I'm getting back to your post later that evening or tomorrow, I got a date again, you know, 'cause I'm the kind of girl that says yes when she means yes :D

[BIXX]

Some girls are crazy.


I really don't think that's an adequate way to explain her different style of flirting under your hypothesis that she is often raped then justifies if with "no means yes".

[Loony Le Fist]

well, this is a difficult topic for me, because recently, I had an online discussion about this and was called out by some person for victim blaming. It all started with a thread on another board (shouldn't open threads on other boards but this one anyway :lol:) where I talked about a friend of mine I sometimes go out with (in a group of friends). She has a "special" kind of flirting. When she says no, she means yes. Yeah, you read it right. She likes to act like she's untouchable, she will be mean to the guys she's interested in, and when it comes to situations like "may I kiss you", "wanna come home with me", she will say no, hoping that the guy keeps going. If he does not so and actually backs off, she's pissed.


Yep. I usually don't ask those types of questions. It just seems weird to me, to ask someone if you can kiss them or have sex with them. In my experience, paying very close attention to the situation is very important. I have never forced myself on someone that says no, or implies it through any type of resistive body language. I do try very hard to get some kind of explicit permission before getting more intimate with someone. I admit that in many cases I have used only implicit permission through body language (e.g. does the person recoil from my physical advance or move into it). When there is doubt, I always assume a no.



I have a massive, massive problem with that. It perpetuates all this "no means yes"-bullshit and makes some guys believe that a no is a yes in disguise. However, I am NOT saying that it's EVER EVER a girl's fault when a guy does not respect her "no". No matter what experiences a guy has with women and how often no meant yes, he has to back off immediately when she says no. Unfortunately, all this fucked up yes means no-(and rape)culture is something that some women take part in. And with this behavior, they make life harder for their fellow ladies.

So, what do you think about that? Am I really blaming the victim?

I don't think you are blaming the victim. I think you are blaming particular individuals that appear to be making things more difficult for the cause of feminism and I agree with you. It does make it difficult to argue the claim that no means no when there are people purposely saying no when playing the catch-me-if-you-can game.

However, it also depends on how serious she is coming off. I think there is a bit of a difference between someone just playing hard-to-get and actually being resistant. I think it's best to note someone's body language when they communicate. Often times it will indicate whether the counterparty has a legitimate problem with moving things forward.

[Invader Zim]

No actually it is not. In fact it is a perfect analogy. Its myth vs conclusion.

Myth: No means Yes
Reality: Some women mean yes when they say no; Most don't.
Applying the logic of OP: women should not say no when they mean yes because their behavoir reenforces the myth.
Conclusion of logic: problem is women's behavior


Myth: women who dress provocative want sex
Reality: some women who dress provocatively want sex; most don't
Applying the logic in OP: ....women should not dress provocatively because their behavior enforces the existing entitlement myth.
Conclusion of logic: problem is womens behavior.

You can see that the logic is extremely faulty...and scewes reality.


Except, of course, that your assumption, in stating that 'no means yes' is a myth is, in some, cases untrue. As noted, surveys have shown that as many as 40% of college age hetrosexual women have said 'no' but actually only as token resistence when they actually wanted and intended to sleep with somone. Meanwhile, how a person dresses has absolutely no necessary baring on whether they want to sleep a person. Indeed the entire point is ludicrous. If a women, or man for that matter, dresses in a sexually provocative fashion and goes to a bar or club that is no basis to assume that she or he necessarily wants to have sex or nor that they necessarily want to have sex with any given man / woman. And even if they do, there is no guarantee that once they have reached the point that sex is on the cards that they won't, for any variety of reasons, not change their mind. Moreover, a person who assumes that much, acts on that belief, and then rapes a person necessarily has to ignore actual communication of views on the subject from their victim.

[PhoenixAsh]

Except, of course, that your assumption, in stating that 'no means yes' is a myth is, in some, cases untrue. As noted, surveys have shown that as many as 40% of college age hetrosexual women have said 'no' but actually only as token resistence when they actually want and intend to sleep with somone. Meanwhile, how a person dresses has absolutely baring on whether they want to sleep a person. Indeed the entire point is ludicrous. If a women, or man for that matter, dresses in a sexually provocative fashion and goes to a bar or club that is no basis to assume that she or he necessarily wants to have sex or nor that they necessarily want to have sex with any given man / woman.

Actually this is quite untrue as there is equal research in why women dress provocatively and the majoity of women who dress provocatively when they go out do so to attract sexual attention from their prefered sex (depending on the scene and sexual perference this could either be men or women or both) in order to find somebody to have sex with. So your non existent link between clothing and sex actually is just as much truth as no-means-yes. (by the way...the same goes for men)

However...if you read carefully what I said and how I explained myth is that men generalize as a rule an individual experience. The myth being the ceation of a generally applicable rule.

So:

Women who dress provocatively want sex. Is based in reality because some women actually dress provocatively because they want sex.

Women who say no mean yes. Is based in reality because some women say no when they actually mean yes.

Women who are shy just want a strong and decisive man and want to be dominated. Is based in reality because some women are so inclined.

The myth is that these incidents are used to create a general applicable rule:

ALL women who say no mean yes.
ALL women who dress provocatively want sex
ALL women who are shy just want to be dominated

etc. etc.

There are dozens of these rules. No matter what a woman does...her behavior is made leading and twisted to the advantage of a man. This is part of the behavior regulating mechanics of Patriarchy. So whatever the behavior of a woman is...there exists a general "rule" wich is enforced by her behavior.

So in telling a woman she should not behave in a cetain way because it perpetuates patriarchy or rape culture or whatever sexist opinion men hold...is in fact victim blaming. Women...no matter their behavior are ALWAYS the victim of these generalized rules (myths) saying women perpetuate patriarchy because they behave in a certain way is in fact enfocing patriarchy which entire purpose it is to regulate womens behavior.

[consuming negativity]

I don't entirely agree with Phoenix, but s/he raises a good point in that saying that her behavior reinforces patriarchal bullshit is sorta putting the cart before the horse. What I mean is, I think her behavior is a result of her socialization and is more indicative of a problem in society than any contribution towards one. Of course it is stereotypical and all, but would we point out to an Asian woman that her bad driving is hurting other Asian women? She can be a bad driver, as annoying as bad drivers are, without being criticized for the reactions of racist persons around her. I don't think you're blaming the victim, Rosa and others, but as much as it kind of upsets me to read about, she can do what she wants and that's her business. Not that I'm saying any of you would disagree. I just don't think it's being fair to her to (do what I consider) over-contextualizing her preference.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't entirely agree with Phoenix, but s/he raises a good point in that saying that her behavior reinforces patriarchal bullshit is sorta putting the cart before the horse. What I mean is, I think her behavior is a result of her socialization and is more indicative of a problem in society than any contribution towards one.
Yeah, I'm not so sure about my views expressed previously, and am leaning more towards this kind of a position.

Anyway, I think both accusations - that Rosa was engaging in victim blaming and that her view here reinforces patriarchy (Phoenix's view) - are not sustainable really.

[Loony Le Fist]

...
So in telling a woman she should not behave in a cetain way because it perpetuates patriarchy or rape culture or whatever sexist opinion men hold...is in fact victim blaming. Women...no matter their behavior are ALWAYS the victim of these generalized rules (myths) saying women perpetuate patriarchy because they behave in a certain way is in fact enfocing patriarchy which entire purpose it is to regulate womens behavior.

I don't know if I got this from Rosa's post. What I got is that everyone should try to be a little more straightforward and earnest to avoid ambiguity. It seems to me this would be very helpful for the cause of feminism. I just don't see anything wrong with desiring more candor out of the individuals we interact with. Could you shed some light on how this might be enforcing patriarchy?

[Comrade Jacob]

When women say no but mean yes then guess what?: No sex for them!
Don't go ahead anyway because you can never be sure.

[Invader Zim]

So in telling a woman she should not behave in a cetain way because it perpetuates patriarchy or rape culture or whatever sexist opinion men hold...is in fact victim blaming.

Except of course, nobody here is telling women anything. They are commenting on an observable phenomenon - that for various reasons people deliberately miscommunicate their actual intentions. In fact people have explicity stated that rape is exclusively the fault of the rapist.

And, while we are on the subject of provocative dress - it really is a myth. Dress has no real, at least discernable, impact on how rapists target victims.Tthe fact is that there is no evidence that dressing provocatively increases the chanse a person is raped, given that there is significant evidence that rape is, in fact, about power. I.e. Rapists target people they believe they can dominate, therefore, a rapist is overwhelmingly (around 90%-95% of victims (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf)) more likely to assault a person who they already know. In other words, they select victims based on whether they think they can dominate them, and ultimately, get away with it. Furthermore, provocative cloathing may actually put rapists off because they want passive victims:

"If, as studies of rapists suggest, harassers look for more passive or submissive women, women who are provocatively dressed may appear more confident and are therefore less likely to be considered appropriate targets by potential harassers."

scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=djglp#B139

The myth that women are more in danger of being raped if they dress provocatively is a myth not merely because dress =/= desire for sex, but because rapists do not select based on dress - or if they do it is both rare and a very minor factor on their criterion of victim selection. What studies have shown, on this topic, is that rapists use socially constructed notions regarding what defines a 'slut', i.e. how a woman behaves / dresses, as what they believe provides a defence or viable mittigating factor to explain what they did. I.e. they are misogynists who construct misogynistic defences for their actions.

https://www.d.umn.edu/~bmork/2306/readings/scullyandmarollis.htm

That is why the 'if you dress like a slut its your own fault if you get raped' narrative is a load of crap, not only does it misplace blame, but it is nonsensical drivel unsupported by evidence.And the fact is that not even rapists believe it, but they do, after the fact, use it to try and whitewash what they have done.

[PhoenixAsh]

Anyway, I think both accusations - that Rosa was engaging in victim blaming and that her view here reinforces patriarchy (Phoenix's view) - are not sustainable really.

I think a nuance is in order that it is not an accusation so much as I am not arguing intent or culpability. Just that the arguments come down to this.

One is the logic behind the argument is that the women are responsible for enforcing patriarchy in how they behave...which is problematic and akin to saying that patriarchy is an opt out system if only you only change individual behavior and basically is saying that women are treated badly because other women behave in some way that enforces men to think a certain way.

Two that this is the exact same behavior modification mechanic as patriarchy enforces on women: if you do not behave in a certain way you call it upon yourself.

I think this is very sustainable and I am curious to why you think it is not the case.

[synthesis]

Isn't saying that women who "say no when they mean yes" are reinforcing patriarchal ideology kind of like saying that, I don't know, black people who use drugs reinforce systemic racism and the institution of prison labor? Those institutions and structures will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the individuals who suffer oppression engage in behavior that reactionaries use to justify that oppression. It seems really wrong to justify one's personal criticism of such behavior by telling someone they are complicit in that oppression. It's not "victim-blaming," per se, but it strikes me as blaming a person in a certain group for the victimization of other people in that group.

[PhoenixAsh]

Except of course, nobody here is telling women anything. They are commenting on an observable phenomenon - that for various reasons people deliberately miscommunicate their actual intentions. In fact people have explicity stated that rape is exclusively the fault of the rapist.t

Except of course that OP specifically stated that the behavior was wrong (massive problems...to be exact) because it enforced patriarchy/rape cultural.

To remind you:


It perpetuates all this "no means yes"-bullshit

Unfortunately, all this fucked up yes means no-(and rape)culture is something that some women take part in.

And with this behavior, they make life harder for their fellow ladies.

And other members perpetuated this:


Women can be just as susceptible to this rape culture patriarchy bullshit as men. Women play their part.

etc.



And, while we are on the subject of provocative dress - it really is a myth. Dress has no real, at least discernable, impact on how rapists target victims.

And neither is no-means-yes a discernible impact on how rapists target victims.

It is however both an argument post fact often given. Well....she dressed provocatively. Or well...she said no....but...

We are not talking about rape as the inevitable outcome and this is not the argument I have been making. We are talking about rape culture. Which is far more than just the act of rape.

Equally the dress thing is not merely a myth with no basis in fact. That is the whole problem. Both no-means-yes and provocative-clothes-mean-sex are substantiated by individual instances where they are true. They both are however created into general rules...which is clearly not true.

Some women dress provocatively to attract sexual partners....and not ALL women. Some women say no when they mean yes...and not ALL women.

Arguing that the women who do dress provocatively for sex or women who do say no when they mean yes....are responsible for perpetuating these clear falsifications of reality (ie: most women do not)...well....that is extremely problematic and in fact saying "well...if only she behaved differently...men wouldn't think that" :-/


Tthe fact is that there is no evidence that dressing provocatively increases the chanse a person is raped, given that there is significant evidence that rape is, in fact, about power. I.e. Rapists target people they believe they can dominate, therefore, a rapist is overwhelmingly (around 90%-95% of victims (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf)) more likely to assault a person who they already know. In other words, they select victims based on whether they think they can dominate them, and ultimately, get away with it. Furthermore, provocative cloathing may actually put rapists off because they want passive victims:

Yes....and since I am not arguing a correlation between rape and dress....what is your point by saying this?



"If, as studies of rapists suggest, harassers look for more passive or submissive women, women who are provocatively dressed may appear more confident and are therefore less likely to be considered appropriate targets by potential harassers."

scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=djglp#B139

Well...ironically there is a myth here too: "don't want to get raped....act more confident."



The myth that women are more in danger of being raped if they dress provocatively is a myth not merely because dress =/= desire for sex, but because rapists do not select based on dress - or if they do it is both rare and a very minor factor on their criterion of victim selection. What studies have shown, on this topic, is that rapists use socially constructed notions regarding what defines a 'slut', i.e. how a woman behaves / dresses, as what they believe provides a defence or viable mittigating factor to explain what they did. I.e. they are misogynists who construct misogynistic defences for their action

https://www.d.umn.edu/~bmork/2306/readings/scullyandmarollis.htm

That is why the 'if you dress like a slut its your own fault if you get raped' narrative is a load of crap, not only does it misplace blame, but it is nonsensical drivel unsupported by evidence.And the fact is that not even rapists believe it, but they do, after the fact, use it to try and whitewash what they have done.

Except....you are still arguing the correlation between dress and rape....which completely and utterly missed the entire point of my argument.

Ironically...you did however hit the nail on the head and actually used my entire argument in order to disprove my claim by providing the evidence of what I have been arguing:

i.e. how a woman behaves / dresses, as what they believe provides a defence or viable mittigating factor to explain what they did. I.e. they are misogynists who construct misogynistic defences for their action


That is what I am arguing. Constructing an argument which claims...like OP does...that a women's behavior enforces a patriarchical myth which is used as a way to avoid culpability, responsibility and any form of absolution of their actions....is victim blaming.

There you go.

[Quail]

I think that sometimes people do say "no" and mean "yes" but it really depends on the context, and obviously if anyone is ever unsure of what is meant by "no" then they should take it at face value. It's better to not have sex than risk assaulting someone.

A lot of the intention behind the "no" will come across in the body language, the tone of voice, etc. There is an obvious difference between a teasing "no" and a firm fuck off "no", and I would hope that that would be clear to most men. If not, then they should refer to the above - if in doubt, don't do it. If they do it anyway, that's 100% their fault.

So flirting in a teasing kind of way doesn't, or shouldn't, perpetuate rape culture by promoting the idea that "no" always secretly means "yes" because there are social cues that accompany a "no" which should be taken into account, and if you don't think you can recognise such social cues you should play it safe.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

If he does not so and actually backs off, she's pissed.

^ There is what is fucked about what the person is doing all summed up right there.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Right. Except that you are of course negating everything except words when you address communication and reduce actual human communication to about 20% of the total. Words represent just 20% of communication needed to understand a message....the rest is tone and body language.




The problem is that perception of tone and body language are used as justification by rapists all the time. "She was saying no but her eyes were saying yes". That 80% leaves a lot for someone to interpret freely in accordance with their own interests and desires..


And by applying the same logic you are...the reality of the situation is that when a woman uses provocative clothing in order to get sexual male attention she is undermining women who wear provocative clothing because they bloody well feel like it but want to be left alone. Because that is the reality of behaving in a certain way...and thereby perpetuate the myth that women who dress provocatively want sex. It's a faulty analogy. Wearing sexy clothes is liable to excite men and get attention, and if one wears sexy clothes but ultimately chooses not to have sex they still have the option of saying "no". Yet if a woman says "no" and a man keeps going she has no more options outside of the possibility of self defense or escape.

I'm not taking a moral stance I'm just pointing out the political consequences of certain kinds of communication.

[Loony Le Fist]

^ There is what is fucked about what the person is doing all summed up right there.

It's their loss anyway. After all, isn't it better to be in a relationship where the communication is as honest and clear as possible?

[Quail]

The problem is that perception of tone and body language are used as justification by rapists all the time. "She was saying no but her eyes were saying yes". That 80% leaves a lot for someone to interpret freely in accordance with their own interests and desires..


I get your point.

Though I think the emphasis should be on "men should make 100% sure that they have consent" rather than "women should only flirt with men in a certain way or else they risk being assaulted." If someone tries to use body language as a defence for sexual assault then clearly they are either lying (to everyone else or themselves) or they ignored the rule "if in doubt, don't do it." Even if someone's body language suggests they're being flirtatious rather than telling you to fuck off, it's a matter of basic respect not to just assume the former - and that's really just going back to the "men should be really sure they have consent before they do anything" thing.

[consuming negativity]

Unless someone has an autism spectrum disorder or something else that would make them unable to properly read social cues and all, it's really fucking obvious when people aren't into something/are reluctant to do something/"just aren't into you, man". Maybe I'm just making assumptions about other people that aren't true but it's just really hard for me to believe there is any significant amount of men who really can't tell when they're pressuring/intimidating/coercing someone who is unsure or hesitant, unless they're so drunk they probably can't get it up anyway.

[PhoenixAsh]

Unless someone has an autism spectrum disorder or something else that would make them unable to properly read social cues and all, it's really fucking obvious when people aren't into something/are reluctant to do something/"just aren't into you, man". Maybe I'm just making assumptions about other people that aren't true but it's just really hard for me to believe there is any significant amount of men who really can't tell when they're pressuring/intimidating/coercing someone who is unsure or hesitant, unless they're so drunk they probably can't get it up anyway.

Exactly. The problem isn't that women are ambiguous the problem is that men do not care. . That is the whole thing with entitlement.

Stating that women shouldn't behave ambiguous because they enforce patriarchy/rape culture is turning the world upside down and putting responsibility on women's behavior. Which...ironically...is exactly what patriarchy does.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Though I think the emphasis should be on "men should make 100% sure that they have consent" rather than "women should only flirt with men in a certain way or else they risk being assaulted."

That's not so much what I'm saying though - the problem is not that the woman flirting in the "wrong way" risks getting assaulted, it's that the norms regarding consent and the use of the word "no" are weakened.

I agree in a moral sense the onus is on the one who hears "no" not the one who says "no" but I'm not talking about moral responsibility so much as the political consequence over certain kinds of use of language.


If someone tries to use body language as a defence for sexual assault then clearly they are either lying (to everyone else or themselves) or they ignored the rule "if in doubt, don't do it." Even if someone's body language suggests they're being flirtatious rather than telling you to fuck off, it's a matter of basic respect not to just assume the former - and that's really just going back to the "men should be really sure they have consent before they do anything" thing.

I totally agree. I just think that the presence of men who do that is a manifestation of a culture of rape, and saying "no" when you mean "yes" reinforces that rape culture. The ambiguity of consent in our culture is one of the problems which leads to people (a) justifying their rapes and (b) excusing the rapes of others. In that sense, I agree with the thesis that the "personal is political".

[PhoenixAsh]

The problem is that perception of tone and body language are used as justification by rapists all the time. "She was saying no but her eyes were saying yes". That 80% leaves a lot for someone to interpret freely in accordance with their own interests and desires..

Yes. That is exactly what I have been arguing. So...I am not sure why you are repeating this to me.


It's a faulty analogy. Wearing sexy clothes is liable to excite men and get attention, and if one wears sexy clothes but ultimately chooses not to have sex they still have the option of saying "no". Yet if a woman says "no" and a man keeps going she has no more options outside of the possibility of self defense or escape.

Yes. Again. Not sure why you are saying this to me.


I'm not taking a moral stance I'm just pointing out the political consequences of certain kinds of communication.

No....actually you are not. You are pointing out the inherent flaw in the logic which arrives at these supposed "political" consequences.

Basically the argument presented in this thread is blaming the women's behavior for patriarchy. Not patriarchy for simply creating mythology and "rules" which perpetuate male entitlement. In other words...patriarchy is male entitlement...and the system excuses male behavior by blaming women for making men behave a certain way in order to regulate their behavior.

That is independent from female (collective or individual) behavior....hence why patriarchy targets ALL women...not just women who behave in a certain way.

You can argue: "o but women do not dress to get sex". Or whatever. In order to prove some false analogy because it "isn't the same". But that is missing the entire point of the analogy. The analogy is: blaming women's behavior for perpetuating sexism is incredibly stupid and a complete failure to understand the nature of the system....because it is based on a false representation of reality. That false representation of reality is the analogy. Not whether or not saying no when meaning yes is like dressing provocatively....the analogy is the male created myth out of it.

Patriarchy is a male driven system of domination. NOT a women driven system of domination.

Reversing this is like blaming slaves for slavery. Minorities for racism.

And blaming an individual women for perpetuating patriarchy...is like saying to a natural disasters victim: well you could have moved.

[PhoenixAsh]

That's not so much what I'm saying though - the problem is not that the woman flirting in the "wrong way" risks getting assaulted, it's that the norms regarding consent and the use of the word "no" are weakened.

I agree in a moral sense the onus is on the one who hears "no" not the one who says "no" but I'm not talking about moral responsibility so much as the political consequence over certain kinds of use of language.

I totally agree. I just think that the presence of men who do that is a manifestation of a culture of rape, and saying "no" when you mean "yes" reinforces that rape culture. The ambiguity of consent in our culture is one of the problems which leads to people (a) justifying their rapes and (b) excusing the rapes of others. In that sense, I agree with the thesis that the "personal is political".

Except that is victim blaming. And saying that a person should be more clear is blaming a victim by proxy.

The norms by the way....are made by patriarchy.

The norms about consent are a huge simplification...and part of a very large problem. The idea that No means No perpetuates a culture where Yes means Yes....and we only need verbal consent or, worse, the absence of a verbal rejection.

This absolves us from any form of responsibility from context.

Communication is NOT just words. And the concept of No means No assumes that it does and supposes that when you do not hear a no....it is ok to go ahead. Unfortunately...just as much as not every no is a no....not every yes is a yes.....and not every absence of either is a no or a yes.

So rather than teaching "easy to use simplified rules" like "NO means NO". We need to teach people what consent is: If you do not have explicit consent then this is a NO.


To illustrate the problem with the logic of verbal only communication: How can a mute person communicate a no? Or somebody who is unable to speak...like unconscious, under influence or narcosis etc.?

"No means no" as a principle simplification rule....is a huge problem.

[Quail]

That's not so much what I'm saying though - the problem is not that the woman flirting in the "wrong way" risks getting assaulted, it's that the norms regarding consent and the use of the word "no" are weakened.

I kind of feel as though you're looking at the issue the wrong way round. Instead of suggesting that women modify their behaviour, then doesn't it make more sense to suggest that we try to change how society as a whole views the nature of consent?

I'm actually struggling to think of an example of a situation where a "no" would be ambiguous. I think there is such an obvious difference between teasing someone and actually genuinely telling them "no" that it would be very difficult to misinterpret. I don't really think it is about misinterpretation either, but rather the way that many men feel entitled to women's bodies. That's because men are taught to feel that way by the environment that they grow up in.


I totally agree. I just think that the presence of men who do that is a manifestation of a culture of rape, and saying "no" when you mean "yes" reinforces that rape culture. The ambiguity of consent in our culture is one of the problems which leads to people (a) justifying their rapes and (b) excusing the rapes of others. In that sense, I agree with the thesis that the "personal is political".
I don't really know how the woman Rosa knows, who started this whole debate, is going about her flirting. I think it's kind of fucked up to give someone a vehement "no" when you want them to continue pursuing you, and really it doesn't make sense to me. So if that's what she's doing, then it's fucked up of her to expect men to keep pursuing her and that could reinforce to the guys around her that "no" secretly means "yes". Plus she must be ending up with an awful lot of creeps who don't know the meaning of "no". But if all she's doing is teasing then I don't see the problem.

[Rosa Partizan]

sorry that I'm in a hurry again, been really busy these days, Phoenix you'll get your answer tomorrow at the latest. So some of you really think I'm like "ummm it's the women's fault". Well, interesting. Really, really interesting.

[synthesis]

sorry that I'm in a hurry again, been really busy these days, Phoenix you'll get your answer tomorrow at the latest. So some of you really think I'm like "ummm it's the women's fault". Well, interesting. Really, really interesting.

I don't think that's the point as much as the way in which it's problematic when the "responsibility" for even the smallest fraction of some facet of oppression is attributed to the group being oppressed.* It's just a backward way of viewing the issue.

The problem, obviously, is with the mindset and behavior of men, not the individual behavior of women which men use to justify their own behavior, and presenting the issue otherwise really comes across as a bad case of leftist morality policing.

*Referring to the idea that "saying no and meaning yes perpetuates rape culture/patriarchal ideology/whatever."

[Sea]

99.999% of the time (wow, that's 5 nines!) when a woman says "no" and means "yes" there's a man involved in some way who, as a consequence of his penis being stuck in his ear, is too much of a chauvinist pig to take "no" for its worth.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Except that is victim blaming. And saying that a person should be more clear is blaming a victim by proxy.


I disagree that it is victim blaming - I certainly don't think that any woman who says "no" and is sexually assaulted should ever be blamed in a moral sense for what happened. As for whether or not we are blaming the victim by "proxy" - that's not the case either. There's no sense in which I am saying a rapist has anyone to blame for their actions but their own. It's not about "laying blame" it's about looking at the political consequences of certain forms of communication and the social expectations behind this communication.



The norms by the way....are made by patriarchy.
Of course, but like the oppression of workers, racist oppression and all other forms of oppression, we can look at how individuals from the oppressed classes adopt the norms of oppression and identify the political consequences of this. Opposing slavery doesn't mean one should be uncritical of the political consequences of the position taken by Uncle Tom, don't you think? And we can do that while showing how the institution of slavery itself and the actions of white slaveowners reinforces, rewards or endorses such behavior and without being moralistically critical of slaves who support slavery due to the pressures of these institutions.



The norms about consent are a huge simplification...and part of a very large problem. The idea that No means No perpetuates a culture where Yes means Yes....and we only need verbal consent or, worse, the absence of a verbal rejection.

This absolves us from any form of responsibility from context.

Communication is NOT just words. And the concept of No means No assumes that it does and supposes that when you do not hear a no....it is ok to go ahead. Unfortunately...just as much as not every no is a no....not every yes is a yes.....and not every absence of either is a no or a yes.

So rather than teaching "easy to use simplified rules" like "NO means NO". We need to teach people what consent is: If you do not have explicit consent then this is a NO.


To illustrate the problem with the logic of verbal only communication: How can a mute person communicate a no? Or somebody who is unable to speak...like unconscious, under influence or narcosis etc.?

"No means no" as a principle simplification rule....is a huge problem.Well I would agree with the idea that "yes" or the lack of "no" does not always indicate consent. I think that's another issue though (albeit a related one), although I agree that it is important to express the idea that consent includes more than just saying "yes" to a sexual advance. We can say "no" should always mean "no" without saying "yes" should always mean "yes".

I can assure you that I would be totally supportive of criticizing the view that "yes" always means "yes" even if I am critical of the idea that "no" might sometimes mean "yes". And I agree 100% that looking at the context of any agreement for sexual intercourse is critical - obviously a secretary saying "yes" to her boss is categorically different from a woman saying "yes" to a man she is attracted to at a bar because of the power relations involved.


I kind of feel as though you're looking at the issue the wrong way round. Instead of suggesting that women modify their behaviour, then doesn't it make more sense to suggest that we try to change how society as a whole views the nature of consent?


I don't think it's a zero sum game. I think we can look at how we can change our society and look at the behavior of people which may reinforce patriarchal norms. And I think we can do it without moralistically blaming women. It's not about moral blame, it's about how we can act such that we do not contribute to or reinforce harmful norms, and I think men and women alike have agency when it comes to that. We can understand the political implications of particular behaviors without laying moral blame, don't you think?



I'm actually struggling to think of an example of a situation where a "no" would be ambiguous. I think there is such an obvious difference between teasing someone and actually genuinely telling them "no" that it would be very difficult to misinterpret. I don't really think it is about misinterpretation either, but rather the way that many men feel entitled to women's bodies. That's because men are taught to feel that way by the environment that they grow up in.
Nothing I disagree with here, except for the fact that it does seem that many people (particularly men) view the use of the word "no" ambiguously, even if it should not be that way. I think we can be critical of behavior which reinforces that misperception without laying blame on anyone but the actual rapist.


I don't really know how the woman Rosa knows, who started this whole debate, is going about her flirting. I think it's kind of fucked up to give someone a vehement "no" when you want them to continue pursuing you, and really it doesn't make sense to me. So if that's what she's doing, then it's fucked up of her to expect men to keep pursuing her and that could reinforce to the guys around her that "no" secretly means "yes". Plus she must be ending up with an awful lot of creeps who don't know the meaning of "no". But if all she's doing is teasing then I don't see the problem.Playing hard to get is one thing, but the situation Rosa described seems quite different from just playing hard to get since there's the expectation that men would view "no" as "yes".

[Rosa Partizan]

let me just quickly rush in for something, not gonna post much, I'm exhausted by a punk show. I do NOT think that anyone can be perfectly feminist, not even the people that totally got behind all this patriarchy stuff, that have reflected themselves and their behavior. So I'm not blaming any woman that doesn't behave thoroughly "feminist" (whatever range of behavior this may include). I just happened to talk to that girl the thread was about, her reasons and stuff. And she was all like what I had expected, namely "no one likes a girl that is easy to get, guys wanna conquer women, not just having them ready in front of them, even if they know that she wants to". So, yeah, on the one hand I was like, let me smash your face against something really massive and hard, on the other hand I was like, 5-6 years ago I could've sounded the same. Could she act differently? Yeah she could. Do I blame her? No. Why don't I blame her? Because she learned it that way all her life, in a society that often enough compares women with cars, you know this "no one wants a car with 10000 miles on it"-bullshit.

SCM said some good stuff, some of it similar to what I already mentioned. Guilt is something different than responsibility. No woman has any guilt for being assaulted, molested, raped, whatever she has done or said beforehand. Goddamn I feel stupid for writing this 1000 times, I kinda feel pressured into repeating it all the time, so that no one pisses me off with "you blame women"-fucked up bloody bullshit. But we all have the responsibility to take part in making the world somehow better. Making the world better means i.e. abolishing patriarchy. We can all contribute a little tiny part to that. Let me say again, no one has to be perfect. But let's try to come closest to the person we want to be. And I want to be someone that signalizes that a no is always a no, unless specified differently beforehand. I don't wanna play games, I want equality when it comes to flirting, I don't want someone to have to conquer me, to put me on a pedestal as long as I'm resistant...you know what all of this leads to? To: guys who score a lot are great, women who do the same are bad. Let's not buy into all this by perpetuating the behavior that so many guys expect us to show. And let's differentiate "fault" and "responsibilty" in this discussion, please.

My English is so bad when I'm moody and messy that I really don't deserve a Masters degree in American Studies. Well, you see, in Germany, even I get a degree :laugh:

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I agree with you, Rosa. Yes, of course it's a conditioned response to a patriarchal society. Hardly anybody could deny that, I think. But it's just simple. No always means no. There should be nothing more read into that.

Of course it's her right to flirt however she wants. But any respectable male should back the fuck off the minute she says the word no. Even if she seems flirty in the way she says it. It's just asinine to be ambiguous with that word, and it's disturbing to me that she still end up getting laid so much because that means that guys aren't taking the word "no" very seriously, even if she is using it as a bizarre way of flirtation.

[Rosa Partizan]

I agree with you, Rosa. Yes, of course it's a conditioned response to a patriarchal society. Hardly anybody could deny that, I think. But it's just simple. No always means no. There should be nothing more read into that.

Of course it's her right to flirt however she wants. But any respectable male should back the fuck off the minute she says the word no. Even if she seems flirty in the way she says it. It's just asinine to be ambiguous with that word, and it's disturbing to me that she still end up getting laid so much because that means that guys aren't taking the word "no" very seriously, even if she is using it as a bizarre way of flirtation.

yeah that's kinda the most disturbing about it. She pulls that strategy off because IT FUCKIN WORKS. She wouldn't do it if most of the guys actually backed off when she says no. To many guys, a no is rather like "convince me" or "maybe" or "if I have 1 or 2 drinks more, I might change my mind".

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

As a guy, I can safely say I always took "no" for an answer and left it at that, and if it cost me only having sex when I was a little older than my friends (male and female), I'm a better person for it.

[PhoenixAsh]

I disagree that it is victim blaming - I certainly don't think that any woman who says "no" and is sexually assaulted should ever be blamed in a moral sense for what happened. As for whether or not we are blaming the victim by "proxy" - that's not the case either. There's no sense in which I am saying a rapist has anyone to blame for their actions but their own. It's not about "laying blame" it's about looking at the political consequences of certain forms of communication and the social expectations behind this communication.

There are no consequences of certain forms of communication. This is like saying there are consequences to dressing in a certain way. Or consequences of walking alone into a dark alley.

There are men. These men feel entitled. They will take any opportunity and create any reality in which they can continue to be entitled. That is the only political reality. The consequence is that women will be blamed for their behavior or can't behave in a certain way because of that or need to be careful about their behavior.

That is the by proxy part.

The expectations are not created by the behavior. The expectations are already there: the expectation that any women, at any time is a target for a man without fear of consequences. It really doesn't matter how she behaves.



Of course, but like the oppression of workers, racist oppression and all other forms of oppression, we can look at how individuals from the oppressed classes adopt the norms of oppression and identify the political consequences of this. Sure. But that is not the case here.



Opposing slavery doesn't mean one should be uncritical of the political consequences of the position taken by Uncle Tom, don't you think? And we can do that while showing how the institution of slavery itself and the actions of white slaveowners reinforces, rewards or endorses such behavior and without being moralistically critical of slaves who support slavery due to the pressures of these institutions.

Actualy saying no and meaning yes is an entirely different attitude than what is designated by an unlce tom since she isn't participating in the oppression of her own sex by doing that.


Well I would agree with the idea that "yes" or the lack of "no" does not always indicate consent. I think that's another issue though (albeit a related one), although I agree that it is important to express the idea that consent includes more than just saying "yes" to a sexual advance. We can say "no" should always mean "no" without saying "yes" should always mean "yes".

And the logical fallacy in this thread is that individual women are responsible for that.


I can assure you that I would be totally supportive of criticizing the view that "yes" always means "yes" even if I am critical of the idea that "no" might sometimes mean "yes". And I agree 100% that looking at the context of any agreement for sexual intercourse is critical - obviously a secretary saying "yes" to her boss is categorically different from a woman saying "yes" to a man she is attracted to at a bar because of the power relations involved.

We agree on this


I don't think it's a zero sum game. I think we can look at how we can change our society and look at the behavior of people which may reinforce patriarchal norms. And I think we can do it without moralistically blaming women. It's not about moral blame, it's about how we can act such that we do not contribute to or reinforce harmful norms, and I think men and women alike have agency when it comes to that. We can understand the political implications of particular behaviors without laying moral blame, don't you think?

Actually I completely disagree with you on this because the logical conclusion is that patriarchy is behavior depended and it isn't. It is systemic. And saying no when meaning yes is not enforcing anything.

The rule and myth about no means yes are completely independent from any reality on an individual level.

Patriarchy consists of a whole range of rules to regulate women's behavior. These rules...all of them...are incidentally enforced by individual women. For a woman to be mindful of these rules...is exactly the aim of patriarchy: regulating how women behave.

However...women's behavior is not the issue. Women...like men...should be able to behave how they want and what feels right for them. This is obstructed by men. Regardless of how women act and behave. If one rule stops being effective...a new one is created. So women always need to be mindful of their behavior because of men simply to survive. Concluding that a woman should then change her behavior because she may inadvertently trigger some patriarchal bullshit rule...well...lets just say this perpetuates the
cycle.

Patriarchy predates any type of behavior of contemporary women and it is safe to assume, given history and the role of women in society, that men were regulating women's behavior long before women even had the chance to date or go out by making up rules.



Nothing I disagree with here, except for the fact that it does seem that many people (particularly men) view the use of the word "no" ambiguously, even if it should not be that way. I think we can be critical of behavior which reinforces that misperception without laying blame on anyone but the actual rapist.

Playing hard to get is one thing, but the situation Rosa described seems quite different from just playing hard to get since there's the expectation that men would view "no" as "yes".

I think she has the expectation that men read her body language and the context of her behavior.

I met one of my girlfriends at a birthday party because we were instantly arguing and fighting for domination. And we said some horrible shit to each other....we were just play fighting. But to people it seemed we couldn't get along at all and hated each other. The reality was we were both instantly attracted to each other and were thoroughly into our little flirting game and because we read each others body language we knew this. The consequence was that everybody thought we were really fighting so we ended up not getting invited to parties together again...unfortunately before we could exchange phone numbers. Only six months later when my best fried married her sister and I was best man and she was arranging the wedding did we finally get each others numbers. We ended up dating for nearly a year in one of the most equal and most stable relationships I ever had. We broke up because we turned out to have different life goals and expectations and have remained best friends ever since.

This is not the exact same as saying no when meaning yes. But it is a perfect example of serious ambiguity in communication which works for two people.

So unless we get a very detailed account...I am going to assume that we miss information on contextual body language.

[PhoenixAsh]

let me just quickly rush in for something, not gonna post much, I'm exhausted by a punk show. I do NOT think that anyone can be perfectly feminist, not even the people that totally got behind all this patriarchy stuff, that have reflected themselves and their behavior. So I'm not blaming any woman that doesn't behave thoroughly "feminist" (whatever range of behavior this may include). I just happened to talk to that girl the thread was about, her reasons and stuff. And she was all like what I had expected, namely "no one likes a girl that is easy to get, guys wanna conquer women, not just having them ready in front of them, even if they know that she wants to". So, yeah, on the one hand I was like, let me smash your face against something really massive and hard, on the other hand I was like, 5-6 years ago I could've sounded the same. Could she act differently? Yeah she could. Do I blame her? No. Why don't I blame her? Because she learned it that way all her life, in a society that often enough compares women with cars, you know this "no one wants a car with 10000 miles on it"-bullshit.

SCM said some good stuff, some of it similar to what I already mentioned. Guilt is something different than responsibility. No woman has any guilt for being assaulted, molested, raped, whatever she has done or said beforehand. Goddamn I feel stupid for writing this 1000 times, I kinda feel pressured into repeating it all the time, so that no one pisses me off with "you blame women"-fucked up bloody bullshit. But we all have the responsibility to take part in making the world somehow better. Making the world better means i.e. abolishing patriarchy. We can all contribute a little tiny part to that. Let me say again, no one has to be perfect. But let's try to come closest to the person we want to be. And I want to be someone that signalizes that a no is always a no, unless specified differently beforehand. I don't wanna play games, I want equality when it comes to flirting, I don't want someone to have to conquer me, to put me on a pedestal as long as I'm resistant...you know what all of this leads to? To: guys who score a lot are great, women who do the same are bad. Let's not buy into all this by perpetuating the behavior that so many guys expect us to show. And let's differentiate "fault" and "responsibilty" in this discussion, please.

My English is so bad when I'm moody and messy that I really don't deserve a Masters degree in American Studies. Well, you see, in Germany, even I get a degree :laugh:

Guilt is Fault and Fault (culpa) is the same as responsibility legally speaking. That aside...

What you say here is substantially different from your OP where you said her behavior perpetuated patriarchy. I still however totally disagree with you on a whole lot of points.

I do want to address something first. You asked if your position was victim blaming in your OP.

You said:


It perpetuates all this "no means yes"-bullshit and makes some guys believe that a no is a yes in disguise. (...) And with this behavior, they make life harder for their fellow ladies.

That is victim blaming.

You get mad at me for saying this. But nothing you said has in any way changed this or provided a basis for a change of judgement

Why is it victim blaming? Because you are saying here that her behavior perpetuates a patriarchal notion which exists independent from her behavior and that her behavior makes life harder for the rest of the women.

This is all I have been arguing. Somehow you got that mixed up with it being a woman's fault for getting raped. So I am not going to argue that position.

Technically by the way you are arguing that she enforces a myth/rule which subsequently will enforce a pattern of guys who won't accept "no" from other women. So...basically...you are saying behavior of women who do this results in harassment of other women.

If you don't want a honest answer...don't ask the question.

However if your OP would have said what you seem to argue in this post that it is her behavior which is enforced by patriarchy...then you would have a valid point.

You wouldn't have been victim blaming. I would still disagree. Because it is her logic for flirting that is enforced and not necessarily the way she flirts that is enforced by patriarchy or, at least, not in the sense that it is wrong.

My position is that any women should be entirely free to decide how she wants to act without fear of men exploiting her behavior and acting entitled. I truly want equality in flirting where women can act however they wish without fear of any other consequences than their actions warrant...and therefore free of sexism, exploitation and judgement.

This means that I acknowledge that some women want to be free spirited and independent and some do not. Some want to conquer and some want to be conquered. Some want to play hard to get and some just want to make it transactional. Some want to go out and explore the world and some want to sit at home and watch Oprah. Some want to have careers and some want to be a stay at home.

And before that can happen...MEN need to change their behavior and attitude. This does not mean women do not play a role. But the default setting is that women should not adjust the way they behave to circumvent some patriarchal notion.

Patriarchal rules and expectations are depended on context. Because men are not a homogeneous entity the rules and regulations with which patriarchy regulates women's behavior vary from context to context.

So:


Let's not buy into all this by perpetuating the behavior that so many guys expect us to show

Is impossible.

Show me a behavior that you think is radically opposed to patriarchy and I will show you how patriarchy can, will and shall pervert that into some way to either blame, use it as an example, regulate it or guilt trip people who display it. Because that is how patriarchy works and what is the nature of patriarchy.

All men here have the ability, if hey aren't still, to be extremely sexist simply by the virtue of being a man. We are brought up that way....and we know consciously and unconsciously how to do that. Most men here, to their credit, chose not to do so when it comes to the conscious part or chose to, at the very least, critically analyse their behavior and try to learn how to avoid doing so when it comes to the unconscious part. And that is how it should be.

So the problem is not your friends flirting style. She should be able to flirt by playing hard to get. Some men do like that for whatever reason. Some do because they like the chase, some do not want somebody who cuts to the chase because they like to build up suspense and keep things uncertain, some do because they think they like to flirt and want women to flirt back. The whole act is based on preference of your friend.

The behavior itself doesn't really enforce patriarchy any more than a woman who sleeps with a lot of people enforces the notion that women who do so are easy. Neither notions (that one and the one about no means yes) are based in any kind of general applicable truth.

Where you are absolutely right however is that her logic for doing so is enforced by patriarchy. Because it is equally based on regulating behavior patterns and generalized rules of how men should behave towards women based on some "all men are hunters" myth (which by the way invariably comes down to the following addition: and if you do not provide a chase men will just use you for sex). And this, just like the no-means-yes fallacy, is utter BS. It is also counter intuitive for the other generalization of another patriarchy enforced behavior rules: "all men want sex all the time" and "women don't want sex as much as men so you should work for it".

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

sorry that I'm in a hurry again, been really busy these days, Phoenix you'll get your answer tomorrow at the latest. So some of you really think I'm like "ummm it's the women's fault". Well, interesting. Really, really interesting.

words like fault don't apply to this, in my opinion, I just find it ridiculous to want someone to take your no for a yes (unless it is a consensual kink situation.
)

[Rosa Partizan]

phoenix, you repeat everything you said before. And me too. let it go already. actually, you annoy the living shit out of me, because I don't get why you don't get my ppint and accuse me of victim blaming. Stop writing whole essays when all you say can be packed in 10 lines or so. and don't answer to this with another essay, not gonna read that shit then.

[synthesis]

phoenix, you repeat everything you said before. And me too. let it go already. actually, you annoy the living shit out of me, because I don't get why you don't get my ppint and accuse me of victim blaming. Stop writing whole essays when all you say can be packed in 10 lines or so. and don't answer to this with another essay, not gonna read that shit then.

I admit that I wonder why you're initiating and engaging in these discussions when you generally seem to take them so personally. You can't just start a debate and then expect everyone to agree with you right off the bat. Dialogue takes effort from both sides.

In a broader sense, I think you're doing something here and in similar threads that we're all guilty of from time to time - taking our personal preferences and expanding them to universally applicable moral frameworks. You dislike that your friend/acquaintance "says no when she means yes," so that must be reinforcing patriarchy. You dislike that some women defend sex work as preferable to other works of service work, so they must be reinforcing patriarchy. And so on. Again, I really hope you don't take this personally - we all do it. It just seems like generally a bad idea to use political pretexts for pushing one's personal preferences regarding individual behavior among people of minority groups.

[Rosa Partizan]

As I already wrote, you can't extract your personal behavior and attitude and be like, all this has nothing to do with society and patriarchy. Who else does form that, if not all of us? It's not about disliking, goddamn. I dislike a ton of stuff about other people's behavior and still don't think it has anything to do with patriarchy. So you actually don't believe that this kind of flirting has anything to do with patriarchy, when she herself confesses "no one likes a girl that is easy to have"? Seriously? How is it a "personal preference" when I find this disturbing and reinforcing patriarchal structures? There are plenty of ways of flirting that I find stupid, but that are NOT conveying these patriarchal structures.

[synthesis]

So you actually don't believe that this kind of flirting has anything to do with patriarchy, when she herself confesses "no one likes a girl that is easy to have"? Seriously? How is it a "personal preference" when I find this disturbing and reinforcing patriarchal structures?

My question here - and I'm genuinely not sure if you already answered this, so if you have, I apologize - is how you don't see that this could be perceived as equally "reinforcing of patriarchal structures," when you place any degree of responsibility for those patriarchal structures on a person who is intrinsically argued to suffer from them. I mean, you did say that "responsibility" and "fault" are two different things, sure, but that doesn't really answer the question. Again, I'm not calling this "victim-blaming"; I'm saying it's blaming people from a group that suffers from special oppression for aspects of that oppression that manifest against other people from that group.

[Rosa Partizan]

I don't know if this will be enough of an answer for you (cause your last sentence was a bit complicated for my rather simple mind to understand, no sarcasm here), but I kinda elaborated it a tiny bit in a previous post. Suffering from something does not mean that you won't likely reproduce it. You reproduce this stuff because you were raised in a way that tells you you have do to so. Or because you only know this way of behavior. I myself used to be sexist in a lot of ways. I limited my own sexual freedom and was like, girls who don't act equally are sluts. Yeah, I've been growing up with this message for a very long time and although it restricted my own lifestyle, I reinforced it, because I wanted to fit in, I wanted to be a good girl, I wanted to appeal to guys. I don't see any contradiction AT ALL in "reinforcing structures although they make you suffer". I bet everyone of us knows at least a few VERY sexist ladies, huh. Women who are worse than any guy and that love to call out other women for not fitting into patriarchal requirements.

[Rosa Partizan]

btw I don't know if in english, you say reproduce for that matter. In German feminist blogs, that's the words everone chooses for this intention ("reproduzieren").

[synthesis]

I don't know if this will be enough of an answer for you (cause your last sentence was a bit complicated for my rather simple mind to understand, no sarcasm here), but I kinda elaborated it a tiny bit in a previous post. Suffering from something does not mean that you won't likely reproduce it. You reproduce this stuff because you were raised in a way that tells you you have do to so. Or because you only know this way of behavior. I myself used to be sexist in a lot of ways. I limited my own sexual freedom and was like, girls who don't act equally are sluts. Yeah, I've been growing up with this message for a very long time and although it restricted my own lifestyle, I reinforced it, because I wanted to fit in, I wanted to be a good girl, I wanted to appeal to guys. I don't see any contradiction AT ALL in "reinforcing structures although they make you suffer". I bet everyone of us knows at least a few VERY sexist ladies, huh. Women who are worse than any guy and that love to call out other women for not fitting into patriarchal requirements.

But the problem with this line of thinking is that those patriarchal structures and their ideological justifications will continue to exist and to oppress regardless of the behavior of the people being oppressed. So - and I'll try to reword that sentence here, it was a little convoluted - when you attribute some degree of responsibility for the perpetuation of those structures to the people being oppressed, particularly on the basis of individual behavior, you're not blaming the victim, but you are blaming a person from the oppressed group for the victimization of other people from that group, at least partially so.

That's where the confusion of terms sets in: PA calls it "blaming the victim by proxy," whereas I just call it "morality policing," because you're placing a moral imperative on this person that is based on your conception of women's contribution to their own oppression, a conception that I think is misguided. I don't think your friend's behavior is as "bad" as you think it is, but I also don't think your argument here is as "bad" as PA is arguing that it is. ("Bad" being shorthand for "perpetuating/reinforcing patriarchy.")

[Rosa Partizan]

But the problem with this line of thinking is that those patriarchal structures and their ideological justifications will continue to exist and to oppress regardless of the behavior of the people being oppressed. So - and I'll try to reword that sentence here, it was a little convoluted - when you attribute some degree of responsibility for the perpetuation of those structures to the people being oppressed, particularly on the basis of individual behavior, you're not blaming the victim, but you are blaming a person from the oppressed group for the victimization of other people from that group, at least partially so.

That's where the confusion of terms sets in: PA calls it "blaming the victim by proxy," whereas I just call it "morality policing," because you're placing a moral imperative on this person that is based on your conception of women's contribution to their own oppression, a conception that I think is misguided. I don't think your friend's behavior is as "bad" as you think it is, but I also don't think your argument here is as "bad" as PA is arguing that it is. ("Bad" being shorthand for "perpetuating/reinforcing patriarchy.")

thank you, after having read that last sentence before this post 4 times or so, I finally got it :laugh: I'm not saying that it's all fine when the oppressed group stops reproducing oppressing structures. Hell no. cause the oppressed group has far less power in the context of changing patriarchy. Those sexist women are kind of accomplices, the real guilty folks is guys that have a lot of advantages and free rides (took this from German, meaning you can do anything) by patriarchy and don't do anything to change that and keep women down. Still, we can stop being accomplices, can't we? This is all I'm saying. I know that this is difficult when you've been growing up for decades that way, but every woman is perfectly capable and intelligent enough to look through this patriarchal bullshit. As I said several times ago, we ARE society. Society is no abstract concept, nothing provided by the government or stuff. Everything you hear in the media, newspaper, TV, all this is made by human beings. This is US. So my plea does not go out only to women or stuff, hell no. Let's debunk patriarchy altogether, with the way we live and speak. My friend does not have any responsibility for other women being disrespected. All I'm saying is she could break through this patriarchal bullshit, communicate honestly and be a good role model for other women. Again, she does not have to be perfect. But learning to say what you actually mean is something that is possible to achieve.

[PhoenixAsh]

phoenix, you repeat everything you said before. And me too. let it go already. actually, you annoy the living shit out of me, because I don't get why you don't get my ppint and accuse me of victim blaming. Stop writing whole essays when all you say can be packed in 10 lines or so. and don't answer to this with another essay, not gonna read that shit then.

Here is the definition of victim blaming.

Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them.

^ that is what you are doing. In fact...your last post explicitly states it: Those sexist women are kind of accomplices

You can then argue that guilt, fault and responsibility aren't the same. But they actually are.

I am not equating a moral judgment on it...YOU asked that question. I am however arguing that it is enforcing patriarchy to do so. Simply because it is patriarchies aim to limit women's behavior....which is what you are arguing.

Also...do not ask questions you do not want to hear the answer to and then get mad. I don't care much that you are annoyed.

So fine:
Here is the TL: DR... Your position is sexist and it perpetuates a system which holds women responsible for what happens to them.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Here is the definition of victim blaming.

Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them.

^ that is what you are doing. In fact...your last post explicitly states it: Those sexist women are kind of accomplices

You can then argue that guilt, fault and responsibility aren't the same. But they actually are.

I am not equating a moral judgment on it...YOU asked that question. I am however arguing that it is enforcing patriarchy to do so. Simply because it is patriarchies aim to limit women's behavior....which is what you are arguing.

Alright. So I've watched this argument go back and forth for 80+ posts and to be honest you're not all doing the best job of getting your points across clearly, and everyone has been making some assumptions that are just downright wrong. I will try to clear some things up.

1. Behaviour does not fall into two binary categories - patriarchy enforcing, or patriarchy rejecting. This is a fallacious simplification. Example: if a women expects a car door to be opened by another person because she is a woman, and him a man, then this does enforce the patriarchy, BUT NOT AS MUCH as a woman who bullies or shames other women for being promiscuous or 'a slut'. My point here is that some here are trying to say (correctly) that you cannot escape your environment/upbringing which is patriarchal, but (incorrectly) surmise that those oppressed by the patriarchy should therefore not be chastised at all for reinforcing it (but the oppressors - conditioned exactly the same way, should be). This point will be used again later.

2. Some people have said that women should not be held responsible for espousing patriarchal views, because it is the responsibility of the oppressors - the men, to stop raping and oppressing women. Not going to be surprising to most of you upon reflection, but this is wrong. It takes two to tango. The women also have to believe in equality as well as the men - and do what they can to destroy the patriarchy. Example: regardless of what the master may come to believe - the slave must believe that he SHOULD be free if he is ever to become truly free. If he still holds the belief that he should be a slave, then nothing has really changed. Point being, to become free from oppression there has be a change in the thinking of both the oppressors AND the oppressed. Of course in a slave rebellion if the oppressors do not consent then the masters can be killed - but to kill all the men in the world would be impractical.

3. Expanding on point 1. Almost all behaviour that is patriarchy enforcing comes about as a direct result of the influence of the patriarchy. That is to say that it is a circle, and must be viewed in this context. It is the patriarchy that causes rape culture and rape. We ALL contribute to the patriarchy (key point: some more than others) - therefore we are ALL responsible for rape (in part). We created the patriarchy, the patriarchy perpetuates rape and rape culture, and we all (to varying degrees) perpetuate the patriarchy. You are going to perpetuate it, you cannot help it, the point is to reinforce it AS LITTLE AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN and help others to do the same. This is very hard if you are not aware that the patriarchy exists (as is the situation of the woman from the OP) so consciousness of the issue is of paramount importance to its eventual destruction.


Educate! Educate everyone - men, women, and children. Do not hold individual people responsible for their conditioning; help them break it by making them conscious of it. It is a vicious circle that will not be broken by blaming people inside it for being born into it.

(Edit) to quickly expand on my point about 'to varying degrees'. There are individuals who go above and beyond their conditioning in their assholery. People who bully, people who hate and cause pain and fear, and ultimately people who rape. Of course these people should be held directly responsible for their actions, and they have no excuse. It is them that have ultimately made the choice to do these things, and carry out the worst crime in the world. They have taken the thoughts, and turned them into vile action. I am not espousing some kind of fatalist way of viewing this problem. It is because I believe in the power of human agency that I think we can destroy the patriarchy. We are conditioned to do many things, but ultimately the blame falls on the one who does them.

So, to the OP: it is not this woman's fault that she does not see that this reinforces the patriarchy - but it is your job as it is everyone's to make her see this. Talk to her and everyone you know - explain. Knowledge will bring down the Patriarchy. Knowledge will bring about Socialism.

[Invader Zim]

I think Xena makes a number of good points here, and that a few people need to think more carefully about how, as a society as a whole, people (regardless of biological sex or gender identity) collectively construct and reinforce perceptions of gender.

[Rafiq]

Sexual violence against women is not simply a personal phenomena, in the sense that we are speaking of the well-being of women but insofar as we recognize the legitimacy of bourgeois femininity. In many ways, the very essence of the female gender within capitalism is an integral component of their own oppression, it is not as though women personally contributing or reproducing sexual oppression is impossible, but that the very act of doing so verifies their own oppression. The oppression of women, sexism, is not a "choice" personally perpetrated by males or females, but a systemic means by which capitalist relations are reproduced, these are sexual relations which form as a result of the very basis of life, the capitalist mode of production. Comparatively, there are many workers who on a personal level are deeply reactionary, and contribute to their own oppression, that does not however signify that their oppression is non existent or that they simply oppress themselves by their own very basic, intimate prerogative. What is important when dealing with the nature of power, is that the oppressed must aid to the phenomena of oppression, lest it could not exist in the first place.

So how do we approach this? Quite simply that if a women sais no, with regard to sex, than it means no. Do we recognize that in specific or unique cases, it might mean something else? It may very well be, but it doesn't matter, no one is in any position to validate whether women consent to sexual advances other than their actual, direct, consent.

[Lily Briscoe]

What I think is especially funny about this thread is that the people who are so adamant about the idea that these sorts of individual behaviors "reinforce" patriarchy are the same people arguing in favor of policing individual women's sexual conduct (to stop these women from 'reinforcing the patriarchy', of course - the irony of this seems to be completely lost on some)

[Invader Zim]

What I think is especially funny about this thread is that the people who are so adamant about the idea that these sorts of individual behaviors "reinforce" patriarchy are the same people arguing in favor of policing individual women's sexual conduct (to stop these women from 'reinforcing the patriarchy', of course - the irony of this seems to be completely lost on some)

Who suggests that only women employ token refusal when it comes to sex? And who is being prescriptive and policing anybody's sexual conduct? What an idiotic post. The number of strawmen in this thread must be upping the price of grain.

[Rosa Partizan]

who is policing women's sexual conduct and in what way?

[PhoenixAsh]

Before I address the post below. Three questions:

Women's behavior has obviously and undeniably changed over the decades and centuries with behavior as it is now being downright illegal a few decades ago or unthinkable.


Do you think that we currently have: Less, equal amount of, or more patriarchy?
Do you think women's behavior changed because of a decline in patriarchies influence?
Do you think patriarchy is monolithic or polylithic...in other words is it flexible and adaptable to new realities or is it slow to change?


The answer to these questions is in fact vital to the validity of arguments made.

Personally. I think we currently have an equal amount of patriarchy but that the way in which it is enforced has changed with the evolution/revolution of societal customs. I think Patriarchy is quickly adaptable to new situations in order to create a new set of "realities" to maintain itself.

As a result I think patriarchy is not dependent on individual behavior or whether some behavior has a correlation to or is resulting from certain patriarchal notions which are hugely diverse and tailored to different set of circumstances and behavior patterns.

Furthermore. I do not think behavior is perpetuating anything but that the logic behind behavior can...and will.

So where I say women should and must behave as they want free of judgement because their behavior is neutral. Others argue that because behavior is not neutral it enforces patriarchy.

I will explain my argument and the basis for it by answering the post below.




1. Behaviour does not fall into two binary categories - patriarchy enforcing, or patriarchy rejecting. This is a fallacious simplification. Example: if a women expects a car door to be opened by another person because she is a woman, and him a man, then this does enforce the patriarchy, BUT NOT AS MUCH as a woman who bullies or shames other women for being promiscuous or 'a slut'. My point here is that some here are trying to say (correctly) that you cannot escape your environment/upbringing which is patriarchal, but (incorrectly) surmise that those oppressed by the patriarchy should therefore not be chastised at all for reinforcing it (but the oppressors - conditioned exactly the same way, should be). This point will be used again later.

I am sure you are not arguing that opening a car door for a woman is sexist. The act of opening a car door for a woman or a woman expecting her date to open the car door for her....is simply a neutral act. There is a whole range of reasons that are non-sexist for doing either of this.

What some here are confusing is the actual act...with the reason for the act.


Opening a car door for a woman because you want to be kind and caring is not sexist and has little or nothing to do with patriarchy.
Expecting your partner which happens to be a man to open the car door for you because you think that this is how your partner should treat you is not sexist and has little or nothing to do with patriarchy.


Expecting your partner to open the door for you because you are a woman and this is how women should be treated and the reverse of this. Is however patriarchy enforced logic...which stands apart from the act itself.

The act of wanting your partner to open the door or not. Or opening the door for your partner or not. Is NOT a sexist act and doesn't enforce patriarchy. I am all sure we can agree that even when patriarchy is smashed and we live in a truly equal society...we still will open car doors for each other.

The reverse is also true NOT opening the door for your partner or explicitly disallowing your partner to open doors for you is not a patriarchy defying act. Not even when your reasoning for it is because you think women should open their own damned doors and you do not have to simply because you are a man or that you do not want a man to open the door for you because you are a woman who can damned well open her own doors.

When does the reasoning behind behavior enforce patriarchy or defy patriarchy? Is when you argue your behavior based on the behavior of another as being a general applicable rule for that entire gender.

So when your partner opens the door for you because you are a woman...and you then argue that he needs to let you open your own doors and his reasoning is nonsense or her reasoning that a man should open the door for women and then argue why she needs to open her own damned door because this is nonsense...this actually attacks patriarchy. Subsequently arguing that you want your partner to open the door for you because this is how men should treat women or arguing that a woman needs to let a man opening doors...is enforcing patriarchy.

But the act itself...is not enforcing or attacking anything.



2. Some people have said that women should not be held responsible for espousing patriarchal views, because it is the responsibility of the oppressors - the men, to stop raping and oppressing women. Not going to be surprising to most of you upon reflection, but this is wrong. It takes two to tango. The women also have to believe in equality as well as the men - and do what they can to destroy the patriarchy. Example: regardless of what the master may come to believe - the slave must believe that he SHOULD be free if he is ever to become truly free. If he still holds the belief that he should be a slave, then nothing has really changed. Point being, to become free from oppression there has be a change in the thinking of both the oppressors AND the oppressed. Of course in a slave rebellion if the oppressors do not consent then the masters can be killed - but to kill all the men in the world would be impractical.

True equality comes from not using different standards to evaluate behavior of women.

The logic behind the argument that women are responsible for perpetuating patriarchy because of their behavior...is however judging women based on their behavior and applying a different set of standards. Because it will inadvertently place the onus, once again, on women's behavior. This ignores the reality and nature of patriarchy which always blames women's behavior no matter what they do because women's behavior is valued differently than a man's behavior.

So a woman who sleeps with every guy she wants to. Still triggers the patriarchal notion that women are sluts who just want it. Yet she is acting counter to the behavior which patriarchy also perpetuates that women shouldn't sleep around. Equally a woman who wants to remain a virgin till she meets the right man for her and doesn't really go out much and shows little interest in men. Will trigger the patriarchy enforced notion that she is stuck up and just needs to get laid. See the dichotomy? Whatever a woman does...is evaluated and criticized, perverted and used to enforce patriarchal notions.

Her behavior is NOT the issue.

In reality this position that her behavior is the issue or part of the issue will validate the following statement by the Hong Kong government a few years ago: "Women should mind their drinking behavior or else they will place themselves at risk." of which we will all agree that even though, as you argue, it is in line with reality (women who were drunk were specifically targeted by rapists and therefore getting drunk increased the risk a woman took of becoming a victim) we also agree, hopefully, that this was and is victim blaming. Plus of course it completely rejected the notion that women who were not drunk were still being raped left and right. Once again showing decisively that patriarchy is not dependent on individual women's behavior.

But why then do we not criticize women for increasing their chance of risk and do we attack the statement made by the Hong Kong officials even though there is some truth in it? Because no matter what a woman does, patriarchy will criticize her, attack her or pervert whatever she does in order to perpetuate itself. So again...behavior itself is not the issue.

What is the issue is that the logic behind behavior and the mind set towards the position of men and women can be, but doesn't necessarily have to be, a result of patriarchy. This in itself does not enforce patriarchy because an individual woman's position does not negate systemic change. So my next door neighbor who thinks she needs to stay at home because women should take care of the children...is not impacting the systemic nature of patriarchy. And as long she isn't actively arguing to other women that their behavior is wrong because women need to take care of children...she isn't perpetuating patriarchy either. Nor is she making it harder for other women not to take care of children. Patriarchy is not depended on individual women's positions.

So while women do not have the responsibility to change their behavior. I have never argued that their reasoning behind their behavior should not change or be addressed.

To be truly equal you need to realize you want to be truly equal and need to realize power dynamics. It does not however follow that you can't be a stay at home mom or that you need to be a stay at home dad.

Your analogy with slavery and slaves needing to realize they shouldn't be slaves is so far correct. However...and that is my point...slavery did not end because enough slaves realized they didn't want to be slaves anymore.

Slavery ended because, unfortunately, white men (potential slave owners) changed their opinion and behavior....and slave revolts which were common during the entire history of slavery did not really affect the institute of slavery. In fact, the dominant group, came up with classifying slave revolts as a mental illness called Drapetomania....and like the Spartans did instituted gruesome laws to prevent or subdue revolts. And even though the Turner rebellion (only a handful of slaves) came close to one state almost ending slavery slaves did not themselves end it and needed the slave owners to abolish it. But another more massive rebellion had no impact on the institution at all, that of Spartacus. Slavery didn't end. At all. I am not really interested in discussing the downfall of slavery or the impact it would have had if all slaves, at the same time, would have revolted.

In reality slavery only ended when the system did not meet material requirements anymore and became increasingly obsolete. TheTurner rebellion only succeeded in nearly making slave owners end slavery because the institution itself had already come under increasing criticism from the ruling potential slave owner groups and subsequently it ended when the potential slave owning group became increasingly critical of its existence.

And when slavery as an institution ended it was replaced by structural racism and segregation in order to perpetuate control. And even now, with enough minorities being very aware that they do not think racism is right and they should be treated equal... we still have structural racism and invent new ways to enforce the superiority of white people.

So change either comes from inside the ruling elite or from changing the material needs for a system of oppression to exist or by eliminating the ruling elite or those of the elite who enforce the system

This is kind of the doctrine behind revolutionary theory....and why we argue against social democracy and libertarianism. Which basically says we can change the system by adjusting our behavior (either by voting or by simply buying other stuff from people who do things differently).

This however is not to argue that slave revolts and changing of attitudes didn't influence the ideas of the slave owning class....and, aside from a communist/anarchist revolution, the only other way short of killing men on a mass scale, would be to have them change.



3. Expanding on point 1. Almost all behaviour that is patriarchy enforcing comes about as a direct result of the influence of the patriarchy. That is to say that it is a circle, and must be viewed in this context. It is the patriarchy that causes rape culture and rape. We ALL contribute to the patriarchy (key point: some more than others) - therefore we are ALL responsible for rape (in part). We created the patriarchy, the patriarchy perpetuates rape and rape culture, and we all (to varying degrees) perpetuate the patriarchy. You are going to perpetuate it, you cannot help it, the point is to reinforce it AS LITTLE AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN and help others to do the same. This is very hard if you are not aware that the patriarchy exists (as is the situation of the woman from the OP) so consciousness of the issue is of paramount importance to its eventual destruction.

^ This part is extremely problematic.

If we all contribute to rape culture this will validate the position that women are partially to blame, because of their behavior, for rape. Which perpetuates rape culture....because that is actually part of what rape culture is: finding ways of blaming women and regulating their behavior.

And somebody can say a thousand times that men should not force themselves on women. But when that person at the same time argues that women's behavior enforces or perpetuates rape culture that is quite hard to maintain. Because either it means that person does not understand the nature of rape culture or that person does not understand what they are actually saying.

And while I do not contest the notion that everybody is influenced by patriarchy and some logic behind behavior is enforced, instilled or an expression of patriarchy I do contest the notion that women's behavior is part of the problem because patriarchy is based on evaluating women's behavior differently from men's behavior and because no matter what a woman does patriarchy will use it. As I have shown.

It also contradicts the notion that women and men should truly be equal. This does not require us to act the same or in a uniform fashion. It means we can do what we want and not have our actions be equated to our sex or evaluated differently because of our sex. This does not mean are actions should be consequence free. But it does reject the notion that our actions should be defined and weighed based on what we have between our legs.

So while it is perfectly ok to educate a woman on reason behind an act which can indeed be a result of patriarchy. It is never, ever ok to attack the act of enforcing patriarchy unless that act is to tell women how to act because they are unequal to men.

And yes. This of course means that I do evaluate men's role in patriarchy completely different from women's roles. Their behavior and reasoning is the actual enforcing behavior.


Educate! Educate everyone - men, women, and children. Do not hold individual people responsible for their conditioning; help them break it by making them conscious of it. It is a vicious circle that will not be broken by blaming people inside it for being born into it.

Actually I agree for 90% here. Except...blame men as a group for being the dominant and ruling group and the circle will not be broken unless they become aware of their actions and role as "ruling" group.



(Edit) to quickly expand on my point about 'to varying degrees'. There are individuals who go above and beyond their conditioning in their assholery. People who bully, people who hate and cause pain and fear, and ultimately people who rape. Of course these people should be held directly responsible for their actions, and they have no excuse. It is them that have ultimately made the choice to do these things, and carry out the worst crime in the world. They have taken the thoughts, and turned them into vile action. I am not espousing some kind of fatalist way of viewing this problem. It is because I believe in the power of human agency that I think we can destroy the patriarchy. We are conditioned to do many things, but ultimately the blame falls on the one who does them.

Exactly. And Patriarchy is a male driven systemic oppression of women for men by men. So either women get rid of men....or men need to change their logic and behavior. But women's own behavior shouldn't change unless it serves their purpose and they want to. NOT because of some moralistic lovey dovy "we are all in this together" and "it takes two to Tango" bullcrap but because they want to and because it serves their purposes. Because it isn't going to change patriarchy if they do unless men stop being the dominant factor. After all Patriarchy evolves around women being less than men and it works by evaluating, regulating and criticizing women's behavior on a different level than men's behavior so men can pretty much do what they want.

See the problem?


So, to the OP: it is not this woman's fault that she does not see that this reinforces the patriarchy - but it is your job as it is everyone's to make her see this. Talk to her and everyone you know - explain. Knowledge will bring down the Patriarchy. Knowledge will bring about Socialism.

Meh.

[synthesis]

Those sexist women are kind of accomplices, by patriarchy and don't do anything to change that and keep women down. Still, we can stop being accomplices, can't we? This is all I'm saying.


My friend does not have any responsibility for other women being disrespected.

I guess my problem is that I really don't understand how you reconcile the first statement with the second. To me they seem completely contradictory and mutually exclusive.


the real guilty folks is guys that have a lot of advantages and free rides (took this from German, meaning you can do anything)

Just FYI, the English equivalent for this is "a blank check" or "carte blanche" - well, the latter is French, but I just mean the equivalent in English conversation. "Free ride" in English usually refers to someone getting their college tuition paid for in full by a scholarship or grant or whatever.

[Rosa Partizan]

When I said, my friend has no responsibility for this and that, I'm referring to the very real situation that some guy is like, "well why should I respect a no by person x if person y said no and meant yes last week".

When I say, there are women who are accomplices of patriarchy, it refers to...well...supporting these mechanisms in a bigger context, being part and supporter of a culture that puts yourself down. I understand why women would do this, but it's not as if nowadays you wouldn't have the chance of becoming enlightened about these issues and change your attitude over the years.

[PhoenixAsh]

in short you just back peddled your entire OP.

[Rosa Partizan]

No, I didn't. At least I don't feel that I did. I see no contradiction between "not directly responsible" and "being part of a culture that harms other women".

[synthesis]

When I said, my friend has no responsibility for this and that, I'm referring to the very real situation that some guy is like, "well why should I respect a no by person x if person y said no and meant yes last week".

When I say, there are women who are accomplices of patriarchy, it refers to...well...supporting these mechanisms in a bigger context, being part and supporter of a culture that puts yourself down. I understand why women would do this, but it's not as if nowadays you wouldn't have the chance of becoming enlightened about these issues and change your attitude over the years.

So how is the specific situation you mentioned not related to your friend "supporting these mechanisms in a bigger context" by "saying no and meaning yes"?

That specific instance is a result of those "mechanisms in a bigger context" and "a culture that puts women down." So if her behavior (and such behavior from other women) is contributing to that culture, then by extension she (and other women who participate in that behavior) would have to bear some responsibility, however indirect, for its specific manifestations.

[Rosa Partizan]

A guy can NOT get away with stuff like "girl x meant yes when she said no, so I assume it's the same with you". A woman is not guilty of that bullshit. But don't try to tell me that women can't reinforce patriarchy, too. 'cause plenty of them do and feel great about it. I know their reasons and stuff, let's put that aside, but the result is that they become active part of a culture that oppresses women (including themselves). When I see a woman being sexist in any way, perpetuating sexist structures and stuff, I'm not gonna shut up about it just because it like "awwwww she's oppressed herself, she doesn't know any better". Yeah of course she doesn't know any better, that's why you can talk about this stuff without being preachy or anything. 'cause no one will listen to moralist folks.

[PhoenixAsh]

No, I didn't. At least I don't feel that I did. I see no contradiction between "not directly responsible" and "being part of a culture that harms other women".



OP:
I have a massive, massive problem with that. It perpetuates all this "no means yes"-bullshit and makes some guys believe that a no is a yes in disguise. And with this behavior, they make life harder for their fellow ladies.

Now:
When I said, my friend has no responsibility for this and that, I'm referring to the very real situation that some guy is like, "well why should I respect a no by person x if person y said no and meant yes last week".

Perpetuating means she is responsible...it doesn't require her to do that consciously. Plus you are linking her behavior directly to systemic oppression of other women which also means she is responsible.




When I see a woman being sexist in any way, perpetuating sexist structures and stuff, I'm not gonna shut up about it just because it like "awwwww she's oppressed herself, she doesn't know any better". Yeah of course she doesn't know any better, that's why you can talk about this stuff without being preachy or anything. 'cause no one will listen to moralist folks.

Except saying no when meaning yes...isn't actually sexist. Her logic behind it is or may be. But her act of ambiguous communication isn't. That is the issue.

[synthesis]

When I see a woman being sexist in any way, perpetuating sexist structures and stuff, I'm not gonna shut up about it just because it like "awwwww she's oppressed herself, she doesn't know any better".

I think this is a pretty unfair characterization of my argument.

Anyways, I hope this will help clarify things and narrow down the discussion:

If all women, tomorrow, attained perfect feminist consciousness and stopped engaging in behavior that "perpetuates sexist structures," would those structures cease to exist or even be noticeably impeded? Or would the material conditions that create the basis for those structures simply cause men to find other justifications for engaging in the same behavior?

The analogy I'm thinking of here is that of black and Latino police officers in the United States. If they all suddenly ceased participating in the oppressive behavior that perpetuates institutional racism, would it in any way affect the ability of those structures to perpetuate said institutional racism? Or would those structures simply continue to exist with or without the participation of black and Latino cops?

[Rosa Partizan]

Dude, I already wrote that guys have far more power in stopping patriarchal structures. Where do you see me writing "sexism stops as soon as women behave perfectly feminist". Show me that quote please. This does not mean that it doesn't matter if women break through these structures or not. Let's stop asking ourselves what guys like to see/hear/think of or about us. 'cause this is the root of all this female sexism against women. Wanting to be liked, wanting guys to have a good opinion about us, fitting into their "good girl"-category. Just imagine that all women would piss off those sexists, not giving a shit if the guy thinks you're an easy girl, giving a shit if he finds you pretty, ruining the mood at parties because you step up when sexist jokes are told and stuff. I never said this comes easy, but after having been antifeminist for plenty of years, I'm there now. And I don't consider myself extremely insightful or anything. So other women can do that, too. Let's not allow a laisser faire attitude towards us or others just because we have understanding for certain patriarchal positions.

[PhoenixAsh]

Dude, I already wrote that guys have far more power in stopping patriarchal structures. Where do you see me writing "sexism stops as soon as women behave perfectly feminist". Show me that quote please. This does not mean that it doesn't matter if women break through these structures or not. Let's stop asking ourselves what guys like to see/hear/think of or about us. 'cause this is the root of all this female sexism against women. Wanting to be liked, wanting guys to have a good opinion about us, fitting into their "good girl"-category. Just imagine that all women would piss off those sexists, not giving a shit if the guy thinks you're an easy girl, giving a shit if he finds you pretty, ruining the mood at parties because you step up when sexist jokes are told and stuff. I never said this comes easy, but after having been antifeminist for plenty of years, I'm there now. And I don't consider myself extremely insightful or anything. So other women can do that, too. Let's not allow a laisser faire attitude towards us or others just because we have understanding for certain patriarchal positions.

except currently you are arguing for women to change their behavior by addressing the behavior itself.

what you are saying now is something different. Now you are arguing for women to understand logic behind the reason for behavior may be a result of patriarchy. This is a far cry from addressing the behavior itself as I have been trying to explain.

[Rosa Partizan]

I'm sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say. Let's shut this thing down by concluding that my english sucks, that I'm stupid and that I'm victim blaming. K thx bye.

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say. Let's shut this thing down by concluding that my english sucks, that I'm stupid and that I'm victim blaming. K thx bye.

No you don't.

But I like that you haven't addressed a single one of my arguments, side stepped the arguments made, and stated over and over again how disappointed and annoyed you are and then blame your English for not getting the point or bringing it across.

So I will explain what I meant on the off chance that you will actually start debate.

Throughout this thread you kept repeating that women's behavior is part of the problem and perpetuates patriarchy....going so far as to call them accomplices. You even specifically started this thread to ask our opinion on your position that your friends behavior was directly perpetuating rape culture and directly resulting in men not accepting no for an answer.

Now you are arguing something different:


Let's stop asking ourselves what guys like to see/hear/think of or about us. (...) not giving a shit if the guy thinks you're an easy girl, giving a shit if he finds you pretty

Which is addressing attitude (or: logic and reasoning behind behavior) and not behavior....which you have been attacking in the first place. Except of course that I still do not entirely agree with you but we are getting on the same page here.

But that is something I have been arguing. You know...the things you didn't notice because you were annoyed with the long posts in which I was repeating myself: behavior is not the problem.

[Rosa Partizan]

Phoenix, I wrote plenty of postings here explaining my position. Don't you be like "you side stepped", cause that's exactly what I was NOT doing.

[PhoenixAsh]

Phoenix, I wrote plenty of postings here explaining my position. Don't you be like "you side stepped", cause that's exactly what I was NOT doing.

Actually you addressed me once without touching my argument and actually basing yourself on a tiny detail of my argument which you also misinterpreted. You then posted some posts which promised another post which eventually came and explained some stuff but still didn't address any of the points and still bounced of on the previous misunderstanding. Which by the way I went to trouble of explaining at length. And then you posted something else in the form of a "I don't get why you think I am victim blaming" and a variation on a fuck off.

That is what I mean with side stepping.

You said I was repeating myself. I think I was addressing your misunderstanding of my arguments which resonated in your first reply to me and which made you miss the point of the argument entirely.

[synthesis]

Dude, I already wrote that guys have far more power in stopping patriarchal structures. Where do you see me writing "sexism stops as soon as women behave perfectly feminist". Show me that quote please.

I don't think you've said anything like this, but I also don't think this is relevant to my question, which was:

If all women ceased engaging in any sort of behavior that might perpetuate patriarchy, would it make a noticeable difference in the ability of patriarchy to oppress women? Or would men simply find different justifications for doing the same shit? If they would, then what difference does it make whether or not women engage in behavior you find ideologically questionable?


after having been antifeminist for plenty of years, I'm there now.

Again, it seems like this is something you're overcompensating for - that's what I was trying to get at yesterday - but of course I can't presume to know your personal motivations or experiences.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

I am sure you are not arguing that opening a car door for a woman is sexist... etc

I truly can't believe you managed to write such a lengthy essay about this point. I was very specific about what I meant when I wrote it. Just how you confuse such a succinct and clear point is beyond me; particularly given the poor nature of your arguments that you expect me to trawl through. See my quote below.


1. Behaviour does not fall into two binary categories - patriarchy enforcing, or patriarchy rejecting. This is a fallacious simplification. Example: if a women expects a car door to be opened by another person because she is a woman, and him a man, then this does enforce the patriarchy... etc



True equality comes from not using different standards to evaluate behavior of women.

The logic behind the argument that women are responsible for perpetuating patriarchy because of their behavior...is however judging women based on their behavior and applying a different set of standards. Because it will inadvertently place the onus, once again, on women's behavior. This ignores the reality and nature of patriarchy which always blames women's behavior no matter what they do because women's behavior is valued differently than a man's behavior.

I have never applied a different set of standards. I said that regardless of gender people reinforce the patriarchy with their behaviour. Simple. Do not confuse my arguments.


What is the issue is that the logic behind behavior and the mind set towards the position of men and women can be, but doesn't necessarily have to be, a result of patriarchy. This in itself does not enforce patriarchy because an individual woman's position does not negate systemic change. So my next door neighbor who thinks she needs to stay at home because women should take care of the children...is not impacting the systemic nature of patriarchy. And as long she isn't actively arguing to other women that their behavior is wrong because women need to take care of children...she isn't perpetuating patriarchy either.

It's not a case of actively arguing to other women. Even the smallest comment in conversation can reinforce the patriarchy. Just as it can with men.

This is part of a theme of problems I have with your point of view. You are viewing the whole thing as a series of individual events that can to amount any specific event (such as a rape) and constitute blame. This is a small time way of looking at it. It is an all out war. It goes on everyday. I hear hundreds of small comments every single day reinforcing the patriarchy - on the TV, in the street etc.

These comments do not lead to a specific incident of rape. They contribute to the patriarchy. The Patriarchy causes rape. No-one is arguing for a second that any individual comment or behaviour from a woman (such as the incident with the OP) can lead directly to any individual rape. If you think this is what either I or Rosa is saying then you are wrong. The very idea shows that you have misunderstood the universal all-encompassing nature of the patriarchy.

You have not been taking a wide view of the issue - this is how you have come to make mistakes and confuse people.


Slavery ended because, unfortunately, white men (potential slave owners) changed their opinion and behavior....

So change either comes from inside the ruling elite or from changing the material needs for a system of oppression to exist or by eliminating the ruling elite or those of the elite who enforce the system


This however is not to argue that slave revolts and changing of attitudes didn't influence the ideas of the slave owning class....

The two quotes above are both yours. Reconcile them.

The behaviour of the oppressed (slaves or women) has an influence on the oppressors. The oppressors have the power to end oppression. Simple.

You wrote a whole load of crap about Spartacus never directly bringing about the end of slavery. The point is that part of the conditions for bringing about the end of slavery - is that the will of the oppressed is to no longer be oppressed. The patriarchy will not be destroyed without women noticing. Their opinions have to change. Their behaviour has to change. It may be that men are the last to come around (and so it will seem as if it only took the men to change in order to defeat the patriarchy), but women have to come around too.


This is kind of the doctrine behind revolutionary theory....and why we argue against social democracy and libertarianism. Which basically says we can change the system by adjusting our behavior (either by voting or by simply buying other stuff from people who do things differently).

The system must fall. Behaviour must change in order to defeat the system. Mine is a revolutionary argument.

Your approach continues to be one-dimensional and narrow minded, with a disregard for the whole picture, and a focus on direct events. You remind me of Oedipus. He got quite a shock in the end when he saw the big picture.


^ This part is extremely problematic.

If we all contribute to rape culture this will validate the position that women are partially to blame, because of their behavior, for rape. Which perpetuates rape culture....because that is actually part of what rape culture is: finding ways of blaming women and regulating their behavior.

I'm well aware that this problematic for your argument. Nevertheless it is right; making your argument wrong.

Patriarchy is not just 'finding ways to blame women'. This is a small part of what the Patriarchy is. It is your lack of understanding that it causing you to make these bad arguments.


And somebody can say a thousand times that men should not force themselves on women. But when that person at the same time argues that women's behavior enforces or perpetuates rape culture that is quite hard to maintain. Because either it means that person does not understand the nature of rape culture or that person does not understand what they are actually saying.

I never once blamed one woman alone or all women. I BLAMED EVERYONE. YOU, ME, MEN, WOMEN, EVERYONE.


And while I do not contest the notion that everybody is influenced by patriarchy and some logic behind behavior is enforced, instilled or an expression of patriarchy I do contest the notion that women's behavior is part of the problem because patriarchy is based on evaluating women's behavior differently from men's behavior and because no matter what a woman does patriarchy will use it. As I have shown.

Everybody is influenced by society. Everybody influences society. The same can be said for the Patriarchy (part of society).

Your statement contradicts itself. In one breath you agree with my above statement - and then you contradict it in a desperate attempt to completely absolve all women everywhere of their part in contributing to society and therefore the patriarchy.


It also contradicts the notion that women and men should truly be equal. This does not require us to act the same or in a uniform fashion. It means we can do what we want and not have our actions be equated to our sex or evaluated differently because of our sex. This does not mean are actions should be consequence free. But it does reject the notion that our actions should be defined and weighed based on what we have between our legs.

YOU are the one who wants to treat men and women differently. I am treating them equally. The have very different but nevertheless EQUAL parts to play in sustaining the patriarchy.


Exactly. And Patriarchy is a male driven systemic oppression of women for men by men. So either women get rid of men....or men need to change their logic and behavior. But women's own behavior shouldn't change unless it serves their purpose and they want to. NOT because of some moralistic lovey dovy "we are all in this together" and "it takes two to Tango" bullcrap but because they want to and because it serves their purposes.

It certainly does serve women's purposes, and if they were conscious and aware of the patriarchy they would want to. Everyone's opinions and behaviour needs to change. I know you think you are, but you are not doing women a favour by heaving all of the responsibility for change onto the oppressors. Why would they do it? It is not in their interests. We will only defeat the patriarchy once both men and women become conscious.

Just as socialism serves the interests of the proletariat, but they may not realise it. They must be made conscious of the situation before they can really know what is in their interests, and what they want.

Just as the working class reinforce capitalism and are simultaneous the ones oppressed by it, so is the relationship between women and the patriarchy.

And just as it will take proletarian class consciousness and action to defeat the system of capitalism. So will it be with women and the patriarchy.


Because it isn't going to change patriarchy if they do unless men stop being the dominant factor. After all Patriarchy evolves around women being less than men and it works by evaluating, regulating and criticizing women's behavior on a different level than men's behavior so men can pretty much do what they want.

So you have come up with the ingenious (and not at all patriarchy enforcing) plan of having only the men doing the changing. The irony is blinding.

Women are an important part of society. As a group (50%of the worlds population) they have an enormous effect on society and therefore the world. Just because they are oppressed does not mean they are powerless. Men try to diminish their power, the patriarchy diminishes the power of women, but it will never nullify them.

If you expect women to just lie down and accept the patriarchy until the men come along to change it because they feel sorry, and that women themselves cannot bring about it's demise then you are sorely mistaken.

[Lily Briscoe]

Just as socialism serves the interests of the proletariat, but they may not realise it. They must be made conscious of the situation before they can really know what is in their interests, and what they want.

The idea that 'enlightened' leftists/feminists have to convince the proletariat (or working class women or whatever) of what's up before they're able to move toward emancipating themselves actually gets to the crux of what I think is wrong with a lot of the arguments in this thread, in addition to the way that people envision this emancipation coming about (i.e. in the case of patriarchy, seemingly through individuals engaging in painstaking introspection and rooting out any personal behaviors that may be in some way attributable to 'the patriarchy', rather than through collective struggle against the whole social order, consciously or - at least at first - almost certainly not).

I'm on my way out the door right now, but I want to expand on this and respond to Rosa's question when I have the time (probably won't be til late tomorrow).

[consuming negativity]

The actions by which women can indirectly contribute to patriarchy require the action of men. A woman who says "no" but means "yes" can only reinforce patriarchal values by a man deciding to use her actions as justification for his own which directly perpetuate sexism. She is in no way responsible for his actions, in the same way that the classic "woman in a short skirt gets sexually assaulted" is in no way responsible for the actions of her attacker, despite the fact that her choice of dress may have contributed to her being attacked insofar as the man may implicitly understand patriarchy and that a woman dressing in a certain way is less likely to be believed, taken seriously, or respected in general by the general population.

The line between victim-blaming and victimology is a thin one, but I don't think Rosa or her supporters in this thread have crossed it. However, I also don't think that a woman's actions being misconstrued and used against her or other women is grounds to say that she should alter her behavior because of the actions men may take in response to it as a result of the prevailing norms and beliefs of our society. To recognize that women who are intoxicated, alone, dressed in a certain way, or anything else make her more vulnerable to various disrespectful and/or violent behaviors is not to blame her for the actions someone else took against her; in fact, the recognition of this is vital to the feminist movement insofar as we have to acknowledge where problems exist before they can be targeted with solutions.

In the same vein, however, an important part of feminism (to me) is the idea that women should be able to be themselves and not be subjected to negative behavior by men due to any choices they make; that women should be able to act how they want without being coerced from men or other women into acting in a certain manner. It is, therefore, inappropriate in my eyes to say that a woman must change her personality and behavior; particularly when it is influenced heavily by socialization beyond her control. At least, in the context of this indirect "support" that only exists through it being co-opted by someone to be used against her and other women. It is indeed possible for a woman to directly contribute to the oppression of herself and/or other women through her actions, but this is different from the topic of this thread as it isn't what the woman in the OP was doing, so I don't see how it is relevant; I am only including it to pre-empt the argument of the idea that I deny the agency of women to positively or negatively influence the values of society.

[PhoenixAsh]

I truly can't believe you managed to write such a lengthy essay about this point. I was very specific about what I meant when I wrote it. Just how you confuse such a succinct and clear point is beyond me; particularly given the poor nature of your arguments that you expect me to trawl through.

An I just stated you weren't doing it. So I rather think you are the one who is extremely confused.

But let me pick up the glove and simply state that I went to great lengths to avoid saying you were victim blaming and perpetuating rape cultural attitudes by blaming these on the behavior of women. There you go. Short enough for you?


I have never applied a different set of standards. I said that regardless of gender people reinforce the patriarchy with their behaviour. Simple. Do not confuse my arguments.

And I stated that behavior of women is neutral because their behavior is always, regardless what they do being scrutinized and perverted by patriarchy because regulating women's behavior is the goal of patriarchy. This however you utterly fail to address and therefore you come to some synthesis in which women are partially to blame for patriarchy...which does entail that they are to blame for the end result of whatever crimes committed against them.


It's not a case of actively arguing to other women. Even the smallest comment in conversation can reinforce the patriarchy. Just as it can with men.

So give me an example of how women changing their behavior has ended patriarchy.


This is part of a theme of problems I have with your point of view. You are viewing the whole thing as a series of individual events that can to amount any specific event (such as a rape) and constitute blame. This is a small time way of looking at it. It is an all out war. It goes on everyday. I hear hundreds of small comments every single day reinforcing the patriarchy - on the TV, in the street etc.

Yeah bla bla. All out war. NO it is not an all out war. Women lost that one a long, long time ago.

And in case you haven't noticed I have been specifically arguing AGAINST patriarchy being depended on individual behavior (like OP says) because it is systemic. So again you are completely confused of what I have been arguing.


These comments do not lead to a specific incident of rape. They contribute to the patriarchy. The Patriarchy causes rape. No-one is arguing for a second that any individual comment or behaviour from a woman (such as the incident with the OP) can lead directly to any individual rape. If you think this is what either I or Rosa is saying then you are wrong. The very idea shows that you have misunderstood the universal all-encompassing nature of the patriarchy.

Actually, once again, you completely misunderstand my argument. And...by the way...you have. But that is besides the point. As I have argued before...rape was brought into this, but not by me, as a reaction to my reaction against individual behavior perpetuating rape culture. So it is quite asinine to argue that somehow I argued this.


You have not been taking a wide view of the issue - this is how you have come to make mistakes and confuse people.

Actually I have been explicitly arguing it.


The two quotes above are both yours. Reconcile them.

It is quite simple. I do not get how you do not get it. Especially since you answer your question:

The behaviour of the oppressed (slaves or women) has an influence on the oppressors. The oppressors have the power to end oppression. Simple.

Except you are forgetting the vital addition: of changing material needs. And of course taking your own statement to the logical extreme which you will derive me for later on in this post of yours: The oppressors have the power to end oppression


You wrote a whole load of crap about Spartacus never directly bringing about the end of slavery. The point is that part of the conditions for bringing about the end of slavery - is that the will of the oppressed is to no longer be oppressed.

Actually the Spartacus rebellion which was the third large slave revolt...quite definitely showed that the will of the oppressed to no longer be oppressed was not enough. Slavery as an institution continued. The ONLY way in which such a revolt would end slavery would be when the slaves overthrow their masters and dispose of them. Incidentally. Spartacus freed slaves owned slaves. Which is quite ironic.


The patriarchy will not be destroyed without women noticing. Their opinions have to change.

There never was disagreement on this


Their behaviour has to change.

But there is on this. Because for all your rhetoric you haven't identified what behavior should change and you haven't explained how women's behavior has changed over the centuries but did fuck all to change patriarchy. I also can't help but notice that you failed to answer my three very simple questions at the start of my post and conveniently left them out of your quote.

You also completely failed to address how patriarchy is not a single set of rules and principles but actually has a set of those for each and every occasion for women's behavior. Because that is how patriarchy works. If women collectively changed their behavior over night...patriarchy will find another way to use that to create a system in which men still will be the dominant factor.


It may be that men are the last to come around (and so it will seem as if it only took the men to change in order to defeat the patriarchy), but women have to come around too.

Do you actually understand that you completely misunderstand patriarchy?

What is patriarchy in your opinion? What is it's core?

Let me give you the wiki definition and you can start there and then you can explain to me how women can change their behavior so they can opt out of patriarchy:

Patriarchy is a social system in which males are the primary authority figures central to social organization, occupying roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination



The system must fall. Behaviour must change in order to defeat the system. Mine is a revolutionary argument.

No argument here. Except of course of whose behavior should change.

Patriarchy falls because of one of three reasons:

1). Ruling class decides to abandon it
2). Ruling class stops being the ruling class
3). The material conditions no longer provide for its existence and will facilitate its replacement with another system.



Your approach continues to be one-dimensional and narrow minded, with a disregard for the whole picture, and a focus on direct events. You remind me of Oedipus. He got quite a shock in the end when he saw the big picture.

Right back at you.


I'm well aware that this problematic for your argument. Nevertheless it is right; making your argument wrong.

Actually I was using problematic as not to say you were blaming women for rape and legitimizing victim blaming and the whole slew of patriarchy enforcing bullshit arguments...and of course being deeply sexist.


Patriarchy is not just 'finding ways to blame women'. This is a small part of what the Patriarchy is. It is your lack of understanding that it causing you to make these bad arguments.[quote]

I never said that it was. You may have missed the word PART in my words there.

But if you deny that finding ways to blame women is part of rape culture and patriarchy then I again suggest you revisit your knowledge and understanding about either of them.

[quote]I never once blamed one woman alone or all women. I BLAMED EVERYONE. YOU, ME, MEN, WOMEN, EVERYONE.

Yeah. I thought it quite comical and telling that you did.

You may have missed my complete lack of using the word "you" in the quote you are reacting to.


Everybody is influenced by society. Everybody influences society. The same can be said for the Patriarchy (part of society).

A few lines back you mentioned it being an all out war and the smallest every day stuff enforcing it hundreds of times a day. You would think that you would make patriarchy something more than just part of society. Especially after accusing me of making it so small.

Again...I have never argued anything else. And your point in that sentence completely did not address or relate to anything I said in the part you quoted.



Your statement contradicts itself. In one breath you agree with my above statement - and then you contradict it in a desperate attempt to completely absolve all women everywhere of their part in contributing to society and therefore the patriarchy.

No. Again you are confused....and I have been quite consistent.

The sentence is only confusing if you do not know the difference between behavior and the reason for the behavior and actually confuse the two as being identical.


YOU are the one who wants to treat men and women differently. I am treating them equally. The have very different but nevertheless EQUAL parts to play in sustaining the patriarchy.

Actually I am acknowledging that men and women are treated differently and have their behavior evaluated differently.

You however pretend to treat men and women equally by saying that men and women have a shared responsibility in changing behavior. Which completely ignores the harsh reality that women already need to constantly change and watch their behavior in order to merely survive in patriarchy and that is regardless how she behaves. Then of course yo continue to argue that women themselves are to blame for rape culture and patriarchy because they haven't adjusted their behavior properly.


It certainly does serve women's purposes, and if they were conscious and aware of the patriarchy they would want to.

Really? Because I know a lot of radical feminists who want to stay at home and take care of their children. I know a lot of revolutionary feminists who still use communicative ambiguity in order to flirt and seduce. In fact I am dating one now...who does...grasp...both. OMG. The horror of her perpetuating patriarchy and rape culture.

Again you are confusing behavior with the reason behind the behavior.

I explained this. It was quite simple.

Staying at home because you want too and taking care of the kids is fine, non sexist, non patriarchy enforcing behavior. Staying at home because you think it is a woman's job for caring for children...is patriarchy enforced reasoning behind behavior. Does not mean the behavior needs to change UNLESS the woman who previously held that sexist notion and now doesn't thinks it no longer suits her to stay at home.

Stop dictating what women should and shouldn't want or do. It is sexist.


Everyone's opinions and behaviour needs to change. I know you think you are, but you are not doing women a favour by heaving all of the responsibility for change onto the oppressors. Why would they do it? It is not in their interests. We will only defeat the patriarchy once both men and women become conscious.

I am not. I am saying the behavioral change needs to come from the oppressor and that women's behavior is not the issue. This does not absolve women from understanding power dynamics. And if you read my posts and actually understood what I was saying you would have seen me arguing that women should behave how they want (finally by the way) and that they need to get conscious. But men need to get conscious and change their behavior.

So lets make things clear: women behaving how they want is IMO a conscious act in itself. I don't get what your issue is with that.

Why would men change their position on patriarchy? Because patriarchy isn't in the best interest of all men, contrary to what you may think.


Just as socialism serves the interests of the proletariat, but they may not realise it. They must be made conscious of the situation before they can really know what is in their interests, and what they want.

Never argued anything else.


So you have come up with the ingenious (and not at all patriarchy enforcing) plan of having only the men doing the changing. The irony is blinding.

Actually the logical conclusion of what I said there is that it either requires men to be eliminated as the dominant factor or it would require men to stop patriarchy...either because it no longer is supported by the material needs or because enough men change their opinion about how women should be treated and their own entitlement. Any other option isn't viable...since patriarchy is not an opt out system.

[Invader Zim]

PA, your problem is that you appear to perceive patriarchy as a male product, as opposed to a product of socially constructed notions of gender generated over thousands of years of evolving human societies - societies populated by both men and women. The reality is that both men and women participate in, conform to, and perpetuate, gendered modes of behavior. And in answer to your above questions:

"Do you think that we currently have: Less, equal amount of, or more patriarchy?"

What is the chronology you have in mind from which to draw viable comparison? If it is a decade then probably not, but if it is a century then even a casual glance at the course of modern history (in the West at least) shows a clear bridging of the gap between men and women, be it in terms of remuneration, political and legal rights, participation in formerly male dominated spheres, sexuality, fashions, domestic roles, ad infinitum.

"Do you think women's behavior changed because of a decline in patriarchies influence?"

No. Social change hasn't worked like that.

"Do you think patriarchy is monolithic or polylithic...in other words is it flexible and adaptable to new realities or is it slow to change?"

Patriarchy is an element of far wider processes than this question's scope can possibly merit.

[Rafiq]

What I think is especially funny about this thread is that the people who are so adamant about the idea that these sorts of individual behaviors "reinforce" patriarchy are the same people arguing in favor of policing individual women's sexual conduct (to stop these women from 'reinforcing the patriarchy', of course - the irony of this seems to be completely lost on some)

No one is policing individual women's conduct, but the conduct of how men interpret it.

[synthesis]

No one is policing individual women's conduct, but the conduct of how men interpret it.

I'm pretty sure this is the sort of stuff she was referring to:


So, to the OP: it is not this woman's fault that she does not see that this reinforces the patriarchy - but it is your job as it is everyone's to make her see this. Talk to her and everyone you know - explain. Knowledge will bring down the Patriarchy. Knowledge will bring about Socialism.

I mean, did you think Strix was arguing that we should actually make this sort of behavior illegal? It seems we've had a miscommunication about the use of the term "morality policing" here.

[mindsword]

If anyone says the opposite of what they mean, they need to be shot or given medical treatment.

Basically if anyone says the OPPOSITE of what they mean, what they say has absolutely no meaning or value and should just be ignored as worthless onomatopoeia. You cant complain after, and you will learn the hard way. Like anyone else who doesnt have a history of medical mental retardation would.

Of course nobody would actually do that. Right??? Because that would be the epitamy of idiotic dumb behaviour.

[PhoenixAsh]

No one is policing individual women's conduct, but the conduct of how men interpret it.

Actually...that is the basis of my argument. But neither Xena and Roza are arguing this and are arguing that women's conduct has proper and improper ways...in effect regulating women's behavior.

[PhoenixAsh]

PA, your problem is that you appear to perceive patriarchy as a male product, as opposed to a product of socially constructed notions of gender generated over thousands of years of evolving human societies - societies populated by both men and women. The reality is that both men and women participate in, conform to, and perpetuate, gendered modes of behavior. And in answer to your above questions:

"Do you think that we currently have: Less, equal amount of, or more patriarchy?"

What is the chronology you have in mind from which to draw viable comparison? If it is a decade then probably not, but if it is a century then even a casual glance at the course of modern history (in the West at least) shows a clear bridging of the gap between men and women, be it in terms of remuneration, political and legal rights, participation in formerly male dominated spheres, sexuality, fashions, domestic roles, ad infinitum.

"Do you think women's behavior changed because of a decline in patriarchies influence?"

No. Social change hasn't worked like that.

"Do you think patriarchy is monolithic or polylithic...in other words is it flexible and adaptable to new realities or is it slow to change?"

Patriarchy is an element of far wider processes than this question's scope can possibly merit.



PA, your problem is that you appear to perceive patriarchy as a male product, as opposed to a product of socially constructed notions of gender generated over thousands of years of evolving human societies - societies populated by both men and women. The reality is that both men and women participate in, conform to, and perpetuate, gendered modes of behavior.

(snip)

Yes I am. And if the scope of this debate would have been broader I would have even argued that Patriarchy is a male product that seems (I will come to this later) to benefits men in general but more specifically it benefits and serves the purposes of the male members of the ruling class. And this is not a problem, as you say it, it is reality and the fact that members here refuse to see it that way is in fact problematic because it leads to an incorrect analysis of the system. The entire definition of patriarchy is: male rule and authority.

Patriarchy is a male product evolved from the right of conquest originating from a direct time when war started to be a dominant factor in the struggle for survival.

That patriarchy maintains itself by conditioning human thought and perception is not in dispute and I have argued so repeatedly. In fact, it is the basis of my entire argument. Also not in dispute is that both men and women participate in or conform to patriarchy.

What is in dispute is when and how men and women contribute and perpetuate to patriarchy and what their specific roles are in perpetuating the system and whether a woman actually can change her behavior to opt out of patriarchy.

To remind you. The debate started about specific individual behavior of a specific woman and how this woman's individual behavior supposedly enforced and perpetuated patriarchy/rape culture, how this individual behavior impacted other women and whether or not this was victim blaming. And from that premises the debate focused entirely on the role of women as both a victim and a perpetrator in their own subjugation. So my arguments fall in the frame of perpetrator vs victim based on specific an generalized behavior because of the scope of the debate. By definition this narrows the focus on aspects of patriarchy pertaining to regulating women's behavior and not on how women can enforce patriarchy or participate in regulating male behavior or the behavior of other women. Although I did mention it.

Within that frame my argument is that women do not need to change specific behavior but need to change attitude and logic behind the behavior and get conscious of their reasoning. In other words, their role in fighting patriarchy is to stop accepting their status as being less equal than men and stop acting because it is expected of them and start acting because it is what they want and most of all stop accepting regulation based on evaluation of their behavior from a patriarchal perspective because patriarchy inherently means that their behavior will be evaluated on a different scale from that of men regardless of their behavior.

To further explain this the default setting of patriarchy is that regardless of what women do their behavior will be regulated and it is actually impossible for a woman to not have her behavior regulated one way or the other because that is the nature of patriarchy. So to say that a woman should not act in a certain way because it perpetuates patriarchy is ludicrous. I will explain why a little later on.

But since women will always have their behavior regulated this means any change in patriarchy comes from the ruling and dominant group within the system as long as the ruling group exists (in other words: short of revolution). Which brings us to your evaluation of historic development or the rights and freedoms of women.

You mention rights and freedoms of women being substantially different from previous era's depending on the comparing time frame. The purpose behind the question was to first make people think about the development of the role of women in society and whether or not the scope and rigidity of women's domination has substantially changed and declined when women's behavior changed or, the follow up question, the change in women's behavior was caused by the decline of patriarchal rigidity.

If we look at women's rights and roles in society we see the emergence of patriarchy when communal competition, war and conquest became increasingly necessary for human survival because of scarcity. Little is known about the actual mechanics but historic research suggests that patriarchy developed in the same circumstances in different regions of the world when these factors were met. From there it was exported to other regions through conquest and society as a whole steadily moved away from egalitarian or matriarchal towards patriarchal. Throughout history the actual rigidity of patriarchy waxed and waned and at times women had greater freedoms and legal protection than others and there are also observable regional (cultural??) differences (Greece vs Egypt for example). So rather than patriarchy being a uniform development evidence shows that the nature of patriarchy is fluctuating. When these instances in history are examined the conclusion always is that the material needs necessitate a change in legal status and freedoms of women and that these changes have always been made by the ruling dominant group regardless of historical periods where women were allowed to be part of that dominant group. But the underlying principle is that regardless of the legal status and freedoms of women and changes in behavior and participation of society men maintained the dominant status in legislature and authority and therefore regulating women's behavior. As is still the reality today. And which forms the definition of Patriarchy.

(It is by the way a hypothesis of mine that the legal status of women mostly changed in periods of war or threatening war or the absence of war. I am not sure how since there does not seem to be a fixed outcome. Sometimes war created necessity for less rigid patriarchal society and sometimes it was quite the opposite. But this is, although imo interesting and deserving of research, not relevant to this specific debate).

As I said before. Patriarchy (seems to) benefits men in general but specifically serves the needs of the men who make up the ruling class within a given mode of production and is enforced and policed by men in general. In order to maintain itself Patriarchy conditions thoughts and perceptions and both implicit and explicit attitudes, of every member in society in order to affect behavior. But patriarchy affects men and women differently and creates a double standard based on the concept that men have authority over women because they have a natural right to rule and dominate.

So where behavior of men is regulated in certain ways to ensure men maintaining their dominant position by creating both the illusion and reality of benefiting, the system regulates and tries to regulate every aspect of female behavior and operates purely on the basis that men need to enforce their privilege by judging and perverting women's behavior to benefit male dominance and by enforcing the concept and attitude in women that they are indeed inferior to men. Men's behavior is mostly regulated when it opts out of this system. And yes, this is the part where women's behavioral participation in enforcing Patriarchy actually comes in. More on that later. But the behavior of a woman is always the result of conditioning attitude and believe systems and by weighing their behavior on a different scale than the exact same behavior of men.

In realizing this aspect of Patriarchy it becomes impossible for women to actually change their behavior to not conform to some patriarchal standard and notion without removing the ruling group. So if a woman decides not to conform to patriarchal standards of virginity...she becomes a slut and somebody who is asking for it and falls under a different patriarchal standard and notion. It is impossible to escape patriarchy for a woman by changing her behavior. Equally, arguing that a woman should change her behavior to not conform to some patriarchal standard is not only a mission impossible short of revolting against men in political and social power (since patriarchy means male rule...and so male rule needs to first be removed in order to topple patriarchy) but it also regulates women's behavior by telling them how to behave based on the fact that they are women.

Even worse. This goes a little further than that. By saying that patriarchy is depended in part on specific women's behavior this entails that since women do not behave a certain way they enforce and perpetuate rape culture by not acting "properly". This makes women, as Roza argued, complicit in this very rape culture and therefore also responsible for rape culture....and per extend in all that this entails. After all, if you are partially responsible for a certain situation, you are also responsible for its eventual outcome. This validates the entire notion of female behavior regulating mechanisms of patriarchy which state that women are to blame for whatever happens to them because they do not act properly. This creates a dichotomy in the argument. If feminism is creating equality in behavior then this presumes behavior is not equal but measured differently (so far it is correct) but to then argue that women do not behave properly and therefore are responsible in creating their own situation is contradictory and mutually exclusive to the notion that there should be equality in behavior and a cessation of regulating women's behavior.

In fact women's behavior should only change because women want it to change. And women should act however they please (which does not say that their behavior should be consequence free or this would entail a carte blanche. Obviously.) and not because they are inferior to men or it is the proper way to act for a woman. Which requires them to change their attitude and not necessarily their behavior. Because regardless of how a woman will act. Her behavior invariably will be judged and will be regulated one way or the other within the system of Patriarchy as long as it exists.

To give an example, again, a woman should become a stay at home mom because she wants to be a stay at home mom. Not because this is the proper way to act as a woman or because women need to be the primary caregiver.
But being a primary caregiver as a woman does not in fact enforce and perpetuate patriarchy.

This does not mean that women do not and can not perpetuate patriarchy. But for a woman to do so there needs to be active judgment or advocacy of women being naturally subjugated to men and that there is a proper way for men and women to behave.


>>>> I have to cut off here I just got a very disturbing phone call. Hopefully I will return to this soon.

[Invader Zim]

Well, that's a long post. So thanks for putting the time in. I haven't got time to respond in full. However, in brief the basic premise seems to be that patriarchy is a male product, forced upon women. This is problematic because it denies that women had or have agency, both individually and collectively. That women did not have expectations of men, which influence male behavior, and gendered social and cultural constructs. It almost appears if you view agency as, historically, male while women were passive. This doesn't tally with interesting research into gender dynamics, historically, conducted over the last 40-50 years.

The medieval concept of Chivalry, which greatly influenced (and still does) manifestations of patriarchy, was very much constructed by both men and women. Chivalry was codified and propagated through popular medieval literature, literature primarily aimed at female audiences and produced by poets under female patronage, and reinforced by male attempts to match expectation - incidentally a major trope in chivalric literature (i.e. Chretien de Troyes immensely influential and popular poetry).

[synthesis]

Well, that's a long post. So thanks for putting the time in. I haven't got time to respond in full. However, in brief the basic premise that patriarchy is a male product, forced upon women. This is problematic because it denies that women had or have agency, both individually and collectively. That women did not have expectations of men, which influence male behavior, and gendered social and cultural constructs. It almost appears if you view agency as, historically, male while women were passive. This doesn't tally with interesting research into gender dynamics, historically, conducted over the last 40-50 years.

Capitalism is a product of the bourgeoisie, and it's forced on the working class, but that doesn't mean that the working class doesn't have "agency," whatever that is supposed to mean in this context.

[Invader Zim]

Capitalism is a product of the bourgeoisie, and it's forced on the working class, but that doesn't mean that the working class doesn't have "agency," whatever that is supposed to mean in this context.

You have it backwards, the bourgeoisie was a product of the material conditions brought about the decline feudalism and the emergence of proto-capitalism. Additionally, capitalism is an economic system, patriarchy is a gendered series of dynamics. Apples and oranges. Comparable more with the idea of social class rather than economic class.

[synthesis]

You have it backwards, the bourgeoisie was a product of the material conditions brought about the decline feudalism and the emergence of proto-capitalism. Additionally, capitalism is an economic system, patriarchy is a gendered series of dynamics. Apples and oranges. Comparable more with the idea of social class rather than economic class.

We can play with semantics if you want, but the point was that in capitalism, the working class has "agency," yet it would be ridiculous to argue that it's at all complicit in its own exploitation. We must work to survive. In the same way, women certainly have agency in patriarchal societies, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is in fact completely backwards to say that they're complicit in their own oppression, because the patriarchy would continue to perpetrate the exact same shit regardless of whether women engaged in the behavior that is argued to make them "complicit." To paraphrase a guy with great facial hair, women live their day-to-day lives with agency, but in conditions not of their choosing.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Again, I don't think this should be seen as an issue of "blaming the victim" but of informing women that they have an interest in overturning patriarchy and that their actions have power in that regard. When we tell workers who let their bosses cut their wages without a fight that they should fight back in those situations, we're not blaming the workers for their exploitation, we're arguing that they have the tools to take charge of the situation by not playing the role of the passive worker willing to accept any little pittance for their right to live off their labor. When we tell them that they shouldn't scab, we're not blaming them for the conditions which force them to scab, we're telling them that they can only find liberation through class unity as opposed to exploiting the efforts of other workers to improve their conditions.


We can play with semantics if you want, but the point was that in capitalism, the working class has "agency," yet it would be ridiculous to argue that it's at all complicit in its own exploitation. We must work to survive. In the same way, women certainly have agency in patriarchal societies, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is in fact completely backwards to say that they're complicit in their own oppression, because the patriarchy would continue to perpetrate the exact same shit regardless of whether women engaged in the behavior that is argued to make them "complicit." To paraphrase a guy with great facial hair, women live their day-to-day lives with agency, but in conditions not of their choosing.

This is true but if we're going to take the working class into the discussion, it is notable that it is the working class and not the bourgeoisie which has the agency in changing the social relations. We don't wait for the bourgeoisie to change their standards because they realize the moral repugnance of their system. The working class takes charge of their own affairs. Likewise, overturning patriarchy realizes the agency of women in social affairs.

That isn't to say men don't play a role either, just as bourgeois "class traitors" like Engels can play a role in overturning Capitalism. Men can analyze how their actions alienate them from women and fight back against it, but the efforts of women to struggle against patriarchy are critical in realizing that across society as opposed to just in the lives of some more self-critical, self-aware, virtuous men.

[Invader Zim]

We can play with semantics if you want

Pointing out that economic class is not a product of the Bourgeoisie - which is an economic class itself - is not a 'semantic' quibble, it is a fatal qualitative problem with the argument being made. Because, if material conditions created economic classes, then it cannot be argued (without inflicting a major anachronism) that 'x' situation was inflicted on group 'y', via the machinations of group 'z'. Unless, of course, you want your analysis to be both wholly inaccurate and superficial to the point of irrelevance.


but the point was that in capitalism, the working class has "agency," yet it would be ridiculous to argue that it's at all complicit in its own exploitation.

If the working classes reached the point of sufficient class consciousness to collectively cease selling their labour, and seized control of the means of production, as opposed to complying with the status quo, then capitalism and class exploitation would cease to exist. Indeed, that is the whole point - right?


but that doesn't negate the fact that it is in fact completely backwards to say that they're complicit in their own oppression

Well, if you care to analyse the development of gendered social constructions, then you would find that, regardless of whether you think it backwards or otherwise, it is reality - both in historical and contemporary societies. Men did not single handedly create either the gendered perceptions patriarchy; they behaved in a fashion as determined by their social consciousness - in other words they behaved in a normative fashion dictated by how their society socially constructed perceptions of gender. Unless you are suggesting that historically, and indeed today, men and women exist in vacuums independent of each other, then women also create the social constructions of gender which dictate how men and women perceive themselves and each other. This is all gender studies / structuralism / functionalism basic precepts 101 and it is worrying that you conceive of it as some kind of alient concept.

Perhaps you should look again at the paraphrase from Marx you provided, and actually consider what it tells us:

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

[synthesis]

SMC, I agree with pretty much your entire post, but I also think your argument in it is qualitatively different from the ideas expressed earlier in this thread. Saying that women "have an interest in overturning patriarchy" and should be educated about this fact is pretty didactic but not completely wrong. That's not the same as this idea that the woman in the OP has some sort of "duty" to her gender to not engage in that behavior.


Pointing out that economic class is not a product of the Bourgeoisie - which is an economic class itself - is not a 'semantic' quibble, it is a fatal qualitative problem with the argument being made. Because, if material conditions created economic classes, then it cannot be argued (without inflicting a major anachronism) that 'x' situation was inflicted on group 'y', via the machinations of group 'z'. Unless, of course, you want your analysis to be both wholly inaccurate and superficial to the point of irrelevance.

Who's arguing that "[patriarchy] was inflicted on [women] by the machinations of [men]"? You are targeting the letter rather than the spirit of the analogy.


If the working classes reached the point of sufficient class consciousness to collectively cease selling their labour, and seized control of the means of production, as opposed to complying with the status quo, then capitalism and class exploitation would cease to exist. Indeed, that is the whole point - right?

That's not at all the same.

The fact that the working class can emancipate itself and abolish class society doesn't make it "complicit" in capitalism, nor does it make it an "accomplice" to the bourgeoisie, which would be the equivalent of what you're arguing here, any more than someone who has been beaten and then does not report the crime to the police is legally an "accomplice" to their own assault.


Well, if you care to analyse the development of gendered social constructions, then you would find that, regardless of whether you think it backwards or otherwise, it is reality - both in historical and contemporary societies. Men did not single handedly create either the gendered perceptions patriarchy; they behaved in a fashion as determined by their social consciousness - in other words they behaved in a normative fashion dictated by how their society socially constructed perceptions of gender. Unless you are suggesting that historically, and indeed today, men and women exist in vacuums independent of each other, then women also create the social constructions of gender which dictate how men and women perceive themselves and each other. This is all gender studies / structuralism / functionalism basic precepts 101 and it is worrying that you conceive of it as some kind of alient concept.

I suppose this is my fault for initially saying something that may have sounded like capitalism was a "conspiracy" of the bourgeoisie, but I feel like this misunderstanding should have been corrected by now.

I conceive of these social constructions as originating in material conditions, which are those of the oppression and exploitation of women; that's what we call "patriarchy," right? Because I think any other definition would be liberal nonsense and bourgeois diversionism.

And those material conditions which determine consciousness also dictate the relations of patriarchy; thus these conditions would continue to dictate these relations regardless of whether or not women participated in behavior that supposedly perpetuates those relations.

[Luís Henrique]

But if no means yes for her, what means no?

In the real world, people don't rely exclusively in verbal communication. She probably says "no" while making gestures that convey the meaning of "yes", when she intends it that way, and says "no" while making gestures that convey the meaning of "no" when she really wants to avoid a man. Which is a very common behaviour indeed; as someone posted above, a research found that almost 40% of women have engaged in it. Or, better saying, almost 40% of women admit having engaged in it.

Is it a good thing? I don't think so; I agree with Rosa Partizan that "it perpetuates all this "no means yes"-bullshit and makes some guys believe that a no is a yes in disguise". But never mind how much deluded I am about my omnipotence, me thinking it a bad thing won't make other people stop doing it.

Regarding the OP, is pointing out that this behaviour is bad, or that it reinforces rape culture "blaming the victim"? I can see how one would arrive to such conclusion: John hits on Mary, Mary says "no", John insists, Mary gives in, and is afterwards very happy he insisted. Bob, Harry, Ted, Jack, Louie, Martin and Hugh all do the same, with the same results, while Jane counsels Mary against doing it, for the very obvious negative consequences it can have. Then one day Ebenezer hits on Mary, she says "no", and Ebenezer rapes her. Because that one time she actually intended "no" as "no". If then Jane dares telling her friend something like "I told you so" (or even just as much as implying so), someone can distort Jane's words as meaning that she is holding Mary responsible for her own rape. That's probably what Rosa Partizan's interlocutor's reasoning.

At that point, I think there is a confusion about "blame". Juridically, the blame of a crime lies strictly and exclusively on the criminal. No, leaving the keys in the car is probably not a good idea - but if someone takes advantage of such bad idea and steals the car, only the thief is "to blame" for the theft. On the other hand, that won't stop people informally saying that it was the victim's fault - "what was he thinking, leave the keys in the car? That's practically begging to have it stolen!"

The problem with rape is that such confusion is even more ingrained in this case: no one would have the idea that a car theft should go unpunished because the owner left the keys on it, but the idea that a sexual assault should remain unpunished because the victim drank too much, or was dressing in such-or-such way, or went to such-and-such place is unhappily very widespread - including among the police. Which is a problem, and part of what we call "rape culture".

But I think the OP is quite clear: behaving like her friend does is not a good idea, for a series of given reasons, one of which is that it "makes some guys believe that a no is a yes in disguise", thus reinforcing the rape culture. It doesn't mean however that if said lady gets raped, the rapist shouldn't be punished, or that she should be punished along with the rapist, etc.

[Lily Briscoe]

But I think the OP is quite clear: behaving like her friend does is not a good idea, for a series of given reasons, one of which is that it "makes some guys believe that a no is a yes in disguise", thus reinforcing the rape culture.I don't believe this at all. I think rape due to honest miscommunication between two parties (i.e. someone genuinely thinking a "no" is a "yes in disguise") is almost certainly a completely negligible phenomenon. Men are not morons who are incapable of reading social cues. I think it's pretty obvious when someone's resistance is flirtatious and when it's serious. This poster put it pretty well:


Unless someone has an autism spectrum disorder or something else that would make them unable to properly read social cues and all, it's really fucking obvious when people aren't into something/are reluctant to do something/"just aren't into you, man". Maybe I'm just making assumptions about other people that aren't true but it's just really hard for me to believe there is any significant amount of men who really can't tell when they're pressuring/intimidating/coercing someone who is unsure or hesitant, unless they're so drunk they probably can't get it up anyway.

Personally, if I were the OP, my only concern with regard to my friend's behavior would be for her safety. If I thought it was something she may not have really thought through, I would probably bring it up to her privately. Beyond that, I think the idea that her behavior is "making men believe x, y, and z" is completely ridiculous and is absolutely part of the dominant narrative that attributes rape to women behaving 'irresponsibly' or leading men on or making men behave in certain ways.

[Luís Henrique]

Having a read at this thread, and getting again the feeling that more-female-than-thou males (aka "white knights") are telling women how they should think (and what they should say) to be female...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I don't believe this at all. I think rape due to honest miscommunication between two parties is almost certainly a completely negligible phenomenon. Men are not morons who are incapable of reading social cues. I think it's pretty obvious when someone's resistance is flirtatious and when it's serious.

To me, it is. To other men, particularly young men, I don't know (I am pretty sure that it was less obvious to me when I was younger, for instance). But that's absolutely not the point. "Rape culture" is not about believing that "rape is justifiable", it is about not seeing rape for what it is, about denying that rape is rape. The behaviour in question helps that: it makes plausible to paint all resistance as flirtatious, even when it is not.


Personally, if I were the OP, my only concern with regard to my friend's behavior would be for her safety. If I thought it was something she may not have really thought through, I would probably bring it up to her privately. Beyond that, I think the idea that her behavior is "making men believe x, y, and z" is completely ridiculous and is absolutely part of the dominant narrative that attributes rape to women behaving 'irresponsibly' or leading men on or making men behave in certain ways.

That's not what happens, of course. Women's behaviour does not lead to men thinking this or that. Patriarchy does that. But then the behaviour of Rosa's friend is part and parcel of patriarchy. She is not doing that because she is a woman, she is doing that because her behaviour is highly patriarchal.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Partizan]

totally not interested in justifying for the 285th time and explaining why I don't think that it's a woman's fault if she gets molested or raped. Anyone who wants to believe that I'm a victim blamer or even rape apologist: go ahead (and fuck you). Luis said it all. It's not like women love to be a part of rape culture, love being disrespected or anything, it's because they grow up in a world where your worth as a human being is decreased if you put out easily, if you're too willing to respond to a guy's flirting and stuff. It's just natural that no one wants to lose their worth in society, and guess what dominates society? Yeah, patriarchy. So most women are pretty willing to conform to patriarchy and you can call me patronizing, didactic or whatever, I'm going to tell my ladyfriends about patriarchy as much as I want, until they get it. Curiously, I have more feminist male friends than female ones, so they find this way of flirting fucked up, too. Jesus, I'm repeating for about the 300th time. Whatever.

[Lily Briscoe]

To me, it is. To other men, particularly young men, I don't know (I am pretty sure that it was less obvious to me when I was younger, for instance). But that's absolutely not the point. "Rape culture" is not about believing that "rape is justifiable", it is about not seeing rape for what it is, about denying that rape is rape. The behaviour in question helps that: it makes plausible to paint all resistance as flirtatious, even when it is not.OK so by this logic, I guess women who get shitfaced and enthusiastically seek out casual sex are reinforcing "rape culture" because they're making it plausible to paint all instances where men rape intoxicated women as "consensual casual sex". In fact, I guess women who have rape fantasies are also reinforcing "rape culture" by making it plausible to paint all instances of rape as something the victim wanted. This entire line of reasoning is bullshit. What you are arguing here is far more a manifestation of "rape culture" than some random woman going to a nightclub and playing hard-to-get.


That's not what happens, of course. Women's behaviour does not lead to men thinking this or that. Patriarchy does that. But then the behaviour of Rosa's friend is part and parcel of patriarchy. She is not doing that because she is a woman, she is doing that because her behaviour is highly patriarchal.Well I guess if enough people assert that it is so, it must be the case.

ETA:

Having a read at this thread, and getting again the feeling that more-female-than-thou males (aka "white knights") are telling women how they should think (and what they should say) to be female...
It's pretty amusing if this is in response to me, by the way.

[Invader Zim]

Who's arguing that "[patriarchy] was inflicted on [women] by the machinations of [men]"?

PA.

"Patriarchy is a male product evolved from the right of conquest originating from a direct time when war started to be a dominant factor in the struggle for survival."

Which is historically over simplistic in the extreme. At least based on what I know about gender history.


You are targeting the letter rather than the spirit of the analogy.

No, I'm attacking both - because the analogy is problematic because patriarchy is, as a part of a wider series of gendered social constructs, entirely different from economic class as defined through Marxist analysis. The two are not like for like, they have entirely different origins, they manifest themselves in entirely different respects, they have evolved differently, and they are products of different influences. As i said earlier, apples and oranges.


That's not at all the same.

It depends on whether you think of the question in terms of the individual or of the collective.


I conceive of these social constructions as originating in material conditions, which are those of the oppression and exploitation of women; that's what we call "patriarchy," right?

The first part is accurate, the second is inaccurate. The material condistions are not 'the oppression and exploitation of women', they are the product of the socially constructed gendered dynamics and perceptions which, in turn, are ultimately the product of material conditions - or at least were at one point. Once a socially constructed perceptions are forged, they undergo significant evolution, and the concept of 'fatherhood', the 'patriarch' and the family unit is many thousands of years old. The material conditions which forged patriarchy are now, undeniably, completely different. Yet what is woven into the very babric of society is very difficult to unpick. And of course, because social perceptions of gender are woven into the fabric of society, then, as I noted, both men and women play significant roles, over time, in creating and mutating gendered identity and what it is to be a 'man' or 'woman'. As noted, women's perceptions of masulinity and feminity are just as important in defining these concepts as those of men.

To take another illustrative historical example, that of the First World War, while women far from single-handedly created the aspect of male identity which casted men as 'protectors' of femininity during this period, they certainly did colour that role, extend its meaning, and actively participated in solidifying that aspect of masculinity - a key aspect in the patriarchal element of male identity. A prime example is of the 'White Feather' movement, women took it upon themselves to apply emotional pressure, by building and acting upon the perception of the male 'warrior' and 'protector', on men who, otherwise, did not conform to these elements of the male identity. The movement was highly effective, and a great many men who, otherwise, would probably not have enroled for military service (at least until 1916 when conscription was applied) were shamed into doing so. Not only did women entirely buy into the role of the male patriarch, defender of women and children, they actively extended it to new extremes by casting doubt on male courage and masculinity on those who did not conform. One of the most interesting manifestations of this phenomenon, which the British state was swift to incorporate into its own propaganda campaigns, is aply demonstrated by the following poster:

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/WillYouGo.jpg



Which - incidentally - casts serious doubt on the premise that socially constructed gendered identity, which in the case of males incorporates patriarchal attyitudes as a key element, exists only at the expense of women, is both short sighted and simplistic. Gendered identity, which casts those who do not conform to that identity as 'others', is, while certainly not as harmful to males, is certainly socially poisonous to those (famale or male) who are not comfortable with that identity.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that patriarchy is just as harmful to men as it is to women, rather highlighting the point that patriarchy is, and gendered sterotypes, can and often are, also damaging to men - a point often lost.

[PhoenixAsh]

I need to reread the thread but from a quick glance through I am going to restate the following but applying it to capitalism:

Capitalism will only fall/en when:

1). The material conditions for it change and stop making it a viable form of economics
2). The bourgeois collectively stops being bourgeois.
3). When the proletariat violently overthrows the bourgeois.

Which is my point in patriarchy.

Saying that capitalism isn't a bourgeois product but (paraphrasing) "came about through the change in material conditions" seems to be saying that capitalism was a collective effort involving all classes creating a new economic system on equal footing rather than acknowledging that the change in material conditions created a new ruling class which then enforced its continued dominance on other classes.

The same goes for patriarchy.

[sosolo]

Perhaps, if a woman says no, the man takes it at face value. If she later says yes, the man should continue to consider the answer is no, to be on the safe side. He has no idea if she suddenly felt pressured, etc., into saying yes. This will prevent any kind of coersion from occurring. And body language is all well and good, but the word no is the final say. If a woman wants to have sex, she will not say no.

[Luís Henrique]

OK so by this logic, I guess women who get shitfaced and enthusiastically seek out casual sex are reinforcing "rape culture" because they're making it plausible to paint all instances where men rape intoxicated women as "consensual casual sex".

Well, this analogy is quite flawed. If a woman gets shitfaced and enthusiastically seeks out casual sex, she is still... enthusiastically seeking casual sex. If she fades out due to intoxication, then she obviously is no longer seeking out anything, she is just unconscious. How would a woman enthusiastically seeking out sex justify the rape of a woman who is too drunk to seek anything or consent to anything?


In fact, I guess women who have rape fantasies are also reinforcing "rape culture" by making it plausible to paint all instances of rape as something the victim wanted.

That's of course a more dangerous line of action. But, first, "rape fantasies" are quite evidently a result from rape culture; second, fantasies only reinforce this or that if they are acted on, which leads to, third, if a woman decides to act on her rape fantasies by arranging a completely consensual role playing event, then it possibly does not reinforce rape culture, while if she decides to act on her rape fantasy by walking at night in dangerous places, in the hopes that someone will actually rape her, then I fear it does reinforce rape culture (though I would be more immediately concerned that she might actually get herself killed or maimed).


It's pretty amusing if this is in response to me, by the way.

Not particularly, no. I think I used the plural form (males, white knights) because I don't see one specific male doing it, but rather a collective dismissal, by males, of Rosa's points, on behalf of hypothetic women who, being hypothetical, cannot assert their own points-of-view".

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Partizan]

Rape fantasies may be a product of patriarchy and porn for sure, I find this highly plausible, but in such a fantasy that is lived out with a guy, the line is pretty clear, there is clarity in such a situation (which is not in the OP-situation, big difference). From my experience, you make up a safeword and this safeword is the role play's NO, that in no case the woman wants to be ignored or that she gets pissed off when the guy really backs off, cause that's what the word is for. Any guy who would ignore this safeword, would be raping the woman, there is no doubt.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well, that's a long post. So thanks for putting the time in. I haven't got time to respond in full. However, in brief the basic premise seems to be that patriarchy is a male product, forced upon women. This is problematic because it denies that women had or have agency, both individually and collectively. That women did not have expectations of men, which influence male behavior, and gendered social and cultural constructs. It almost appears if you view agency as, historically, male while women were passive. This doesn't tally with interesting research into gender dynamics, historically, conducted over the last 40-50 years.

The definition of patriarchy is literally male rule and yes, it was forced on women. I would go even further and argue that patriarchy is both a product of men developing regionally and an export product exported through conquest. As I said patriarchy developed in regions where fierce competition for resources became necessary between communities (changing material conditions which disrupted both social and economic organization) and men became the dominant social group.

This does not negate the fact which you are arguing that an intricate system was created in order to ensure continued male rule. Religious, legal and social....all served to legitimise and codefy male rule. I am also not contesting that this system does not regulate behavior and most of all perception.

However the system was created by men. Religious leaders: men. Military leaders: men. Political leaders: men. Legislature: men.


The medieval concept of Chivalry, which greatly influenced (and still does) manifestations of patriarchy, was very much constructed by both men and women. Chivalry was codified and propagated through popular medieval literature, literature primarily aimed at female audiences and produced by poets under female patronage, and reinforced by male attempts to match expectation - incidentally a major trope in chivalric literature (i.e. Chretien de Troyes immensely influential and popular poetry).

Literature in the (late) middle ages which had no change whatsoever in the real situation that had already existed for centuries and when religious and legal systems were far more dominant in regulating women's status vs male status then any Canterbury tale ever written which was not accessible for the vast majority of the illiterate population. By the way...vast majority of literature in the middle ages: male authors. Vast majority of poets: male.

[PhoenixAsh]

Not particularly, no. I think I used the plural form (males, white knights) because I don't see one specific male doing it, but rather a collective dismissal, by males, of Rosa's points, on behalf of hypothetic women who, being hypothetical, cannot assert their own points-of-view".


Her points initially in the thread were geared to regulate women's behavior by attributing responsibility for perpetuating patriarchy and rape culture to individual women and arguing a proper way of acting for women.

I think pointing this out and arguing that this is equally regulating women's behavior does not constitute white knighting.

[PhoenixAsh]

As for the historical example of women's role in WWI propaganda....this same exact situation occurred throughout history and was also witnessed in England during the Sudan campaign.

All these instances however were a mobilization of women into the propaganda effort by the ruling elites and NOT a self organized occurrence or phenomenon. In fact it is a perfect example, yet again, how women's behavior was regulated by a huge effort in creating yet another "behavior of a proper woman" image which affected women's behavior.

[Lily Briscoe]

Not particularly, no. I think I used the plural form (males, white knights) because I don't see one specific male doing it, but rather a collective dismissal, by males, of Rosa's points, on behalf of hypothetic women who, being hypothetical, cannot assert their own points-of-view".

Luís Henrique


Do you know the sex of everyone posting in this thread, or do you just expect that all females who post on revleft should have usernames and avatars and posts that make their sex immediately apparent? I'm not a male, FWIW, and it's pretty rich to me that you of all people are making this point, since you are. Furthermore, this thread seems to consist overwhelmingly of people saying 'right on' or some equivalent to the OP, with very few critical voices at all (I think, in fact, other than myself there are two, in contrast to the slew of people agreeing with the OP), so I'm not really sure what you're complaining about.

At any rate, I'm not really interested in debating this stuff any further. I feel like at this point the discussion is just going around in circles, and to be completely honest, the entire concept of having a thread like this on here (i.e. an exposé of the sexual conduct of a friend of someone on this board) actually really bothers me.

[synthesis]

I read somewhere that what we refer to as "rape fantasies," or at least the theme of "ravishment," socially originated in part as a relatively acceptable way for women to fantasize, at least more openly, about no-strings-attached sex without the social guilt, shame and judgment that often accompanies it, since the "responsibility" for that sexual desire has been alleviated by the circumstances within the fantasy. Not sure how relevant that is to what's being discussed by Luis Henrique and others, and obviously it's an over-generalization and not necessarily related to BDSM, but I thought it was interesting at the time I read it, at least as it relates to such things expressed to me in my personal life.

(IZ, still working on a response.)

[Rosa Partizan]

quotes aren't working again, goddamn.

strix, why would it bother you? I didn't mention her name or any personal data, I could've invented this story or taken it from somewhere else, too.

As for synthesis, I heard that one, too, but also from some sexual psychologist that especially women with experience with sexual harassment, rape etc phantasize about such stuff, because in this situation they create in their imagination, they are the "director" of their "suffering" and not any longer a victim, they reverse what happened to them into something "good" (put "good" in really strong speech marks). For anyone who understands German, you can read this article here (http://www.emma.de/artikel/margarete-mitscherlich-femininer-masochismus-263681).

[AnaRchic]

As a man I've experienced this type of scenario. Some women do indeed say no and mean yes, why, I have no idea. But some do. The absolute key here is to be perceptive of nonverbal communication.

Ive had girls say no while ripping my clothes off and making out with me. And yeah we kept going. Other times I've had girls say no and I stopped right away. If you are perceptive of nonverbal communication it becomes pretty obvious when girls play this "no means yes" game, and when they really mean no.

Nevertheless I can imagine many guys, who are less adept in the subtleties of nonverbal communication, to completely miss the mark here. I really wish more women would be upfront and honest with men, although I find that that is a rare thing to find consistently.

Obviously if a woman says no a man should stop right away, unless it is painfully obvious by unmistakeable nonverbal signals (like her ripping your clothes off) that the "no" is not at all serious. But again, if women didn't do this in the first place, this conversation wouldn't even be necessary. I really wish women would stop with this nonsense.

[Lily Briscoe]

strix, why would it bother you? I didn't mention her name or any personal data, I could've invented this story or taken it from somewhere else, too.

OK well I hope that's the case. But just the whole idea of posting a thread criticizing the sexual conduct of some random woman, and then the long line of responses like this:


She sounds really immature. People who play games like that aren't worth anyone's time.

sadly enough, she's getting laid quite regularly, because there's a ton of guys who're like "no = she just doesn't know she wants it".

Probably the guys she ends up hooking up with are some real assholes.
Probably if she's just worried about getting dick, it doesn't matter that they're real assholes.

I suppose she's only interested in walking dildos at this point.
Something about it just really doesn't sit well with me; it's stuff that imho really isn't anyone's business. It's like being back in a high school lockerroom or something.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'm going to repeat my request for a conceptual clarification made before - why is it ok to tell workers not to scab, but its not ok to tell women that they should be careful with the political implications of what they say as women and the kind of gender roles which it encourages? In both cases aren't we just as much "policing" the actions of an oppressed group?

Also people are getting really high and mighty over people "policing" and "regulating" the sexual behavior of women, when the only thing being done is arguing that certain behaviors can be harmful to women. I don't think anyone has said that mobs of radical feminists should go around with clubs playing moral police with the flirting techniques of other women. You'd need to have a VERY broad definition of "policing" and "regulating behavior" to determine that the kinds of arguments being made on some obscure internet forum have an actual, real impact on the sexual choices of women, which would also contradict the argument that the actions of Rosa's friend have no political implications.


The definition of patriarchy is literally male rule and yes, it was forced on women. I would go even further and argue that patriarchy is both a product of men developing regionally and an export product exported through conquest. As I said patriarchy developed in regions where fierce competition for resources became necessary between communities (changing material conditions which disrupted both social and economic organization) and men became the dominant social group.

This does not negate the fact which you are arguing that an intricate system was created in order to ensure continued male rule. Religious, legal and social....all served to legitimise and codefy male rule. I am also not contesting that this system does not regulate behavior and most of all perception.


Yes patriarchy means male rule, but the rule of some group over another often includes the active participation from members of the exploited group. Certain women, especially women of privilege, have endorsed aspects of patriarchy when it suited them. Hence Queen Victoria was no raging feminist.



However the system was created by men. Religious leaders: men. Military leaders: men. Political leaders: men. Legislature: men.It's kind of a myopic view of history to just look at the roles of leaders. Women play an overly ignored role in organizing society historically speaking.

[synthesis]

I'm going to repeat my request for a conceptual clarification made before - why is it ok to tell workers not to scab, but its not ok to tell women that they should be careful with the political implications of what they say as women and the kind of gender roles which it encourages?

Scabbing has a direct, universally observable, quantifiable effect on the struggle of the working class against exploitation.


Also people are getting really high and mighty over people "policing" and "regulating" the sexual behavior of women, when the only thing being done is arguing that certain behaviors can be harmful to women. I don't think anyone has said that mobs of radical feminists should go around with clubs playing moral police with the flirting techniques of other women. You'd need to have a VERY broad definition of "policing" and "regulating behavior" to determine that the kinds of arguments being made on some obscure internet forum have an actual, real impact on the sexual choices of women, which would also contradict the argument that the actions of Rosa's friend have no political implications.

First, I think this discussion has long since passed the point where it is productive to accuse anyone of being "high and mighty" about their side of the argument.

But, again, the term "moral policing" here is in reference to the idea that women who engage in "token resistance" or whatever else you want to call it should be taken aside by more enlightened thinkers (i.e., us) and pedagogically informed about how their flirting and the way in which they conduct their sex lives reinforces their own oppression or whatever. Do you not see this being done in this thread? You said just such a thing in post #121. I'm not sure how this is still a source of misunderstanding.

[PhoenixAsh]

It's kind of a myopic view of history to just look at the roles of leaders. Women play an overly ignored role in organizing society historically speaking.

Yes, and why would that be? Could it be because men simply ousted them from positions of power? Looking at the role of leaders is exactly the point with patriarchy...hence why its definition is: male rule. Or do you think women in power just suddenly thought: "o well...lets collectively give men all the power"?

Look...to clarify yet again...I am not denying a certain role for women...but I am saying women did not take that role through active agency. They were ousted from positions of power by men who then created a system of social, economic and legal constraints for women in order to both legitimize and secure their dominance.


Yes patriarchy means male rule, but the rule of some group over another often includes the active participation from members of the exploited group. Certain women, especially women of privilege, have endorsed aspects of patriarchy when it suited them. Hence Queen Victoria was no raging feminist.

I contest the "active" part. That is the whole issue here. I also am confused why we look at examples from relatively recent history instead of the centuries that went before.

While you see queen Victoria as a free agent I do not see Queen Victoria as a free agent but acting within the boundaries of having her behavior regulated. In fact I contest the notion and idea Queen Victoria actually had any real power. In fact the UK was already a constitutional monarchy and it has been widely admitted that her power was little to none.

[PhoenixAsh]

Also people are getting really high and mighty over people "policing" and "regulating" the sexual behavior of women, when the only thing being done is arguing that certain behaviors can be harmful to women. I don't think anyone has said that mobs of radical feminists should go around with clubs playing moral police with the flirting techniques of other women. You'd need to have a VERY broad definition of "policing" and "regulating behavior" to determine that the kinds of arguments being made on some obscure internet forum have an actual, real impact on the sexual choices of women, which would also contradict the argument that the actions of Rosa's friend have no political implications.

Aha...but apparently the things being said in an obscure bar by some individual woman obviously have wide impact of how men act against women. Which would contradict the entire line of argument which led us to have this thread in the first place. In fact....you are now actually arguing our position in order to legitimize your own by denying your own arguments.

So which is it?

[Rosa Partizan]

haha yeah, "wide impact", come on dude. No one was saying "wide impact". Not a single person has "wide impact" on patriarchy. It's rather what I've been saying several times, namely that everyone of us contributes to patriarchy in one way or another, and I'm not excluding myself from that. I used to be much worse, categorizing women, making sexist jokes etc. Is this NOT contributing to patriarchy? How else would you call this female behavior of kissing guy's asses to be considered cool by them?

[PhoenixAsh]

haha yeah, "wide impact", come on dude. No one was saying "wide impact". Not a single person has "wide impact" on patriarchy. It's rather what I've been saying several times, namely that everyone of us contributes to patriarchy in one way or another, and I'm not excluding myself from that. I used to be much worse, categorizing women, making sexist jokes etc. Is this NOT contributing to patriarchy? How else would you call this female behavior of kissing guy's asses to be considered cool by them?


Actually you said: it perpetuates the no means yes bullshit and perpetuates rape culture and patriarchy. You also said that it directly influences how other women were treated by men.

You can't get much of a wider impact than that.

Personally I don't think it matters one iota. How men in general feel entitled over women regardless of individual women's actions is the problem. And that is entirely the point.

Like I said...the mythology that All women say no but mean yes has been around for quite a while and has been rooted in ancient religious texts and literature and has always been observably and statistically untrue. Yet men continue to believe that myth....even men who have never been in the position to actually hear a woman say no when they meant yes or encountered such an incident. They still believe it. Why? Because it legitimizes their superiority and entitlement.

There is rarely a man saying: "O but Maria said no and meant yes last week...so Barbara says no right now...so that means yes". It is a given.

[Rosa Partizan]

goddamn why can't I quote? :rolleyes:

I've read a lot of blogs the last days and talked to some guys (not close friends, but guys I know who are very successful with women). The conclusion was: Every time I stopped in a flirting or even sexually heated situation because the woman said no (,stop), she was disappointed as fuck when I did so and looked at me with some kind of contempt.

Do you find this an acceptable behavior? Me not.

[PhoenixAsh]

goddamn why can't I quote? :rolleyes:

I've read a lot of blogs the last days and talked to some guys (not close friends, but guys I know who are very successful with women). The conclusion was: Every time I stopped in a flirting or even sexually heated situation because the woman said no (,stop), she was disappointed as fuck when I did so and looked at me with some kind of contempt.

Do you find this an acceptable behavior? Me not.

So basically women are simply too stupid to act properly? What nefarious creatures women are. Maybe there was something right all along in the Bible and Quran....when those said women can't make up their own mind.

And this coming from men. Wauw. What a surprise.

[Rosa Partizan]

yeah that's totally what I was saying. But I guess this is no big surprise to you, considering the victim blamer and rape apologist that I am.

Excuse me, I gotta go back to my God-given duties and prepare a meal for my husband, so that I don't get my daily yet justified beating.

[PhoenixAsh]

Here is your argument in a nutshell:

In order not to play into men's entitlement feelings women should stop behavingin an unacceptable way and start to behave properly otherwise men may get the wrong impression.

Now explain to me how women should behave and when a woman's behavior is acceptable and proper when the whole issue is that men have opinions which are not founded in fact and create rules which will always serve to perpetuate their own entitlement.

So MEN have issues with accepting that women's behavior does NOT legitimize their entitlement and that the rules and myths of false generalizations which are there to regulate all aspects of women's behavior aren't applicable to reality. And therefore WOMEN need to adjust their behavior. Uhuh. Sure. Because that will totally solve the issue of male entitlement. :rolleyes:

[Rosa Partizan]

you know what behavior is proper for EVERYBODY?

Communicate frankly and clearly. That's a really cool behavior. Stop playing stupid bullshit teenager games when you're pissed off when the person in question really does what you told them. This is fucked up in plenty of other ways, too.

And as for yourself, you can find everything cool that a woman does, even if she's the biggest mysoginist around. 'cause I won't. We live in times of the internet where every western woman has easily success to feminist sources, so I won't be excusing every female bullshit around without calling her out (altough I understand that kind of behavior, but I can't let it go). But you can do. And you can call me victim blamer, smartass, didactic, moralist, whatever, I just won't take women licking patriarchie's ass. Have a good day, I'm done with your relativizing bullshit.

[PhoenixAsh]

you know what behavior is proper for EVERYBODY?

Communicate frankly and clearly. That's a really cool behavior. Stop playing stupid bullshit teenager games when you're pissed off when the person in question really does what you told them. This is fucked up in plenty of other ways, too.

And as for yourself, you can find everything cool that a woman does, even if she's the biggest mysoginist around. 'cause I won't. We live in times of the internet where every western woman has easily success to feminist sources, so I won't be excusing every female bullshit around without calling her out (altough I understand that kind of behavior, but I can't let it go). But you can do. And you can call me victim blamer, smartass, didactic, moralist, whatever, I just won't take women licking patriarchie's ass. Have a good day, I'm done with your relativizing bullshit.

So it is back to your usual behavior of dodging the issue when somebody disagrees with you and calls you out on your moralistic bullshit when you try to regulate women's behavior of of what men may or may not think?

The fact of the matter is you didn't call her out on all those other reasons (you know...which I already pointed out in my first post). You didn't argue it would be a good idea to analyze if her reasoning behind it may be because of some misunderstanding in power dynamics and this understanding of power dynamics might benefit her. You immediately JUDGED her on her behavior and stated it was wrong and unaceptable behavior because of patriarchy, that it perpetuated patriarchy and that it perpetuated rape culture and that it directly adversely affected women in general. You used words as: "active" and "complicit" to argue this very specific segment only. And then of course you labelled her behavior as wrong based on what men might think....because she is a woman. The whole core of your argument is that women have a proper & acceptable and improper & unacceptable way to behave...and making them the actual responsible factor in why men feel entitled and act on mythology created by patriarchy in order to regulate women's behavior. All in order to get some validation for your position of not blaming the victim. And you got it. There is a slew of users who agree with you. Except for a few. Who find your arguments troubling and lacking a proper analysis of patriarchy and how it regulates women's behavior by creating numerable catch22 situations so women can't behave in a way that somehow "makes them invulnerable to having their behavior evaluated because they are women" because that is actually how patriarchy works.

And you can't deal with the fact that somebody disagrees with you.

[Rosa Partizan]

goddamn everything I could write now, I have written like a dozen of times in this thread. And excuse me that I'm not so goddamn smart like you and that I haven't read 200 books about patriarchy, making me unable to find a "proper analysis of patriarchy" and that I won't write goddamn essays about single questions that actually could be summarized in 5 lines. You act like I'm totally indifferent to male behavior and that I'm like "yeah every female behavior has to be adjusted to what guys could think". BULLSHIT! If that was my line of argumentation, I'd disapprove of a ton of other female behavior. If you think that women can't engage in perpetuating patriarchy, then this is the whole point where any further discussion can be cancelled, cause this is the whole crux of the matter why you think I'm a victim blamer. I myself engaged in upholding patriarchy, goddamn! Hundreds of times I did so without knowing it or rather: without caring about it. If you think that over 50% of human beings living in Western societies have no influence on societal nuisances like patriarchy, even if they're only accomplices for their own harm, then it's no use continuing that. As for myself, I'm gonna call out any sexist bullshit I hear, be it male or female.

[PhoenixAsh]

goddamn everything I could write now, I have written like a dozen of times in this thread. And excuse me that I'm not so goddamn smart like you and that I haven't read 200 books about patriarchy, making me unable to find a "proper analysis of patriarchy" and that I won't write goddamn essays about single questions that actually could be summarized in 5 lines. You act like I'm totally indifferent to male behavior and that I'm like "yeah every female behavior has to be adjusted to what guys could think". BULLSHIT! If that was my line of argumentation, I'd disapprove of a ton of other female behavior. If you think that women can't engage in perpetuating patriarchy, then this is the whole point where any further discussion can be cancelled, cause this is the whole crux of the matter why you think I'm a victim blamer. I myself engaged in upholding patriarchy, goddamn! Hundreds of times I did so without knowing it or rather: without caring about it. If you think that over 50% of human beings living in Western societies have no influence on societal nuisances like patriarchy, even if they're only accomplices for their own harm, then it's no use continuing that. As for myself, I'm gonna call out any sexist bullshit I hear, be it male or female.

O right. Because we are tots talking about intelligence. Please. First it was the "My english isn't as good (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2744452&postcount=102)" (and a few other posts which you said this) then it was "omg my opinion is dismissed because I am a woman (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2746840&postcount=151)" argument and now it is "because you aren't as smart".



The whole crux of the matter is that you actually DID argue that line. And if I feel like doing that again...I will provide you with the quotes where you were arguing that.

I have never said women never perpetuate patriarchy nor rape culture. But the crux of my argument is that it requires an ACTIVE role. When women act because that is how they have been taught to act...that is NOT active. It is NOT being complicit or being an accomplice. It is passively buying into a notion of behavior regulatory rules which men created and it affects themselves IF their reasoning behind acting like that is based on the notion that it is the proper way to act because they are women and not because they WANT to act like that.

Here are a few examples of what I actually said about women's behavior:


And before that can happen...MEN need to change their behavior and attitude. This does not mean women do not play a role. But the default setting is that women should not adjust the way they behave to circumvent some patriarchal notion.


When does the reasoning behind behavior enforce patriarchy or defy patriarchy? Is when you argue your behavior based on the behavior of another as being a general applicable rule for that entire gender.

You on the other hand argued that women are in fact actively perpetuating patriarchy. You are the one arguing that women are complicit and accomplices in patriarchy by the categorization of their behavior into acceptable and unacceptable categories because they are women on the basis of what men would think and it would perpetuate false male notions of how women work.

[Rosa Partizan]

stop this bullshit with "cause I'm a woman"!!! I never said that! You started being sarcastic and this was my reply, are you out of your mind?! If you can't handle sarcastic answers after having been sarcastic yourself, then give me serious answers, goddamn!

And your definition of active is different from mine. To me, women behaving sexist are actively perpetuating patriarchy. Doing so passively would to me be like, let sexist jokes slip without complaining about them, because being afraid of being called out as **** without humor or stuff.

[PhoenixAsh]

stop this bullshit with "cause I'm a woman"!!! I never said that! You started being sarcastic and this was my reply, are you out of your mind?! If you can't handle sarcastic answers after having been sarcastic yourself, then give me serious answers, goddamn!

Except I wasn't being sarcastic. I was applying your logic to its root cause: the origins of the myth that when women say no they mean yes is found in century old religious texts (even predating the bible, by the way) where these religious texts actually tell us that women have no real mind of their own in some way or another and need to be guided by men in order to find a proper way of behaving. For example: the Holy Qua'ran simply states that women's minds are subject to 99 devils and do not reflect reality. In another religious text (Timothy 2:12...women should basically stfu and not tell men what to do and listen and be submissive to them and their opinions...which refers back to earlier passages in which women are said to be unable to properly assess reality or express coherent thought). It is there that such myths as when women say no...originate from...because they are founded in the "rule" that: "women do not actually know what they actually want and need a man to tell them".

Which has already existed for centuries.


And your definition of active is different from mine. To me, women behaving sexist are actively perpetuating patriarchy. Doing so passively would to me be like, let sexist jokes slip without complaining about them, because being afraid of being called out as **** without humor or stuff.

By that logic slaves perpetuate slavery by the simple fact that they are slaves.

Which is my point.

[Rosa Partizan]

you can't be serious about that, oh dear lord :laugh: :laugh:

since when do slaves have a choice of being slaves or not? But do I have the choice at a party to stand up and be like "your jokes are sexist bullshit" or do i have not? Huh? Goddamn this is beyond pathetic. You don't need to answer me, we're done.

[PhoenixAsh]

you can't be serious about that, oh dear lord :laugh: :laugh:

since when do slaves have a choice of being slaves or not? But do I have the choice at a party to stand up and be like "your jokes are sexist bullshit" or do i have not? Huh? Goddamn this is beyond pathetic. You don't need to answer me, we're done.


Yes I also think your dodging of the issue and your insistent attitude of straw manning is beyond pathetic. But if you for once actually addressed the point that was being made against a specific point you brought up you would probably begin to understand that.

But so far you, against any promises earlier in the thread, have shown a remarkable lack of actually replying to my posts because "whine...they are so long" and instead when you DID reply to my posts you actually took a tiny part of it and then constructed an entirely different meaning out of it and argued "O lordy, I don't understand why you don't get me" (and YES...now I AM being sarcastic). You actually missed quite lot of arguments and continue to argue straw man.

So I will once again state that your entire argument in this thread was based on your OP where you said:


It perpetuates all this "no means yes"-bullshit and makes some guys believe that a no is a yes in disguise. (...) all this fucked up yes means no-(and rape)culture is something that some women take part in. And with this behavior, they make life harder for their fellow ladies.

And from that you continued to argue that her behavior was "active" in perpetuating patriarchy and rape culture. That she has by virtue of her behavior "responsibility" (which was illustrated by YOUR use of the word "accomplice" and "unacceptable".

Now arguing that somehow "active" means every behavior that is in some way in line with patriarchal notions and "what guys expect of women" (which by the way means there is a single set of behavior patterns...which I challenged but you refused to answer) totally disregards the fact that there is NO one way guys expect you to act and that there is NO way a woman can act without having her behavior evaluated, shamed and regulated by patriarchy.

Sure...you can point out a joke is sexist....and I am sure that act will totally negate sexism. BUT you didn't argue against active sexism here. You didn't argue against perpetuating stereotypes. YOU argued against a specific woman's personal behavior caused by patriarchy and classified that as improper based on how men would see this as a legitimization of their entitlement and actually argued it was active in perpetuating patriarchy.

In other words....a oppressed individual acting oppressed is by virtue of her acting oppressed perpetuating the system of oppression. Hence why I said that extending that logic would mean that a slave is perpetuating slavery by the mere fact of being a slave.

HAD you argued, like I said so many times before, that her behavior was a result of patriarchy...I would not have a problem with that. In fact...I did state so when you backtracked that one post. But then you of course argued your initial position again by creating a category of proper and improper behavior. So yeah...there is that.

Now you can dodge and ridicule me applying your own logic....and I am sure that you don't like that. But yeah...that is what your arguments actually mean.

[Rosa Partizan]

Goddamn Phoenix, I wrote somewhere else in this thread that you can reflect and reproduce patriarchy AT THE SAME TIME, where's the contradiction in that?! Yes, of course, her behavior is a product of patriarchy, what else? And at the same time, she upholds patriarchy with such a behavior. Why is this necessarily 2 different things? You can do one thing and it can be result of a nuisance but at the same time helping perpetuate this nuisance. In German feminist blogs, they use this term "reproducing" like all the fucking time, especially in the context of heteronormative behavior.

[PhoenixAsh]

Goddamn Phoenix, I wrote somewhere else in this thread that you can reflect and reproduce patriarchy AT THE SAME TIME, where's the contradiction in that?! Yes, of course, her behavior is a product of patriarchy, what else? And at the same time, she upholds patriarchy with such a behavior. Why is this necessarily 2 different things? You can do one thing and it can be result of a nuisance but at the same time helping perpetuate this nuisance. In German feminist blogs, they use this term "reproducing" like all the fucking time, especially in the context of heteronormative behavior.


Extend this logic:

When women stay at home to take care of the children does that act in itself enforce patriarchy?

[Rosa Partizan]

yes, of course it does. But in this case, there's mostly no other solution. This is a pragmatic decision based on who has the higher pay cheque to provide everything necessary for the family. And I'm not claiming that I'm free from that. I enforce patriarchy whenever I do stuff they expect me to do. I still do it. But I'm conscious and aware of that. You can't be perfect anti-patriarchy, I said that like a million of times.

[PhoenixAsh]

yes, of course it does.

Then the extended logic of this is that women can not behave how they like.



But in this case, there's mostly no other solution. This is a pragmatic decision based on who has the higher pay cheque to provide everything necessary for the family. And I'm not claiming that I'm free from that. I enforce patriarchy whenever I do stuff they expect me to do. I still do it. But I'm conscious and aware of that. You can't be perfect anti-patriarchy, I said that like a million of times.

Basically this part is irrelevant because it is based on an assumption. The assumption that a woman behaves a certain way because of patriarchal stereotypes rather than how she wants to behave. In this specific case you are assuming she is taking care of the kids because of everything except her wanting to take care of the kids.

Now...the next question.

Is a woman who goes out and has regular and frequent sex perpetuating patriarchy?

[Rosa Partizan]

Sorry, no. Not gonna get into that bullshit.

I talked about patriarchal expectations and that NO ONE has a 100% free will independent from society. Not gonna write everything a 100 times. A promiscuous woman is totally not fitting into patriarchy. It would rather be a woman abstaining from sex because she doesn't want to be "that girl" when otherwise she would like to have casual sex.

[PhoenixAsh]

Sorry, no. Not gonna get into that bullshit.

I talked about patriarchal expectations and that NO ONE has a 100% free will independent from society. Not gonna write everything a 100 times. A promiscuous woman is totally not fitting into patriarchy. It would rather be a woman abstaining from sex because she doesn't want to be "that girl" when otherwise she would like to have casual sex.

Actually a promiscuous girls is totally fitting into patriarchy and ascribes to quite a few patriarchal notions and provides grounds for quite a few others. For example: sexually open girls totally ascribe to the patriarchal notion that women are "creatures driven by lust" and therefore "need their behavior dictated to them."...or the notion that "women are there to be sexually available for men."

And that is my point.

There is NO way in which a woman can behave which would not make her fit into some patriarchal notion or another. Hence why I asked you earlier to provide some examples what you thought would be acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

The problem isn't female behavior. It is how men view women.

[Rosa Partizan]

Exactly that is what patriarchy does not think. To patriarchy, women are caring, tender and have less sex drive than guys. This is what is expected by them. This is why in certain societies they have to cover up, in order not to make guys lose their control. This is why it's still more expected that guys make the first move when seeing an attractive girl. Women have to be available, yes, but in a passive way. We got a German rapper over here, Lady ***** Ray. (here's some rap clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b4QJMB1vEM)of her) She is totally sexually aggressive, rapping with the same vulgar vocabulary as guys do, wearing revealing clothing, and guess what? Most people, especially guys, do not react turned on, but disgusted. When male rappers do this, it's fine. And as I told you before, it's ALWAYS a guy's fault when a woman gets molested, raped, assaulted and whatsoever. Always. After having written that like 200 times, I'm not gonna write it anymore. And I'm not gonna write anymore that the female image in society has to change. Totally redundant to even mention that. This is the goddamn premise.

[PhoenixAsh]

Exactly that is what patriarchy does not think. To patriarchy, women are caring, tender and have less sex drive than guys. This is what is expected by them. This is why in certain societies they have to cover up, in order not to make guys lose their control. This is why it's still more expected that guys make the first move when seeing an attractive girl. Women have to be available, yes, but in a passive way. We got a German rapper over here, Lady ***** Ray. (here's some rap clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b4QJMB1vEM)of her) She is totally sexually aggressive, rapping with the same vulgar vocabulary as guys do, wearing revealing clothing, and guess what? Most people, especially guys, do not react turned on, but disgusted. When male rappers do this, it's fine. And as I told you before, it's ALWAYS a guy's fault when a woman gets molested, raped, assaulted and whatsoever. Always. After having written that like 200 times, I'm not gonna write it anymore. And I'm not gonna write anymore that the female image in society has to change. Totally redundant to even mention that. This is the goddamn premise.

You have a very flawed notion of patriarchy....that is all I can say...and you do need to study some more about how patriarchy actually works and what it actually does. But please do continue down the road of being as sexual as you want. Just do not think for one second that behavior is in any way contradictory to patriarchy or damages it.

[Rosa Partizan]

oh yeah, some guy telling a woman she has to learn about how patriarchy works.

Great, best discussion ever.

Go fuck yourself.

[PhoenixAsh]

oh yeah, some guy telling a woman she has to learn about how patriarchy works.

Great, best discussion ever.

Go fuck yourself.

When you deny the fact that part of patriarchy actually states that women are creatures driven by lust and temptation and that actually behaving sexually explicit somehow rejects patriarchy...then yeah...you have no fucking clue as to what patriarchy actually means and does nor do you have any clue as the historic development in how women's behavior is being regulated.

But I like how you play the "I am a woman so I am an expert on patriarchy" card.

Makes me wonder if being a woman gives such expertise over how patriarchy works....men managed to actively and very effectively subjugate them for the last...o...say....couple of thousands of years. :rolleyes:

Maybe it is not being a man or a woman that actually gives insight but in actually analyzing the shit you say and what it logically means. Since you are of the opinion Patriarchy is a woman's own goddamn fault...and women acting how they want to be acting...you know....because they like taking care of their children...actually perpetuate a system of oppression...I wish you all the best of luck in trying to find a acceptable and proper way to behave yourself out of the system. Please report back with your findings. I am sure all the women who display unacceptable and improper behavior are really dying to hear you explain how they have had it all wrong the last few millenia.

[Rosa Partizan]

A woman that is no object, but a subject of her own lust, claiming her own sexual satisfaction, not passively available, but taking what she wants, such a woman is a threat to patriarchy. Self-determined women with a high sex drive don't have ANY good reputation in any patriarchal society.

And yeah, I totally said patriarchy is women's fault, guys having nothing to do with it. That's exactly what I was saying. Besides, rape is also their own fault, you know. This is what I'm actually thinking. Thank you for revealing that. Maybe you have counted how many times you've been called a slut, a hoe, a feminazi and so on. Or how many times you were catcalled, or how many times you were afraid to walk alone past a couple of guys, knowing they would say something sexist and degrading. Or how often you were insulted when you said that in case of a current pregnancy, you would abort. Let's talk about that...oh, wait...

[PhoenixAsh]

Of course it is very difficult for you to maintain your position that patriarchy doesn't see women that way when at this very instance Republicans in the US are arguing exactly that:

Women are lustful creatures. And this is why they want state paid birth control and free accessible abortions.

And when you want older texts which claim this as the basis of regulating women's behavior you need to seriously read some medieval texts about women's vices or...when you get the chance...read some Biblical texts...or read the QUa'ran. Or perhaps you need to read some more ancient religious texts or philisophical arguments of the ancient Greeks and Roman's. Want earlier historic examples...red some Victorian texts.

But hey...sure...that is NOT what patriarchy is at all.

See...you can NOT escape patriarchy by virtue of behavior. There is always some rule and some notion.

There you go.

[Rosa Partizan]

did I ever claim I could escape from patriarchy? Did I ever say I don't do things that perpetuate patriarchy? I wrote that at least 5 times in this thread alone, so don't you get on my tits all the motherfucking time and making me justifying for things I said a 100 times.

[PhoenixAsh]

Actually I am not "getting on your tits" for that....and it shows the level to which you completely failed to read the arguments or understand them much less address them.

But that is only to be expected because you have been playing the fucking victim in this thread from start to finish....and dodged at every turn taking responsibility that YOU are arguing that there is a proper and improper way for a woman to act based on the concept of patriarchy and how men view their actions. But bohohooo you are soooo misunderstood when somebody said you were victim blaming because that is not what you were doing at all. Of course that was immediately followed up by saying women are accomplices in perpetuating rape culture and displaying unacceptable behavior by using ambiguous behavior and language. And of course we all misunderstood you because your English is sooo poor. Pleaaseee. What a load of horse crap.

You have just about as much stated you didn't as you immediately followed by stating exactly the same thing. You are flip flopping all over the place.

And when somebody argues against you you suddenly are being victimized and "people are getting on your tits" when they simply point out the logical extent of your reasoning.

So no. You do not get to straw man my argument yet again.

[Rosa Partizan]

discussion's over for me, I'm repeating everything all the time, and I would do so if I answered you right now. From now on, you'll be ignored completely, and yeah, you are sooooo smarter than me and know soooo much more about patriarchy. It's all fine. I will grab some books about patriarchy and read so much until I know as much about patriarchy as you. 'cause practical experience and the stuff I've read about it so far don't count. Don't put any effort in an eventual answer cause I won't read it anyway.

[PhoenixAsh]

A woman that is no object, but a subject of her own lust, claiming her own sexual satisfaction, not passively available, but taking what she wants, such a woman is a threat to patriarchy. Self-determined women with a high sex drive don't have ANY good reputation in any patriarchal society.

I never argued that it was a good reputation....just that it played into a patriarchal notion and triggered it.

And if you had actually bothered to read my arguments instead of being all "bohoho I am so misunderstood" you would have noticed me arguing that this creates a catch22 where women can not behave in a way that doesn't trigger a patriarchal notion or justification of enforcing male entitlement.

Because it isn't the woman's behavior that is the problem...it is MEN and how they see women's behavior.

But hey...since you are of the opinion that women have a correct and incorrect way of behaving based on their gender...and based on how men perceive their actions and use it as a justification of patriarchal notions...

:rolleyes:


You are either denying this or your evaluation of women's behavior and when it perpetuates patriarchy is actually flawed. So which one is it?

Right now you are flip flopping between mutually exclusive arguments.



And yeah, I totally said patriarchy is women's fault, guys having nothing to do with it. That's exactly what I was saying. Besides, rape is also their own fault, you know. This is what I'm actually thinking. Thank you for revealing that. Maybe you have counted how many times you've been called a slut, a hoe, a feminazi and so on. Or how many times you were catcalled, or how many times you were afraid to walk alone past a couple of guys, knowing they would say something sexist and degrading. Or how often you were insulted when you said that in case of a current pregnancy, you would abort. Let's talk about that...oh, wait...

I don't think how many times you have been called anything is relevant to anything you have said in this debate nor is it relevant for evaluating or disseminating my arguments. Which so far you have failed to do.

But yes. Your entire line of reasoning comes down to women being actively (your words) responsible and being accomplices (your word) and having responsibility (your word) in perpetuating patriarchy simple by behaving in a way that is in line with some patriarchal notion or another. Guess what....those words are all indicative of responsibility and make up the definition of culpability. And when you argue that. Then women who do so are in fact responsible for all the outcomes of the situation they created.

Which is the basis of victim blaming.

[consuming negativity]

C-c-c-combo breaker!

No, seriously, both of you need to take a breather and GTFO of this thread for a little while. Is anything being accomplished, like, at all? It's just cringe after "oh god, why" after *hides head under the covers*.

[Rosa Partizan]

couldn't resist and read it, but not gonna answer it, so stop quoting me. Every answer would be a repetition of something I said a 100 times before. Would you fuck yourself already?

[PhoenixAsh]

discussion's over for me, I'm repeating everything all the time, and I would do so if I answered you right now. From now on, you'll be ignored completely, and yeah, you are sooooo smarter than me and know soooo much more about patriarchy. It's all fine. I will grab some books about patriarchy and read so much until I know as much about patriarchy as you. 'cause practical experience and the stuff I've read about it so far don't count. Don't put any effort in an eventual answer cause I won't read it anyway.

So how is this news and not exactly how you have been behaving?

[Rosa Partizan]

communer, yeah, you're right. Could really take some break from this stuff. Like, we could make out or so, this would be relaxing :wub:

[Rosa Partizan]

So how is this news and not exactly how you have been behaving?

I read your stuff and was like "oh no, not this bullshit again", sweetheart.

[PhoenixAsh]

I read your stuff and was like "oh no, not this bullshit again", sweetheart.

Actually. Given your replies...you didn't read my posts at all....seeing you never addressed anything which I argued....but did manage to create quite a few straw man.

And...I am not a sweetheart...I am the one calling you out on your sexism and aspirations to regulate womens behavior. I am sure you will have no problem finding a mother to blame for making life difficult for other women. You know....since taking care of the kids so obviously perpetuates patriarchy

[Rosa Partizan]

I know I'll regret answering but anyway...so you wanna know what I find appropriate of a behavior for a woman? The same as for a guy. Don't be a sexist prick. Don't try to fulfill other's people's expectations of how a good girl has to act, especially when you send out problematic, ambiguous messages with that. Otherwise, you don't want sex, it's fine. You want sex, it's fine, too. You wanna wear miniskirt, cool. You wanna wear sweatshirt, cool. Couldn't care less.

[Quail]

In response to the question of whether women staying at home to look after their children perpetuates patriarchy:

yes, of course it does. But in this case, there's mostly no other solution. This is a pragmatic decision based on who has the higher pay cheque to provide everything necessary for the family. And I'm not claiming that I'm free from that. I enforce patriarchy whenever I do stuff they expect me to do. I still do it. But I'm conscious and aware of that. You can't be perfect anti-patriarchy, I said that like a million of times.

Sorry this was posted quite a while ago, but I felt that I had to respond to it, and disagree with you. The implication of this argument is that the woman who chooses to stay at home is not doing something valuable and/or fulfilling, which is bullshit. By seeing domestic labour (i.e. childrearing, housework, etc) as something that isn't worthwhile, you're buying into the patriarchal notion that "women's work" is less valuable than "men's work". The purpose of feminism isn't to force all women out of their homes into high-flying careers, it's to create a world in which everyone, but especially those marginalised by patriarchy, is free to make whatever choices they wish to fulfil themselves as human beings. Choosing to stay at home with your child is a different thing entirely than believing and arguing that all women should stay at home with their children.

[PhoenixAsh]

I know I'll regret answering but anyway...so you wanna know what I find appropriate of a behavior for a woman? The same as for a guy. Don't be a sexist prick. Don't try to fulfill other's people's expectations of how a good girl has to act, especially when you send out problematic, ambiguous messages with that. Otherwise, you don't want sex, it's fine. You want sex, it's fine, too. You wanna wear miniskirt, cool. You wanna wear sweatshirt, cool. Couldn't care less.

Then why would you argue that her behavior is unacceptable and she is behaving as an accomplice?

Because with this single post you basically provide the basis for me to conclude that you haven't read my posts at all...

Several people have argued that your posts constituted you telling women that there is a proper way to act and an improper way to act. Several people who have been arguing against you have actually been arguing this position from the get go and explained why your position was problematic because you failed to include this. It has taken you 184 posts in this thread to arrive to the conclusion which you have consistently provided arguments against.

[Rosa Partizan]

I wasn't saying AT ALL that raising children is not important. But it bothers me that almost every time, the woman stays at home, which is mostly because she's the one with the smaller salary. I'd be glad to have more full time-dads, and some of them really want to, but can't, because the family needs their pay cheque. It is no sign of a free, emancipated society when in 99% of all cases, the mum stays at home and society reacts really weird when in those 1%, it's the dad who stays at home. Maybe in the US it's different, I'm talking about Germany, and it annoys me.

[PhoenixAsh]

But that wasn't what you were saying. You were giving your answer in response to the question if a woman staying at home to take care of the children was in itself an act that perpetuated patriarchy.

You said. Yes.

Which denies free agency and creates the catch22 situation that women can't behave how they want because their actions are evaluated because they are women living in patriarchy. And that is what I am arguing against. A woman's behavior should not be categorized on whether it conforms with some irrational patriarchal notion or not but be based on what a woman wants free from being evaluated because she is a woman or being categorized as acceptable or unacceptable defined from the concept of patriarchy. Because if you do that..then women can never behave how they want because every behavior a woman displays will in some way or another conform to some notion or another within the system of patriarchy.

[Rosa Partizan]

But that wasn't what you were saying. You were giving your answer in response to the question if a woman staying at home to take care of the children was in itself an act that perpetuated patriarchy.

You said. Yes.

Which denies free agency and creates the catch22 situation that women can't behave how they want because their actions are evaluated because they are women living in patriarchy. And that is what I am arguing against. A woman's behavior should be categorized on whether it conforms with some irrational patriarchal notion or not but be based on what a woman wants free from being evaluated because she is a woman or being categorized as acceptable or unacceptable defined from the concept of patriarchy. Because if you do that..then women can never behave how they want because every behavior a woman displays will in some way or another conform to some notion or another within the system of patriarchy.

No, that's the crucial point. I myself do some very "unfeminist" things and I consider them still my choice, but I know that patriarchy favors my choice and that with my choice, I vice versa favor patriarchy. These things would be only then not unfeminist if we didn't live in patriarchy. That doesn't mean that a person doing these things can't be a feminist, because it's very very difficult to live a life free of patriarchy in patriarchy itself. I'd be just glad if everyone was aware of that and could make choices based on that knowledge, even if the choices stayed the same.

[PhoenixAsh]

No, that's the crucial point. I myself do some very "unfeminist" things and I consider them still my choice, but I know that patriarchy favors my choice and that with my choice, I vice versa favor patriarchy. These things would be only then not unfeminist if we didn't live in patriarchy. That doesn't mean that a person doing these things can't be a feminist, because it's very very difficult to live a life free of patriarchy in patriarchy itself. I'd be just glad if everyone was aware of that and could make choices based on that knowledge, even if the choices stayed the same.

Our mutual disagreement comes from the polar opposite views of feminism.

Your behavior being favored by patriarchy isn't making you perpetuate patriarchy unless that behavior is dictated by you as the outcome of behaving like that because you are a woman and you actively argue this is the proper way for women to act. In all other circumstances it is merely a woman acting like she wants.

There is no feminist or unfeminist behavior outside women arguing that gender roles are correct or incorrect. So it is feminist to argue that you want a career with equal opportunities as men as it is to argue that you can sleep with as many partners as men without being held to different standards because you are a woman. It is however also equally feminist to argue that you want to stay at home taking care of children because this is what you want to do or when you say you want to find mr right and lose your virginity to him.

What feminism implies is that men and women are treated and assessed equally and have the same rights and opportunities based on them being people rather than based on their gender.

[Rosa Partizan]

After having wasted my whole day answering in this thread, I'm gonna do something about my headache now and turn the notebook off. I will answer you tomorrow after work. Have a nice evening.

[PhoenixAsh]

After having wasted my whole day answering in this thread, I'm gonna do something about my headache now and turn the notebook off. I will answer you tomorrow after work. Have a nice evening.

you too

[Quail]

I wasn't saying AT ALL that raising children is not important. But it bothers me that almost every time, the woman stays at home, which is mostly because she's the one with the smaller salary. I'd be glad to have more full time-dads, and some of them really want to, but can't, because the family needs their pay cheque. It is no sign of a free, emancipated society when in 99% of all cases, the mum stays at home and society reacts really weird when in those 1%, it's the dad who stays at home. Maybe in the US it's different, I'm talking about Germany, and it annoys me.

It's a problem that women are expected to stay at home, or forced to by material conditions (such as a lack of paternity leave, the difference in wages between a woman and her partner or simply not having a partner to share the childcare with). But staying at home with the children in itself does not perpetuate patriarchal values. It may come about due to the material conditions caused by capitalism and patriarchy, or it may be a choice and if it is the latter then maybe it is informed by internalised sexism or maybe it is a free choice. But raising children is equally as valuable as any other work, so rather than suggesting that women go out and get paid work to avoid being complicit in their own oppression, the solution to the problem is to make people see and appreciate the value in domestic labour.

[synthesis]

Choosing to stay at home with your child is a different thing entirely than believing and arguing that all women should stay at home with their children.

A major problem I have with the opposing perspective in this case is that it would not be at all unthinkable or remotely contradictory for someone from that camp to tell you, or to argue elsewhere, that you only believe this and you're only arguing as such because you've been brainwashed by the patriarchy; perhaps a milder rephrasing of that claim, and they would probably put it in more generalized terms rather than aim it at you specifically, but the subtext is the same.

Your decisions are made in a particular context, of course, as you've already noted, but people take that premise and run in completely opposite directions with it. I think the parallels between the attitudes towards "token resistance" and the attitudes toward women staying home to raise children are very illuminating - that not only your actions but also any argument you could make in defense of those actions are inherently engendered by and perpetuating of male dominance. I think that attitude is often dismissive and judgmental in a really pernicious way.

[PhoenixAsh]

^ which has indeed happened on more than one occasion by the way. Back in the 70's and 80's women who wanted to get married or who wore skirts instead of jeans were seen as perpetuating a patriarchal standard of fe. femininity and were berated for being indoctrinated.

[synthesis]

I think you also run into the problem of basically engaging in a sort of inverted form of the behavior you're attacking.

If you say that women engaging in, say, "token resistance" or domestic labor or self-objectification perpetuates male dominance and is therefore "bad," or something to be avoided or scolded or even ostracized, you're letting the patriarchy define you and your actions and your beliefs just as much as if you were uncritically engaging in those "bad" behaviors in the first place.

[alfasurs]

I am new here but I somehow get the feeling that many men are acting like white knights, telling women how to think, what to think, etc. Men seem to believe they know better than women as to what constitutes patriarchy. Communists often act 'prolier than thou', so this seems to be a variation on gender lines. it is very condescending, and I see why the poster Rosa is upset.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well that was a wonderful first post for you alfasurs. You understand that the user Rosa is actually the one starting this thread seemingly telling women what to do and how to act proper which sparked this debate with some women arguing against her? Or did you just read the last page of the debate remembered some terms and thought you would chime in to throw oil to the diminishing fire?

Or...maybe...think through the definitions you are using ;)

In forum parlance, it means rushing to the aid of another poster for whatever reason. An accusation typically reserved for when a poster is being hammered by another poster(s) and the accused leaps in to defend them, usually without thinking things through as to why the person is being attacked.

[synthesis]

I am new here but I somehow get the feeling that many men are acting like white knights, telling women how to think, what to think, etc. Men seem to believe they know better than women as to what constitutes patriarchy.

I actually think it's pretty interesting, independently of rebuking your post, that both sides of this discussion in this thread have thus far had roughly the same ratio of men to women, and there is no clear "gender line" like what you used to see, not that long ago, in threads about rape culture and the like.

It's also kind of funny to me that "white knight" is being lobbed around in such a way, given that it was once a disparaging term for a male feminist or more generally for men who defended women from misogyny.

[Ele'ill]

white knight hasn't even really been used that way on this forum it has been used by men in order to actually white knight, usually against other men, or against other folks during discussion in order to detract from their own terrible arguments cuz they got mad

[synthesis]

white knight hasn't even really been used that way on this forum it has been used by men in order to actually white knight, usually against other men, or against other folks during discussion in order to detract from their own terrible arguments cuz they got mad

I guess I don't really know a whole lot about the phrase if that's how it's used. I remember seeing it used pretty frequently on Encyclopedia Dramatica, back when that was a thing, to describe boys/men who would come to the defense of girls/women who were being trolled or stalked or having their lives ruined or whatever. The subtext being that the "white knights" thought it would get them laid or something to that effect, which probably can't be entirely discounted insofar as it plays into the "nice guy" mindset.

[alfasurs]

Well that was a wonderful first post for you alfasurs. You understand that the user Rosa is actually the one starting this thread seemingly telling women what to do and how to act proper which sparked this debate with some women arguing against her? Or did you just read the last page of the debate remembered some terms and thought you would chime in to throw oil to the diminishing fire?

Or...maybe...think through the definitions you are using ;)

In forum parlance, it means rushing to the aid of another poster for whatever reason. An accusation typically reserved for when a poster is being hammered by another poster(s) and the accused leaps in to defend them, usually without thinking things through as to why the person is being attacked.


She is a girl trying to make sense of certain unique experiences. You are a guy telling her - not explicitly, of course - that she has no idea what she's talking about. You know how offensive that is to women? It is like a rich guy saying that workers have no idea how bad things are, they need to be taught. Very insulting, isn't it? Apologize to her, dude.

[Rosa Partizan]

alfasurs, that's very kind of you :) it's okay, I guess. Yeah, I felt offended as hell when Phoenix was like "you have no clue about patriarchy", but he's entitled to have that opinion and I don't feel like having to proove the opposite to some stranger.

synthesis said something that curiosly, I myself said some years ago in a discussion about feminism (it was about if feminists can wear make up and sexy clothing), namely if you always do the opposite of what patriarchy expects you to do, you let your life dictate by it, in some way (he put it more eloquently, of course). So yeah, synthesis, you're right.

Let's come to Phoenix' post, sorry for that temporal delay, I just didn't feel like putting effort in posting stuff.


Our mutual disagreement comes from the polar opposite views of feminism.

Your behavior being favored by patriarchy isn't making you perpetuate patriarchy unless that behavior is dictated by you as the outcome of behaving like that because you are a woman and you actively argue this is the proper way for women to act. In all other circumstances it is merely a woman acting like she wants.

There is no feminist or unfeminist behavior outside women arguing that gender roles are correct or incorrect. So it is feminist to argue that you want a career with equal opportunities as men as it is to argue that you can sleep with as many partners as men without being held to different standards because you are a woman. It is however also equally feminist to argue that you want to stay at home taking care of children because this is what you want to do or when you say you want to find mr right and lose your virginity to him.

What feminism implies is that men and women are treated and assessed equally and have the same rights and opportunities based on them being people rather than based on their gender.

you're somehow right about that one, but to my own defence, my choice of words was kind of poorly. It is true that female decisions and ways of life should be valued equally. In some better world, child raising and child education would be appreciated as well as "regular" work. There should be no manual like "this is the way to be a perfect feminist, and it's the only one". Let me tell you what my problem with decisions like "I'm gonna stay at home from now on all the time" is. Women become dependant on men. It's a different story if you're like "okay, I'll take care full time of the children unless they're old enough for (pre)school" and "I'm not gonna work at all, no matter how old my children are". The first one can be a mixture of pragmatic reasons and because you want to watch your children grow older and teach them all the stuff they have to know. This is totally fine. It becomes problematic when you pick that way of financial dependency for like, forever. To me, feminism was (and is) about independency in EVERY way, which means economic independency, too. I know that you can't pull that off with one or two very small children at home. What's a woman to become when she hasn't been working for like 10 years and her husband leaves her? This is unfair, of course, but you know it happens all the time, and after having not worked for so long, you find at best a job you hardly make ends meet with, all of that because you relied on a guy. There can be better solutions, like, both partners splitting office work and work at home, so that everyone's at home some time and some time at the office or wherever they work. Yeah, in a better world, a woman having been full time mum for 10 years or whatever wouldn't get these problems, but we don't live in that utopia, so I would never ever advise a woman to stop earning her own money for a longer time than necessary.

[PhoenixAsh]

She is a girl trying to make sense of certain unique experiences. You are a guy telling her - not explicitly, of course - that she has no idea what she's talking about. You know how offensive that is to women? It is like a rich guy saying that workers have no idea how bad things are, they need to be taught. Very insulting, isn't it? Apologize to her, dude.

Are you freaking kidding me???

Sanctimonious asshat trolling:

Other thread....


Instead of jumping up and down, why don't you try and understand that patriarchy has far-reaching consequences insomuch that even men, who are supposedly to be the controllers, are in some ways controlled by the system they've created? Same as capitalists getting to suffer through competition - and all the stress that it creates - even though it is rather evident that workers suffer worse conditions, financially and otherwise.

In doing so, we see the all-pervasive nature of a certain system, be it patriarchy or capitalism. My advice to you: read some books, learn, think, don't just use every opportunity to become offended and act like a sanctimonious nitwit.

[synthesis]

She is a girl

She's in her late twenties. I think you're probably the most patronizing person in this entire thread. (I can't figure out whose sockpuppet you are, but I'm gonna keep trying anyway.)

[Rosa Partizan]

She's in her late twenties. I think you're probably the most patronizing person in this entire thread. (I can't figure out whose sockpuppet you are, but I'm gonna keep trying anyway.)

I prefer to claim I'm still in my mid-twenties :crying:
and I look like 22,23 or so :o

sorry for OT, but late twenties sounds so old.

[synthesis]

I prefer to claim I'm still in my mid-twenties :crying:
and I look like 22,23 or so :o

sorry for OT, but late twenties sounds so old.

Yeah, sorry, I'm 27 too (despite what my profile says) and it's kind of a dilemma in that respect. I know exactly what you mean.

[RA89]

Haven't read through whole of thread but I have some possible reasons for why to some women "no means yes".

Some women enjoy being wanted (as do men), and the persistence makes them feel even more desired. Of course this can't be found out without them putting up the facade of refusal.

Others perhaps enjoy a submissive role, I've been with girls who say "stop" playfully whilst pulling me closer/escalating physically themselves.

Whether this is a dangerous game or not IMO really depends on things like body language, tone etc. If a woman is making it appear as if she is genuinely uninterested but means to say yes, that can cause problems on a larger scale for others. If done playfully I don't think it's that big of a deal.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

She is a girl trying to make sense of certain unique experiences. You are a guy telling her - not explicitly, of course - that she has no idea what she's talking about. You know how offensive that is to women? It is like a rich guy saying that workers have no idea how bad things are, they need to be taught. Very insulting, isn't it? Apologize to her, dude.

It is funny how in that other thread, that "someone explain the theory of rape culture" thread, you took the same offensive attitude toward me making sense of my experiences with oppression that I face as a grrrl. You, dude, are a hypocrite. You were the same condescending, patronizing motherfucker telling me that I didn't know what I was talking about, telling me to go read a book because I had the nerve to say that men don't have it as bad under patriarchy as womyn do.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Yeah, sorry, I'm 27 too (despite what my profile says) and it's kind of a dilemma in that respect. I know exactly what you mean.

why are there so many of us? lol :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Thirsty Crow]

wrong goddamn thread sorry

[QueerVanguard]

If men can't tell the difference between me saying "no" while I'm pulling my skirt down and unzipping his fly and "no" when I'm fucking pissed, and uses that as a basis to assume women *always* mean it in the first way then he's a fucking sexist pig idiot. I sure as hell am not going to change my lifestyle just because shitstains like that exist. The best way to end this sort of behavior, in my view, is to smash monogamy as a concept altogether. Cis white men act aggressive sexually because monogamy instills a sense of proprietorship over their sexual interests in them. This kinda shit will only stop when polyamory is how we relate to one another sexually, in my humble opinion.

[Hrafn]

Yeah, sure, let's force polyamory on everyone, that'll go great.

[QueerVanguard]

Yeah, sure, let's force polyamory on everyone, that'll go great.

I'm not saying to force people into anything, all I'm saying is if we care about ending sexism and patriarchy we will adopt it. But I think Communism is already going to end the sexist institutions of monogamy and marriage anyway because those are incompatible with the free access social relations that underpin Communism.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

So, what do you think about that? Am I really blaming the victim?

No. It doesn't matter what she subjectively hoped. What matters is what she said. If I were one of the guys you mentioned, the "no" would end it for me. Either she means "no" and is simply not interested, or else she is hoping I will interpret her "no" to mean its exact opposite, in which case I want nothing to do with her. "I really thought she was just being flirtatious" is neither a legal defense nor a moral justification.

[PhoenixAsh]

You do realize not everybody wants polyamore right? Since monogamy is not the cause of male sexual behavior/aggression polyamore will not alleviate that problem. The cause of male sexual behavior and attitude is the natrrative that men need to be sexually active and always in the mood for sex with its antithetical narrative of women needing to be guardians of virtue.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I really don't see what polyamory has to do with this. It is kind of a different subject.

But, I think there is an obvious difference between something as ridiculous as forced polyamory and what QueerVanguard was advocating which was removing institutions that pressure on a societal level hetero-normative monogamy. Which makes a shit ton more sense. On a social level we are bombarded everyday with pressure towards monogamy from the institution of marriage to the media almost always portraying hetero-normative monogamous couples to advertisements for "on valentines day buy this for that one special person..." it's everywhere and it is a lot harder to notice if you fit such norms.

[QueerVanguard]

I really don't see what polyamory has to do with this. It is kind of a different subject.

I think it has a lot to do with it. Monogamy instills in men -esp. white men- a sense of ownership over whoever tickles their fancy and if that person doesn't want to be owned by them for the duration of the man's orgasm or even for some long boring relationship, he will take it anyway amounting to rape, it's like primitive accumulation transferred to the bedroom in a way. With polyamory it's not like that at all. If you can't get access to sex from A right now for whatever reason you can just move on to B. We're not hung up on owning and controlling anyone, it's the Communism of sex relations. From each according to their ability to each according to their need, sex becomes like satisfying thirst instead of controlling someone.

[Comrade Strong]

Boy who cried wolf-same principle. If one day she really means no but the bloke takes it too far, neither he nor she will be blameless.

[Luís Henrique]

Then the extended logic of this is that women can not behave how they like.

Er... just no.

I have just bought a scone at the bakery, which is an act that evidently reinforces the logic of value, and consequently the capitalist mode of production. Should I lie that it does not do this, lest the conclusion is that people cannot behave how they like?

Like capitalism, patriarchy is not an option; it is mandatory for everyone. We should fight against both, but we cannot quit either.


Is a woman who goes out and has regular and frequent sex perpetuating patriarchy?

I think that when she does that she is probably doing exactly the opposite. But then we don't know with whom she has regular and frequent sex, in what conditions, with what intents, etc., so it would be difficult to say, wouldn't it?

Luís Henrique

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I think it has a lot to do with it. Monogamy instills in men -esp. white men- a sense of ownership over whoever tickles their fancy and if that person doesn't want to be owned by them for the duration of the man's orgasm or even for some long boring relationship, he will take it anyway amounting to rape, it's like primitive accumulation transferred to the bedroom in a way. With polyamory it's not like that at all. If you can't get access to sex from A right now for whatever reason you can just move on to B. We're not hung up on owning and controlling anyone, it's the Communism of sex relations. From each according to their ability to each according to their need, sex becomes like satisfying thirst instead of controlling someone.

Then rape wouldn't happen within the poly community, but it does just like everywhere else.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Boy who cried wolf-same principle. If one day she really means no but the bloke takes it too far, neither he nor she will be blameless.

Such bullshit!

[Rosa Partizan]

I wouldn't care for abolishing monogamy as default relationship setting, totally fine with that. Some thread about what you think would be the societal consequences would be pretty interesting (grrrl I'm looking at YOU :grin:). I got some friends living in polyamorous or open relationships and I understand their reasons. However, the thought of this type of relationships applied to my own life makes me very, very uncomfortable.

[Dagoth Ur]

Monogamy became the dominant form of human relationship not by decree or imposition but by simple historical necessity. Having one dedicated parter makes for far less love-triangle type conflict, also anti-adultery morals have to do with the curtailing of sexual disease transmission. Add to this that an institutional form of marriage forced humans to be born into the care of at least two people (at least ideally).

We've gotten past the need for most of this but I still think monogamy will remain the way.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I wouldn't care for abolishing monogamy as default relationship setting, totally fine with that. Some thread about what you think would be the societal consequences would be pretty interesting (grrrl I'm looking at YOU :grin:). I got some friends living in polyamorous or open relationships and I understand their reasons. However, the thought of this type of relationships applied to my own life makes me very, very uncomfortable.

I'm not against monogamy if two people want to be monogamous together, I'm happy for them. But I am not them and I hate it when monogamy oriented people try to put pressure on us poly folks to be more like them. Personally I don't even like commitment. It scares me. I don't think there should be a default relationship setting other than that it be consensual with any and/or all and/or both parties involved.

[Rosa Partizan]

replace "care" with "mind" and I guess that my post will make more sense.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

replace "care" with "mind" and I guess that my post will make more sense.

My polyamory is not a political thing anymore than my bisexuality is. It is just how I am wired.

[Rosa Partizan]

Am I sounding like I wanna take somehow anything away from that? I mean, it's a serious question, maybe there's some lack of proper vocabulary from my side, all I wanted to say is, there shouldn't be ONE right form of relationship but all the forms that people feel comfortable with are right.

[synthesis]

I think it has a lot to do with it. Monogamy instills in men -esp. white men- a sense of ownership over whoever tickles their fancy and if that person doesn't want to be owned by them for the duration of the man's orgasm or even for some long boring relationship, he will take it anyway amounting to rape, it's like primitive accumulation transferred to the bedroom in a way.

I'm sure those Mormon guys with six wives would appreciate the distinction here.


With polyamory it's not like that at all.

I think this remains to be seen, and honestly I don't think it will matter in a communist society - monogamous relationships will still be freed from the constraints of the material conditions that cause these relationships to become so oppressive.

In short: saying that monogamy is the problem is a pretty clear-cut case of putting form over function, because every single criticism leveled against it could also be applied to non-monogamous relationships where one side has the clear upper hand.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yes, and why would that be? Could it be because men simply ousted them from positions of power? Looking at the role of leaders is exactly the point with patriarchy...hence why its definition is: male rule. Or do you think women in power just suddenly thought: "o well...lets collectively give men all the power"?


I don't think patriarchy emerged overnight with men "ousting" women from power - it evolved over an extended period of time.



Look...to clarify yet again...I am not denying a certain role for women...but I am saying women did not take that role through active agency. They were ousted from positions of power by men who then created a system of social, economic and legal constraints for women in order to both legitimize and secure their dominance.
How do you think that "ousting" took place? Slavery emerged in part because of the willingness of Black African kings to sell the people of other ethnicities captured through war to buy guns and imported luxuries. We can look at the context of why people take the decisions they do and whether their decisions may politically disenfranchise others like them without blaming the victim.




I contest the "active" part. That is the whole issue here. I also am confused why we look at examples from relatively recent history instead of the centuries that went before.

While you see queen Victoria as a free agent I do not see Queen Victoria as a free agent but acting within the boundaries of having her behavior regulated. In fact I contest the notion and idea Queen Victoria actually had any real power. In fact the UK was already a constitutional monarchy and it has been widely admitted that her power was little to none.The 19th century monarchy of the UK had much more power than the monarchy of today. Yes, the UK was a parliamentary democracy at the time, but the Queen was not powerless either. And the Queen was a huge beneficiary of patriarchy.


Scabbing has a direct, universally observable, quantifiable effect on the struggle of the working class against exploitation.



While some costs of scabbing are quantifiable, not all are.

And should we be uncritical of the effects of slaves who supported slavery or were otherwise sympathetic to aspects of their exploitation? Those don't seem quantifiable but they are no less real.




First, I think this discussion has long since passed the point where it is productive to accuse anyone of being "high and mighty" about their side of the argument.

But, again, the term "moral policing" here is in reference to the idea that women who engage in "token resistance" or whatever else you want to call it should be taken aside by more enlightened thinkers (i.e., us) and pedagogically informed about how their flirting and the way in which they conduct their sex lives reinforces their own oppression or whatever. Do you not see this being done in this thread? You said just such a thing in post #121. I'm not sure how this is still a source of misunderstanding.I don't know about others, but I'm more interested in the political effects of certain behavior, not moral condemnation.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm sure those Mormon guys with six wives would appreciate the distinction here.



I think this remains to be seen, and honestly I don't think it will matter in a communist society - monogamous relationships will still be freed from the constraints of the material conditions that cause these relationships to become so oppressive.

In short: saying that monogamy is the problem is a pretty clear-cut case of putting form over function, because every single criticism leveled against it could also be applied to non-monogamous relationships where one side has the clear upper hand.

Monogamy isn't the problem. Society having monogamy set as the standard is a problem. There is nothing wrong with monogamy just the societal pressures to fall into monogamy where there is a normative enforced.

[Quail]

Boy who cried wolf-same principle. If one day she really means no but the bloke takes it too far, neither he nor she will be blameless.

Infraction given for this post.

It's nothing like the "boy who cried wolf" at all. If she says "no" and a guy "takes it too far" by which I assume you mean sexually assaults her, then it's all on the guy for not respecting women's boundaries.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't think patriarchy emerged overnight with men "ousting" women from power - it evolved over an extended period of time.

We are not talking about time frame but whether it was male driven or not and men imposing THEIR values on society. And since that is actually the case patriarchy is by its entire deifnition a male product and not a female product. Women use it per extend of them being the ones subjected to it. This btw does not exclude men being subjected to it was well.



How do you think that "ousting" took place? Slavery emerged in part because of the willingness of Black African kings to sell the people of other ethnicities captured through war to buy guns and imported luxuries. We can look at the context of why people take the decisions they do and whether their decisions may politically disenfranchise others like them without blaming the victim.

Eh. No. Slavery existed for centuries and millenia before "black kings" were selling other non white people. Slavery started to crop up after communities created surplusses in food and resources somewhere around 11.000 BC....give or take a few thousand years.

In fact. The European slave trade was merely Europeans buying an already existing product and becomming the most important new clients in an already existing intercontinental trade system.


The 19th century monarchy of the UK had much more power than the monarchy of today. Yes, the UK was a parliamentary democracy at the time, but the Queen was not powerless either. And the Queen was a huge beneficiary of patriarchy.

Sure. However Queen Victoria is notable because she had so very little actual power and influence. So...well..there is that. This doesn't say she doesn't have power. But: One woman....hundreds of men in government, legislative and economic power positions.

The conclusion that SHE is perpetuating patriarchy is not at all contradictory with patriarchy being a male product but also...really, really weird considering the actual power divisions.



And should we be uncritical of the effects of slaves who supported slavery or were otherwise sympathetic to aspects of their exploitation? Those don't seem quantifiable but they are no less real.

That is qualitatively different from slaves acting as slaves because they are slaves. What we are talking here is slaves actively arguing that "slaves are supposed to be slaves because...".

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

We are not talking about time frame but whether it was male driven or not and men imposing THEIR values on society. And since that is actually the case patriarchy is by its entire deifnition a male product and not a female product. Women use it per extend of them being the ones subjected to it. This btw does not exclude men being subjected to it was well.

And here we come to the main problem. This is a misunderstanding of the Patriarchy. I think most people will agree with me here.

The idea that men had different values from women and decided to impose them on women is the beginning of the patriarchy is a bit ridiculous. The Patriarchy comes from gender roles. Gender roles are two way things ie. 'Men are strong and women are weak'. It basically all elaborates from this idea. This is something that the vast majority of both men and women accepted as true in order to become established so.

[PhoenixAsh]

Er... just no.

I have just bought a scone at the bakery, which is an act that evidently reinforces the logic of value, and consequently the capitalist mode of production. Should I lie that it does not do this, lest the conclusion is that people cannot behave how they like?

Like capitalism, patriarchy is not an option; it is mandatory for everyone. We should fight against both, but we cannot quit either.

Er. Yes.

Simply put the extended logic is that women's behavior will always be measured on a different scale within patriarchy. Saying women's behavior then substantially influences patriarchy to the extend that it perpetuates is ludicrous because patriarchy is ao not female behavior but the classification of female behavior BECAUSE they are female.

Also...your example basically comes down reducing perpetuing something by extend of living in it.


I think that when she does that she is probably doing exactly the opposite. But then we don't know with whom she has regular and frequent sex, in what conditions, with what intents, etc., so it would be difficult to say, wouldn't it?

Luís Henrique

Actually no. She isn't doing that. As I explained she will im mediately trigger other patriarchal notions of female behavior and perpetuate them. Especially according to your own logic. Which is my point. Again women's behavior is always subjected to patriarchies evaluation of it because she is a woman.

You do however touch on exactly my argument: intent behind behavior...

[Luís Henrique]

Monogamy isn't the problem. Society having monogamy set as the standard is a problem. There is nothing wrong with monogamy just the societal pressures to fall into monogamy where there is a normative enforced.

I don't think "monogamy" is the decision of two people to exclusively have sex with each other. On the contrary, it is the fact that a one-to-one kind of sexual relationship is standard. If that kind of relationship wasn't normative, there would be no "monogamy", even if John and Mary decided that they will, for the foreseeable future, only bang each other. They would be in a one-to-one relationship, in an exclusive relationship, but this doesn't amount to monogamy.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Er. Yes.

Simply put the extended logic is that women's behavior will always be measured on a different scale within patriarchy. Saying women's behavior then substantially influences patriarchy to the extend that it perpetuates is ludicrous because patriarchy is ao not female behavior but the classification of female behavior BECAUSE they are female.

Also...your example basically comes down reducing perpetuing something by extend of living in it.

Fine. What you mean is that it isn't someone's personal fault if they behave accordingly to the societal norm. That is true, to an extent. What this shouldn't imply, however, is that anything goes because we have no option, or that anything goes provided we are female (Black, Jewish, left-handed, disabled, gay, whatever).

We should still buy scones, if we want to. We shouldn't buy scones as if it was a natural thing, though, and assume the world has to rely on commodity production because we have to buy scones if we want to eat them.


Actually no. She isn't doing that. As I explained she will im mediately trigger other patriarchal notions of female behavior and perpetuate them. Especially according to your own logic. Which is my point. Again women's behavior is always subjected to patriarchies evaluation of it because she is a woman.

You do however touch on exactly my argument: intent behind behavior...

Any women behaviour will be interpreted within the norms of patriarchy, simply because those are the norm. If two women are lesbians, they will be fantasised as fan service. If a woman is straight, it will be normalised.

But if a woman feels like having sexual relations with another woman, and refrains herself because this "is not the right thing", then her behaviour is being directly dictated by patriarchy; if she feels like that and goes on, then her behaviour is directly dictated by her own whims, not by patriarchy. This should make a difference, and not a particularly small one, even if patriarchy ex-post reclaims the latter woman's actions as a sexual stimulant to men.

Same goes for the lady Rosa Partizan is criticising. Is her behaviour dictated by her own wishes, or by what she has learnt to be the right thing? It seems Rosa is of the latter opinion, and I would tend to agree. Do you think the opposite is true, or even that it could actually be true?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

it's the Communism of sex relations

Maybe so. I don't believe in communism of sex relations within a society that is not communist in everything else, though.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Eh. No. Slavery existed for centuries and millenia before "black kings" were selling other non white people. Slavery started to crop up after communities created surplusses in food and resources somewhere around 11.000 BC....give or take a few thousand years.

In fact. The European slave trade was merely Europeans buying an already existing product and becomming the most important new clients in an already existing intercontinental trade system.

Slavery existed for centuries before African nobility started selling other people to Europeans. It however underwent a quite distinct revival when that happened.

I think it would be misleading to state that there was already a continental slave trade system in Africa before the Europeans (colluded with local nobility) established the Africa-America slave trade routes. For starters, African "slavery" was a completely different thing from slavery in the "new world". To be honest, I am not sure to what extent African nobility realised what they were doing. They probably thought the Europeans crazy for paying so much for such an evidently useless commodity (and wouldn't, of course, have cared if the Europeans were taking the captives as concubines or sacrificing them to whatever weird gods White men cultuate).


However Queen Victoria is notable because she had so very little actual power and influence.

I wonder to what extent Victoria's biological sex was instrumental to the relatively smooth transition to full bourgeois democracy.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

Fine. What you mean is that it isn't someone's personal fault if they behave accordingly to the societal norm. That is true, to an extent. What this shouldn't imply, however, is that anything goes because we have no option, or that anything goes provided we are female (Black, Jewish, left-handed, disabled, gay, whatever).

Then I think you have completely misunderstood my argument.

The argument is that behavior of women does not influence how they still operate in a male driven patriarchal norm because their behavior will always be evaluated because they are women. As such women can only perpetuate patriarchy by doing so directly and not indirectly by conforming to it or chosing to act in opposition of what they think patriarchy wants from them behaviour wise. I am not arguing "anything goes" I am arguing that women's behavior within patriarchy will always be evaluated and categorized because of her sex and won't be evaluated on the merit or demerit of the behaviour itself. Women's behaviour is therefore not a free choice but always linked to her sex.




Any women behaviour will be interpreted within the norms of patriarchy, simply because those are the norm. If two women are lesbians, they will be fantasised as fan service. If a woman is straight, it will be normalised.

Patriarchy isn't so limited and intensely more complex with regards to women there are several mutually contradictory norms.



But if a woman feels like having sexual relations with another woman, and refrains herself because this "is not the right thing", then her behaviour is being directly dictated by patriarchy; if she feels like that and goes on, then her behaviour is directly dictated by her own whims, not by patriarchy. This should make a difference, and not a particularly small one, even if patriarchy ex-post reclaims the latter woman's actions as a sexual stimulant to men.

So basically what I have been arguing. A woman should behave in a certain way because she wants to behave in a certain way and not because she needs to behave in a certain way because she is a woman. The opposite is also true. If a woman wants to wait till marriage or if she wants to be a stay at home mom...this is her choice and does not perpetuate patriarchy at all. Her intent and her reason for doing so is what matters.

And if this is your argument then we both agree...since this is what I said before.




Same goes for the lady Rosa Partizan is criticising. Is her behaviour dictated by her own wishes, or by what she has learnt to be the right thing? It seems Rosa is of the latter opinion, and I would tend to agree. Do you think the opposite is true, or even that it could actually be true?

Luís Henrique

Again...I already argued this exact point. The only thing that matters is the intent and reasoning behind behavior. NOT the behavior itself.

[PhoenixAsh]

Slavery existed for centuries before African nobility started selling other people to Europeans. It however underwent a quite distinct revival when that happened.

I think it would be misleading to state that there was already a continental slave trade system in Africa before the Europeans (colluded with local nobility) established the Africa-America slave trade routes. For starters, African "slavery" was a completely different thing from slavery in the "new world". To be honest, I am not sure to what extent African nobility realised what they were doing. They probably thought the Europeans crazy for paying so much for such an evidently useless commodity (and wouldn't, of course, have cared if the Europeans were taking the captives as concubines or sacrificing them to whatever weird gods White men cultuate).



I wonder to what extent Victoria's biological sex was instrumental to the relatively smooth transition to full bourgeois democracy.

Luís Henrique

There was already an international slave trade with the "Arabic" world before the Europeans came. The fact that the European slave trade changed the amount of slaves being sold and changed the nature of American slavery is not really relevant for the argument but indeed true.




**

The point you are making about queen victoria's sex is actually quite an interesting one.

[Invader Zim]

The definition of patriarchy is literally male rule

The actual, literal, definition of the word refers to familial relationships in which fathers head a family. The application of the term (which you have simplified to the point of near laughable meaninglessness, incidentally) is a modern application of the term which is considerably broader than the word’s literal meaning. You also fail to qualify the term, further underscoring the apparently nebulous nature of your grasp of ‘gender history’. For instance, according to your above definition of the term patriarchy, for the latter half of the 16th Century, Britain was not a patriarchal society as the highest seats of power were held by women, whom, as it was understood at the time, ruled by right granted by their lineage and God – and that all men were both politically and socially subordinate to these two women.


and yes, it was forced on women.

In order to make this claim you necessarily must be an expert on gender in the broad period of 8000-3000 BCE. You see, while not my own specialist research area, I was under the dim impression that the disparate and complex nature of iconography from this period, and the highly limited available evidence, necessarily militate against drawing any easy conclusion regarding the origins of patriarchy. Do we look for it in the creation of separate-sphere in the pre-Neolithic period with the mutually complementary division of labour between child-rearing on the one hand and hunter-gathering on the other – arguing that by establishing these separate spheres of labour, revolving around conceptions of motherhood and fatherhood, were firmly established? Do we, instead, fast-forward towards early agricultural society, and consider the commodification of women as producers of the most valuable assets – others to work the land? Or perhaps further still, to the establishment of private property as a crystallised concept? I have no inkling what the answer is to any of those question. Obviously, to make the above statement, you do. Either that or you’re making pronouncements about a hugely complex, multidisciplinary, and chronologically and geographically enormous, topic you know absolutely nothing about.

However, what I do know is that societies create their own perceptions of masculinity and femininity, and that women play a considerable role in that – and to deny that they do, that they are purely victims, is not only shallow and ignorant in the extreme, but hugely dismissive of women, as individual historical actors in their own right and as a whole.


I would go even further and argue that patriarchy is both a product of men developing regionally and an export product exported through conquest.

You’re going to have to clarify this, because it is unclear what you are trying to say.



As I said patriarchy developed in regions where fierce competition for resources became necessary between communities (changing material conditions which disrupted both social and economic organization) and men became the dominant social group.

Yes, I read your unsourced views, yet you fail to address the issue that is actually of relevance – whether males enforced a patriarchal system on women, or whether it was the product of incremental development at least, initially, to the mutual benefit of males and females, and whether or not women played a role in the establishment of each of those increments.


This does not negate the fact which you are arguing that an intricate system was created in order to ensure continued male rule.
So, patriarchy was a male conspiracy, created in order to establish and preserve general male political, social, cultural and economic dominance of society? Not a series of structures erected codifying pre-existing social and cultural norms?


Religious, legal and social....all served to legitimise and codefy male rule.

Yet patriarchy existed before any states, before any organised mass religious movement, and before the codification of law. The central question, at least among those who know what they are talking about, which clearly and absolutely excludes both of us, is whether or not patriarchy was the product of the development of agricultural society –i.e. Neolithic, or whether it had earlier origins. It is also worth noting that some of the earliest evidence of mass organised religion, in Anatolia, is in the forms of female figurines – the deity in this instance, being a Godess.


Literature in the (late) middle ages

Chivalry was a product of High, not late, Middle Age literature. You are out by at least a couple of hundred years out.


which had no change whatsoever in the real situation that had already existed for centuries and when religious and legal systems were far more dominant in regulating women's status vs male status then any Canterbury tale ever written which was not accessible for the vast majority of the illiterate population.

This is testament not to either the power of popular culture to influence, mediate, and even codify behaviour, nor as documentary evidence of shifting patterns in behaviour, but to your shallow grasp of the topic. Chivalry was a hugely important social ethos which radically influenced, martial, political, religious, social and cultural behaviour – including conceptions of gender. Anybody who denies that, quite frankly, needs to educate themselves. It is like saying that the ethos of Enlightenment had ‘had no change whatsoever in the real situation’ in the 18th Century. Total face palm. An then you come out with asinine comments about the authorship of medieval literature, while ignoring issues of readership and patronage. The fact that someone like Marie of Champagne might have commissioned and instructed the likes of de Troyes, and might have had a purpose for that, is obviously lost on you.


In fact, clearly there is no point even talking to you about this – you aren’t merely on a different page but an entirely different book. In fact, to make the analogy work, you’re in a Horrible Histories book, while everybody else is reading Joan W. Scott.

[Luís Henrique]

Then I think you have completely misunderstood my argument.

The argument is that behavior of women does not influence how they still operate in a male driven patriarchal norm because their behavior will always be evaluated because they are women. As such women can only perpetuate patriarchy by doing so directly and not indirectly by conforming to it or chosing to act in opposition of what they think patriarchy wants from them behaviour wise. I am not arguing "anything goes" I am arguing that women's behavior within patriarchy will always be evaluated and categorized because of her sex and won't be evaluated on the merit or demerit of the behaviour itself. Women's behaviour is therefore not a free choice but always linked to her sex.

The latter sentence does not seem to follow logically. It seems that you were arguing that while women are free to behave as they choose, their behaviour will always reinforce patriarchy, no matter what choice that may be. This is not the same as not having a free choice.


So basically what I have been arguing. A woman should behave in a certain way because she wants to behave in a certain way and not because she needs to behave in a certain way because she is a woman. The opposite is also true. If a woman wants to wait till marriage or if she wants to be a stay at home mom...this is her choice and does not perpetuate patriarchy at all. Her intent and her reason for doing so is what matters.

And if this is your argument then we both agree...since this is what I said before.

Again...I already argued this exact point. The only thing that matters is the intent and reasoning behind behavior. NOT the behavior itself.

Maybe we are arguing the same point, but I fear we are taking different conclusions from it. The way it reads, it seems that you are telling us that it is wrong to question the behaviour of women.

That's contradictory, or will be contradictory every time that it is women criticising the behaviour of women. Since criticising other people's behaviour is in itself a behaviour, if we cannot criticise a woman for doing X, then it follows that we cannot criticise a woman for criticising another woman for doing X.

More importantly, though, we cannot assess intent except trhough behaviour, unless we believe in telepathy. So it is impossible to assert that "intent is the only thing that matters": either different intents are reflected in different behaviours, in which case behaviour matters, or they are unknowable. Thence the question with which I ended my previous post: "Is her behaviour dictated by her own wishes, or by what she has learnt to be the right thing?": if it is impossible to know, then you are perhaps right, and we should not take conclusions about her behaviour. However, if there is connection between behaviour and intent, then it is possible that we can discuss her intent as reflected in her behaviour.


There was already an international slave trade with the "Arabic" world before the Europeans came. The fact that the European slave trade changed the amount of slaves being sold and changed the nature of American slavery is not really relevant for the argument but indeed true.

OK; it is mainly relevant to historical accuracy.


The point you are making about queen victoria's sex is actually quite an interesting one.

More a question than a point.

On the other hand, Victoria has to be contrasted with Elizabeth the First, who certainly was instrumental in reinforcing English absolutism (and probably the English monarch that was most clearly absolutist and competent at that). So it seems it cannot be an issue of mere biological sex; the extent to which each of these two women adhered to the stereotypical sexual roles probably made a whole lot of difference. Which would put in cause the idea that female behaviour is irrelevant because determined by patriarchy...

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

[/B]
The actual, literal, definition of the word refers to familial relationships in which fathers head a family. The application of the term (which you have simplified to the point of near laughable meaninglessness, incidentally) is a modern application of the term which is considerably broader than the word’s literal meaning. You also fail to qualify the term, further underscoring the apparently nebulous nature of your grasp of ‘gender history’. For instance, according to your above definition of the term patriarchy, for the latter half of the 16th Century, Britain was not a patriarchal society as the highest seats of power were held by women, whom, as it was understood at the time, ruled by right granted by their lineage and God – and that all men were both politically and socially subordinate to these two women.

Right. So basically you are flaunting your own ignorance on the matter as it is quite literally the case that in women's studies the spread of patriarchy and the struggle of dominance in medieval Europe was not absolute. Especially England at that time counts as socially mixed and is designated as the period in which women lost their positions of power. So good of you to use exactly that example to show us your lack of knowledge about patriarchal development through history.



In order to make this claim you necessarily must be an expert on gender in the broad period of 8000-3000 BCE. You see, while not my own specialist research area, I was under the dim impression that the disparate and complex nature of iconography from this period, and the highly limited available evidence, necessarily militate against drawing any easy conclusion regarding the origins of patriarchy. Do we look for it in the creation of separate-sphere in the pre-Neolithic period with the mutually complementary division of labour between child-rearing on the one hand and hunter-gathering on the other – arguing that by establishing these separate spheres of labour, revolving around conceptions of motherhood and fatherhood, were firmly established? Do we, instead, fast-forward towards early agricultural society, and consider the commodification of women as producers of the most valuable assets – others to work the land? Or perhaps further still, to the establishment of private property as a crystallised concept? I have no inkling what the answer is to any of those question. Obviously, to make the above statement, you do. Either that or you’re making pronouncements about a hugely complex, multidisciplinary, and chronologically and geographically enormous, topic you know absolutely nothing about.

No. You do not agree with my view and since you know next to nothing about my scholastic background or background in education you are making a wild assumption that I know next to nothing about the subject or didn't extensively research it. Which is actually a statement lacking of any actual content and subject related argumentative retort.

So to enlighten you on my academic past: university student of law, psychology and history. Specialized in history of law (pre-historic and ancient) and specialized in both the fields of social economic development (in the field of women's study) and diplomatic history (as a sub of military history of the early modern era). Also a minor sub field in comparative religion. Both history and law had a cross over with Archaeology and Anthropology. And in psychology, not that it matters much for this topic, the field of behavioral science and human interaction with a minor in abnormal psychology.

So...being an expert. Probably not. But since it doesn't take an expert to know something about the subject which they studied...I am saying I am well enough informed.



However, what I do know is that societies create their own perceptions of masculinity and femininity, and that women play a considerable role in that – and to deny that they do, that they are purely victims, is not only shallow and ignorant in the extreme, but hugely dismissive of women, as individual historical actors in their own right and as a whole.

If you had actually not been devoid of any intelligence and would have read and understood what I argued rather than used your time to create one huge straw man and ad hominem post you would have known I didn't make that claim at all.


You’re going to have to clarify this, because it is unclear what you are trying to say.

What I am saying is that patriarchy was exported through conquest. I am not sure how this is unclear to you since it quite literally says exactly what it means.


Yes, I read your unsourced views, yet you fail to address the issue that is actually of relevance – whether males enforced a patriarchal system on women, or whether it was the product of incremental development at least, initially, to the mutual benefit of males and females, and whether or not women played a role in the establishment of each of those increments.

Lets turn the tables. Since you contest the notion you should provide evidence to substantiate your claim and describe these increments and describe exactly how women contributed to them.

I am very curious as to your evidence of your general notion that women somehow decided men would dominate them since that is the entire basis of your argument.



So, patriarchy was a male conspiracy, created in order to establish and preserve general male political, social, cultural and economic dominance of society? Not a series of structures erected codifying pre-existing social and cultural norms?

Since patriarchy predates written history I hope you understand how incredibly foolish your argument is.


Yet patriarchy existed before any states, before any organised mass religious movement, and before the codification of law. The central question, at least among those who know what they are talking about, which clearly and absolutely excludes both of us, is whether or not patriarchy was the product of the development of agricultural society –i.e. Neolithic, or whether it had earlier origins. It is also worth noting that some of the earliest evidence of mass organised religion, in Anatolia, is in the forms of female figurines – the deity in this instance, being a Godess.

sigh. Yes...because obviously all religions are the same at all period of times Hey look...Catholicism worships Maria a woman.... :rolleyes:

Greece had many goddesses for example. Yet was completely and utterly patriarchal and repressed women. Also the role and narrative of Goddesses is totally sexist.




Chivalry was a product of High, not late, Middle Age literature. You are out by at least a couple of hundred years out.

Charlemagne was high middle ages? Wauw. Seriously...at least use wikipedia to check your arguments. :rolleyes:




In fact, clearly there is no point even talking to you about this – you aren’t merely on a different page but an entirely different book. In fact, to make the analogy work, you’re in a Horrible Histories book, while everybody else is reading Joan W. Scott.

Said the guy who said chivalry developed in the high middle ages. :rolleyes:

Serious. Next time do some time to research. And perhaps try and read the arguments that are made instead of creating straw men.

But yeah. I agree discussing the subject with somebody who is of the opinion that patriarchy is somehow a female product useless...

[Lily Briscoe]

Just to say in advance, I am not arguing 'on behalf of' PhoenixAsh and actually disagree with quite a bit of what he's saying in this thread. I just wanted to make one last comment, though, with regard to this:


The way it reads, it seems that you are telling us that it is wrong to question the behaviour of women.

That's contradictory, or will be contradictory every time that it is women criticising the behaviour of women. Since criticising other people's behaviour is in itself a behaviour, if we cannot criticise a woman for doing X, then it follows that we cannot criticise a woman for criticising another woman for doing X.

Personally, in the absence of abusive behavior, I absolutely think it's wrong for uninvolved parties to question and criticize the way individual women conduct their sex lives, all the more when the understanding of this conduct is based on rumors and/or second-hand accounts. I don't think it's anybody's business (except for the people immediately involved), nor do I think it's a 'political' question at all.

Women who don't conform to someone else's idea of what constitutes 'appropriate' female sexual conduct are constantly put under the microscope in this way, where all the supposed 'implications' of their (usually rumored) private sexual behavior are teased out by random people who feel entitled to comment on something which doesn't concern them at all. Fortunately most people who do this aren't cynical enough to bother trying to dress it up as 'opposing the patriarchy'.

[PhoenixAsh]

The latter sentence does not seem to follow logically. It seems that you were arguing that while women are free to behave as they choose, their behaviour will always reinforce patriarchy, no matter what choice that may be. This is not the same as not having a free choice.

What I am arguing is that women should chose their behavior how they want to. Not based on whether it supposedly reinforces patriarchal notions or not...since it is impossible for women to behave in a manner which does not trigger a patriarchal notion or another. Quite obviously one of the major parts of patriarchy is evaluating and classifying women's behavior differently because they are women.


Maybe we are arguing the same point, but I fear we are taking different conclusions from it. The way it reads, it seems that you are telling us that it is wrong to question the behaviour of women.

To clarify: We can not (well we can...but the point is that is actually the root problem) and should not criticize women's behavior because she is a woman. And this is exactly what is happening in this thread.

Aside from the fact that it is quite impossible for a woman not to enforce patriarchy regardless of her behavior one way or the other (because patriarchy is ao evaluating her behavior because she is woman and basing condemnation or praise on this evaluation and always subjecting her to scrutiny and exploitation therefore this creates a catch22...) there should be no criticism of women behaving how they please or want other than on the basis of the behavior.

What we can criticize is the intent behind it.


That's contradictory, or will be contradictory every time that it is women criticising the behaviour of women. Since criticising other people's behaviour is in itself a behaviour, if we cannot criticise a woman for doing X, then it follows that we cannot criticise a woman for criticising another woman for doing X.

See above.



More importantly, though, we cannot assess intent except trhough behaviour, unless we believe in telepathy. So it is impossible to assert that "intent is the only thing that matters": either different intents are reflected in different behaviours, in which case behaviour matters, or they are unknowable. Thence the question with which I ended my previous post: "Is her behaviour dictated by her own wishes, or by what she has learnt to be the right thing?": if it is impossible to know, then you are perhaps right, and we should not take conclusions about her behaviour. However, if there is connection between behaviour and intent, then it is possible that we can discuss her intent as reflected in her behaviour.

Actually we can not assess intent through behavior since exactly the same behavior can have different intent behind it. It may be a good indicator that further research/investigation is necessary but it is not necessarily related.

So I think we are on the same page actually.



OK; it is mainly relevant to historical accuracy.

Well you aren't wrong that Europeans changed the nature and character of the slave trade completely. In fact the covenant of Tordessillas and the Asiento de Negros were the basis of international wars and diplomacy. Interestingly the Portugese called the slave trade resgatar which actually meant something like liberation. Basically the asiento saw to the delivery and quantification of sale of slaves to the Spanish colonies. Which in the late 1600's and early 1700's led to a huge surge in international investments in companies which provided in the asiento.




More a question than a point.

On the other hand, Victoria has to be contrasted with Elizabeth the First, who certainly was instrumental in reinforcing English absolutism (and probably the English monarch that was most clearly absolutist and competent at that). So it seems it cannot be an issue of mere biological sex; the extent to which each of these two women adhered to the stereotypical sexual roles probably made a whole lot of difference. Which would put in cause the idea that female behaviour is irrelevant because determined by patriarchy...

Luís Henrique

Queen Elizabeth did not really adhere to gender roles as she was stubbornly refusing to marry.

Interestingly enough I am trying to acquire a copy of an essay dealing with Elizabeth I and her impact on status of women by Heisch. It also deal with the notion of sex and gender since it relies heavily on her supposed flaunting of gender roles by Elizabeth derived from the chain of pearly eulogy and her depiction as a rather genderles character since she was ascribed both male and female characteristics at the same time.
The same goes for Duran, which I read something about a long time ago, but I can't seem to find it.

While we are on the subject. In this respect Beem might be an interesting author who wrote about female rulers in a man's world in British history. As well as Bassnett who wrote a feminist biography on Elizabeth. I have read excerpts from the first. The other one...not so much.

[synthesis]

We should still buy scones, if we want to. We shouldn't buy scones as if it was a natural thing, though, and assume the world has to rely on commodity production because we have to buy scones if we want to eat them.

What a terrible analogy. You're abstracting the debate beyond all recognition. In the context of this thread the equivalent would be telling someone that they shouldn't eat scones because it reinforces the status quo. (That would actually be a pretty good analogy for the discussion here.) That's the point of contention, not whether or not it's seen as "natural."

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

We are not talking about time frame but whether it was male driven or not and men imposing THEIR values on society. And since that is actually the case patriarchy is by its entire deifnition a male product and not a female product. Women use it per extend of them being the ones subjected to it. This btw does not exclude men being subjected to it was well.


You said patriarchy is defined as male rule, now you say it is by definition produced by men. I think you are just begging the question by redefining patriarchy and saying "hey, look, it's defined that way, so it must be the case". Patriarchy had to do more with the evolving divisions of labor between men and women and the social consequences of these and not some global conspiracy by stone age men to objectify and oppress women.



Eh. No. Slavery existed for centuries and millenia before "black kings" were selling other non white people. Slavery started to crop up after communities created surplusses in food and resources somewhere around 11.000 BC....give or take a few thousand years.

In fact. The European slave trade was merely Europeans buying an already existing product and becomming the most important new clients in an already existing intercontinental trade system.
Don't be pedantic, I was obviously talking about the Atlantic slave trade, not the ancient practice of slavery. There was a qualitative change in the slave trade when a racialized caste was targeted as the preferred slave caste, as opposed to unlucky PoWs from neighboring city states.

the point is, it was the Atlantic slave trade that contributed to the existence of the white/black racial divide and the utilization of racialized categories by capitalists for profit. And this only happened because local kingdoms were willing to sell their enemies to the Europeans - yes, you are right, there were other slave trade routes with the Arab world, but that did not involve the development of European racism nor was that slave trade anywhere near as massive



Sure. However Queen Victoria is notable because she had so very little actual power and influence. So...well..there is that. This doesn't say she doesn't have power. But: One woman....hundreds of men in government, legislative and economic power positions.

The conclusion that SHE is perpetuating patriarchy is not at all contradictory with patriarchy being a male product but also...really, really weird considering the actual power divisions.
Patriarchy is an ever evolving institution, it was not something created by men and set in stone. And insofar as it evolves, women in power can shape it. It's not like the past 10,000 years has only ever been the story of disempowered women. If you think Queen Victoria was powerless (and I think you're exaggerating her powerlessness), what about Queen Elizabeth? Or Catherine the Great and Empress Maria Theresa? Or PM Margaret Thatcher? All of those women benefited from and thrived in a system of patriarchy, and managed to do quite well for themselves in the process.



That is qualitatively different from slaves acting as slaves because they are slaves. What we are talking here is slaves actively arguing that "slaves are supposed to be slaves because...".I'm not sure what you're saying, but at heart what I'm arguing is that oppressed groups can internalize their oppression, and by internalizing it, they help to further it. Therefore they should take their agency and critically analyze their behavior and thoughts, because women cannot simply rely on men to just be nicer. And I don't think it's too much to ask - it's not like feminists, black people, working class people and other folks responding to systematic oppression haven't done such a thing time and time again.


What I am arguing is that women should chose their behavior how they want to. Not based on whether it supposedly reinforces patriarchal notions or not...since it is impossible for women to behave in a manner which does not trigger a patriarchal notion or another. Quite obviously one of the major parts of patriarchy is evaluating and classifying women's behavior differently because they are women. The logical implication of this is that women cannot do anything at all in response to patriarchy. On the contrary - the oppressed people MUST take their agency and behave differently if we can ever hope for it to go away. Again - does the working class not change their behavior because of the exploitative nature of Capitalism? Where would that leave them if they didn't? Do black people just wait for white people to treat them better? Or do they actually do things differently themselves to help change the conditions of their exploitation? You seem to confuse "oppressed people can counter oppression through their own agency and action" with "oppressed people are morally at fault for their oppression".


Women who don't conform to someone else's idea of what constitutes 'appropriate' female sexual conduct are constantly put under the microscope in this way, where all the supposed 'implications' of their (usually rumored) private sexual behavior are teased out by random people who feel entitled to comment on something which doesn't concern them at all. Fortunately most people who do this aren't cynical enough to bother trying to dress it up as 'opposing the patriarchy'.

Perhaps we should be analyzing the behavior of both men and women, and not from some standpoint of perceived essential differences or in terms of moral failure, but in how the behavior of both reinforces certain kinds of patriarchal norms?

[PhoenixAsh]

You said patriarchy is defined as male rule, now you say it is by definition produced by men. I think you are just begging the question by redefining patriarchy and saying "hey, look, it's defined that way, so it must be the case". Patriarchy had to do more with the evolving divisions of labor between men and women and the social consequences of these and not some global conspiracy by stone age men to objectify and oppress women.

No. You are in fact mistaken. My position, which was attacked, was that patriarchy is a male product. That is where the argument developed from.
So do not try and shift the tables and somehow accuse me of switching arguments.

The fact that you do not understand "product" is not my problem. You seem hell bend on trying to argue that somehow patriarchy is also a female product.

Also do not try to wiggle in terms which I did not use in order to try to obfuscate the issue. I never used the term "conspiracy".

But to deny the fact that Patriarchy is specifically designed to create male supremacy and aimed at continuing to benefit men over women is ridiculous.


Don't be pedantic, I was obviously talking about the Atlantic slave trade, not the ancient practice of slavery. There was a qualitative change in the slave trade when a racialized caste was targeted as the preferred slave caste, as opposed to unlucky PoWs from neighboring city states.

the point is, it was the Atlantic slave trade that contributed to the existence of the white/black racial divide and the utilization of racialized categories by capitalists for profit. And this only happened because local kingdoms were willing to sell their enemies to the Europeans - yes, you are right, there were other slave trade routes with the Arab world, but that did not involve the development of European racism nor was that slave trade anywhere near as massive

Funny enough you didn't mention racism at all in the post I replied to.

In fact you were saying that slavery developed because of the willingness of black kings to sell slaves captured through wars to buy guns and luxuries. Yes it was quite obvious you meant the Atlantic slave trade. But slavery was, by the time Europeans started coming into the picture already a developed commodity and trade system in continental trade plus there already was a flourishing international slave trade going on with the Arabic world.

Yes Europeans changed the nature of the slave trade. But no the Europeans did not develop slave trade....it was already in place.

Yes it impacted the development of racism. No you didn't mention racism at all up until now.


Patriarchy is an ever evolving institution, it was not something created by men and set in stone.

Actually. My argument is that it is a male product and it is created by men. However I specifically argued against it being set in stone and I specifically argued against it being unevolving.

So please provide your evidence that it was a co-opted system with equal partnership between men and woman bioth deciding men would be superior to women.


And insofar as it evolves, women in power can shape it. It's not like the past 10,000 years has only ever been the story of disempowered women. If you think Queen Victoria was powerless (and I think you're exaggerating her powerlessness), what about Queen Elizabeth? Or Catherine the Great and Empress Maria Theresa? Or PM Margaret Thatcher? All of those women benefited from and thrived in a system of patriarchy, and managed to do quite well for themselves in the process.

There is a distinct flaw in your reasoning and correlation of "shaping" and "doing quite well for themselves" I hope you understand that.

I also hope you seriously understand the fundamental flaw in focusing on how "women" in power shape patriarchy when they are mere exceptions and the vast majority, with only the exception of those one, two three or handful of women, of the economic, political, religious and social institutions are dominated by men. Do you understand how utterly ridiculous the focus on that one sole exception is?

Plus of course I already argued a lot of posts back that women can perpetuate patriarchy but that it involves active argument and agency and not passive "agency" (conforming to the situation)


I'm not sure what you're saying, but at heart what I'm arguing is that oppressed groups can internalize their oppression, and by internalizing it, they help to further it.

I seriously disagree with that last statement because it ONLY influences themselves and not women in society at large...but I have repeatedly argued the first part.


Therefore they should take their agency and critically analyze their behavior and thoughts, because women cannot simply rely on men to just be nicer. And I don't think it's too much to ask - it's not like feminists, black people, working class people and other folks responding to systematic oppression haven't done such a thing time and time again.

So when I said a woman should act like she wants to act and not because she is supposed to act either in line or opposed to patriarchal notions you thought I argued anything different? When I argued that intent is more important than behavior because behavior is not automatically a sign of intent you thought I was arguing anything different from what you said here? When I argued that somebody should question whether they acted because they thought their sex dictated it instead of that it was what they wanted you thought I was arguing anything different?


The logical implication of this is that women cannot do anything at all in response to patriarchy.

No. Actually the only logical implication is that women should act like they want because they want it and not because they are women and their sex either dictates that they are supposed to or that they can't because, OMG, patriarchy.


On the contrary - the oppressed people MUST take their agency and behave differently if we can ever hope for it to go away. Again - does the working class not change their behavior because of the exploitative nature of Capitalism? Where would that leave them if they didn't? Do black people just wait for white people to treat them better? Or do they actually do things differently themselves to help change the conditions of their exploitation?

Actually. They shouldn't behave different. That is the whole point. They should behave how they want to. Behaving different is not "agency" behaving different is "regulation"....which is ironically exactly the point of both patriarchy and racism.


You seem to confuse "oppressed people can counter oppression through their own agency and action" with "oppressed people are morally at fault for their oppression".

No. I do not think your definition of agency is correct.


Perhaps we should be analyzing the behavior of both men and women, and not from some standpoint of perceived essential differences or in terms of moral failure, but in how the behavior of both reinforces certain kinds of patriarchal norms?

And if we would do that...which is my argument....women are still required to behave different because they are women...

Let me state this again: women's behavior is dictated by patriarchy and evaluated by patriarchy because they are women on a different scale than men and...mostly by men for the benefit of men (hence why patriarchy is a male product...it doesn't at all serve women). As long as that is the case women are required to act different because they are women and need to counter male perception of their actions and male entitlement over them rather than them acting like they want.

See what I mean?

When I say women can not behave like they want is because they always are required to either conform to patriarchy, be condemned by it, or be condemned by moralist feminists who require them to act opposed to patriarchal notions (which...are quite contradictory and create a system in which it is impossible for a woman not to trigger some patriarchal evaluation/notion/praise/condemnation/regulation) because that is what their sex dictates.

And to come back at the agency part I will once again state:

No agency short of revolution ever led to liberation of an oppressed group UNLESS the oppressing group decided it wasn't in their benefit anymore to keep oppressing that group.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

No. You are in fact mistaken. My position, which was attacked, was that patriarchy is a male product. That is where the argument developed from.
So do not try and shift the tables and somehow accuse me of switching arguments.
I'm not saying you're switching arguments, but you're begging the question.


The fact that you do not understand "product" is not my problem. You seem hell bend on trying to argue that somehow patriarchy is also a female product. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying.



But to deny the fact that Patriarchy is specifically designed to create male supremacy and aimed at continuing to benefit men over women is ridiculous. I don't think anyone consciously designed patriarchy. I agree that patriarchy largely benefits men, but I disagree on your account of how it developed is all.
I think patriarchy emerged as labor was divided between men and women, and men took on tasks which brought more economic and political freedom. I don't think it was designed with anyone in mind, and I think it's idealistic to say that a cultural phenomenon could predate a material class division without some kind of existing objective distinctions. The culture of male domination over women emerged out of a division of labor, and this division of labor allowed some women some power in certain arenas, it was just that generally these arenas were more limited than those of men. In some societies of course the lack of freedoms for women were more pronounced, codified or universally supported, but insofar as these codifications existed they developed out of a division of labor which existed already.

I agree that the consequence of patriarchy largely has been to benefit men. That is obviously true, and male privilege is the consequence of patriarchy. I don't think patriarchy was consciously designed with that in mind however.


n fact you were saying that slavery developed because of the willingness of black kings to sell slaves captured through wars to buy guns and luxuries. Yes it was quite obvious you meant the Atlantic slave trade. But slavery was, by the time Europeans started coming into the picture already a developed commodity and trade system in continental trade plus there already was a flourishing international slave trade going on with the Arabic world.

Yes Europeans changed the nature of the slave trade. But no the Europeans did not develop slave trade....it was already in place.

Yes it impacted the development of racism. No you didn't mention racism at all up until now. Well if I can give you what I mean in a single coherent account, it's that some African political orders used the racist Atlantic slave trade to their own benefit, and admitting this does not do anything to diminish the kind of moral blame that whites have in the slave trade.


So please provide your evidence that it was a co-opted system with equal partnership between men and woman bioth deciding men would be superior to women. Why presume that I think patriarchy is an "equal partnership"? I don't think that at all. What I think is that patriarchy involves a division of women, some of whom have more agency than others. Just as capitalism involves a division of the working class, and just as colonialism involves a division of the native peoples. I think it's a straw man to say I am giving equal agency to both men and women.


I also hope you seriously understand the fundamental flaw in focusing on how "women" in power shape patriarchy when they are mere exceptions and the vast majority, with only the exception of those one, two three or handful of women, of the economic, political, religious and social institutions are dominated by men. Do you understand how utterly ridiculous the focus on that one sole exception is?
They were just obvious examples. And no, I don't think women had some greater role than men in shaping patriarchy. I just want to show how an oppressive system like patriarchy itself divides the oppressed classes like women and rewards some who are willing to adopt or endorse its rules. In this case, the rule being adopted and endorsed is that men should sexually pressure women who refuse them, because they really mean "yes" by their refusal.



Plus of course I already argued a lot of posts back that women can perpetuate patriarchy but that it involves active argument and agency and not passive "agency" (conforming to the situation)Why is the situation of flirting "passive agency" whereas others are not? I think there's something to the dictum of 60s feminists that the personal is the political.


No. Actually the only logical implication is that women should act like they want because they want it and not because they are women and their sex either dictates that they are supposed to or that they can't because, OMG, patriarchy. I think the issue at hand is that women acting "like they want to" to overthrow an oppressive ideology is a liberal idea. Overthrowing any kind of oppressive system will require the willingness to be condemned by that system, and the willingness to behave in such a way that they undermine the basic premises of that system.


Let me state this again: women's behavior is dictated by patriarchy and evaluated by patriarchy because they are women on a different scale than men and...mostly by men for the benefit of men (hence why patriarchy is a male product...it doesn't at all serve women). As long as that is the case women are required to act different because they are women and need to counter male perception of their actions and male entitlement over them rather than them acting like they want.
Well as long as men see it as normative and ok to sexually pressure or rape a woman who says no, then avoiding certain behaviors in sexual discourse will be an important part in challenging some of the more damaging aspects of patriarchy. And if men saw it differently, then saying "no" and resenting men who didn't end up pushing themselves on you would make no sense.


When I say women can not behave like they want is because they always are required to either conform to patriarchy, be condemned by it, or be condemned by moralist feminists who require them to act opposed to patriarchal notions (which...are quite contradictory and create a system in which it is impossible for a woman not to trigger some patriarchal evaluation/notion/praise/condemnation/regulation) because that is what their sex dictates.To overthrow patriarchy, women must be willing to be condemned by patriarchal men. And for men to help overthrow patriarchy, they must be willing to be condemned by patriarchal men, too. For workers to oppose capitalism, must they not also participate in actions which will lead them to be condemned by Capitalists?


No agency short of revolution ever led to liberation of an oppressed group UNLESS the oppressing group decided it wasn't in their benefit anymore to keep oppressing that group. I think women not admitting to patriarchal norms in their sexual behavior would be a kind of sexual revolution - and certainly one which is more liberating for women than the one we saw in the 1960s.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I haven't read much of the other responses but women should be allowed to play whatever games they want without the threat of rape. That seems to be a given, and anyone who disagrees is a piece of shit.

On the side, a lot of the girls I know that play that shit like, "oh, I won't sleep with you until you put up a fight" are childish and not worth the time, maybe worth one sexual passionate night but that's it if anything