Killarney,

"I don't mean to be argumentative with your views. I'm just putting forward my own view of what feminism means to me - a view that feminism embraces, and can operate within, all political systems"

Yes, I appreciate that....and it is good to have an insight from someone who has given feminism a lot of thought.

However, Squeers has articulated exactly the point I was attempting to make (and far more economically that I could:) From an ethical point of view, feminists embracing our system would seem to running counter to an overall feminine paradigm.

As an example, we've all seen those global gab-fests (like the upcoming G20) where men strut around in the capitalist uniform of dark suit and tie...and the women don costumes as close to that as they can, while still making the point that they're women...dark skirts, slacks, suit jackets, etc.

They are blending into masculine tapestry instead of weaving their own innate nature into it...and that's because they have bought into a system where they feel they have to adopt a masculine stance to "fight" for a bigger share of the spoils. They are required to wear "the uniform" in order to be taken seriously by their male colleagues.

Where is the feminine in all this?

Lost somewhere in the machinations of a masculine system, where women are required to reinvent themselves in male guise to be heard.

I do take your point that feminism seeks to raise women's status inside the system we have. However, my point is that if the system is so constructed as to be structurally incongruous to the feminine - then the voice of feminism is rendered somewhat discordant.

(I'll just add that I'm always entertained by your wit and eloquence on this forum - keep up the good work:)

Hi Poirot, Killarney and Squeers, I don't think people should be surprised if some people are aware of the prejudice women suffer everyday but are not entirely savvy to the mass exploitation that is the patriarchal capitalism we are struggling under. Hopefully everyone will come to see that you can't have capitalism and life (see Naomi Klein on how nothing has been done to stop climate change as it is very profitable for the mega wealthy). Hopefully it will become clear that you can't have a decent life without women, and children, being respected. This is the original oppression.

"In recent decades, the U.N., multiple research organizations, and academicians working in fields such as political science and security studies have piled up masses of evidence documenting the importance of equality between women and men (normally referred to as “gender equality”). Their findings point to the historic male dominance of women, enforced by violence, as the ancient prototype of all forms of dominance and violence and the very pattern of exploitation, enslavement, and war. Their research supports the shrewd observation of John Stuart Mill, the nineteenth century British philosopher, that Englishmen first learned at home and then practiced on their wives the tyranny they subsequently exercised on foreign shores to amass and control the British Empire."
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/27141-the-missing-women-of-afghanistan-after-13-years-of-war-the-rule-of-men-not-law

Phanto, I don't see why problems should only be fixed in adulthood. Roots of Empathy programme meant kids realise everyone, even tiny helpless babies, are entitled to respect. Some kids ealised that the abuse they were receiving was unjustified and they sought, and received, help. Just imagine if all those poor kids in religious and government institutions had those same lessons. How many lives of suicide, despair and violence could have been avoided? Adults can try and sort themselves out but it would be far better if they had been supported in childhood. The Hawn Foundation taught kids about their emotions via mindfulness allowing them to sort out their problems without physically or emotionally attacking each other. This mean happiness and a really useful lesson in emotional maturity. What could be wrong with that?

Hi Squeers
Using ostracism to enforce cultural norms is not a minor matter. Humans are social animals and exclusion is extremely painful and, in some situations, can be fatal. Patriarchy is the internalisation of the idea that men are better than women and therefore deserve different treatment. It becomes the norm when it is reinforced by the structures of the society (law, government, military, religion, work etc) and the social treatment (family, workmates etc).

" I just want to add the point that while violence can never be justified, women are often equal partners in stirring it up, at least domestically. Conflict often is stereotypical, with men trying to use reason and their partners responding emotionally. Each gets exasperated with the others obtuseness and it escalates." This is not gender, this is emotional immaturity. If you have a problem, get to the bottom of it, do not blame the other and get violent.

We live in a world that is violent and horrible for many women and children. Even if you are not the direct target of it, the dehumanisation of women and girls is under the surface. The structures are held in place by powerful men and by violence. Listen to the Mexican journalist Lydia Cacho's story.

"Sex trafficking is a booming business and enormously economically viable on a global scale. The estimate is that some 30 million, mainly women and children, are trapped in this industry." http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2014/09/18/4090413.htm

She challenges the clients, men, to think about what they are doing and why. She also challenges male journos to look into the issue.

Aristocrat, Since you do not put forward anything apart from a refusal to look at evidence or arguments I am unclear on where you stand and why. Do you think the world is perfect and women are just uppity? Please listen to Lydia Cacho's interview and tell me then how this is so.

Lillian:

“Some kids ealised that the abuse they were receiving was unjustified and they sought, and received, help. Just imagine if all those poor kids in religious and government institutions had those same lessons.”

I think kids already know instinctively when they are being abused and that it is wrong. I don’t think they need to learn that. You can tell they know because they also instinctively appeal to someone who they hope can help them. What happens though if the only adult who can help you is the one who is abusing you? What do you do if you have nowhere to go? If the person who is abusing you is also the one who gives you food, clothing and shelter then you have a real dilemma. You have to survive – there is an instinct for that as well – and so you have to choose between trying to stop the abuse or risking your survival. Most kids realise that survival is more important and so they just repress the abuse as best they can. They have made the only decision they could have made for themselves under the circumstances.

When they become adults they no longer need others to help them survive but all that repressed pain still lies within them. It is often called repressed memories but it is in fact repressed pain. Until that pain is addressed it will continue to affect them and especially their ability to parent properly.

So in a way you have to wait until people are no longer dependent on others for their survival before they will go anywhere near that repressed pain. They have to feel reasonably safe and even then it is a very difficult experience. It can be done and many have done it and their ability to parent increases immensely. The best people to approach would possibly be late teenagers who have the confidence to support themselves. This would target their repressed pain before they had become parents and I think this would produce the best outcome.

cont.

cont.

Telling a young child that he should respect other children means very little. Kids that age do not have a concept of social justice. You may tell them they should respect other children and they may go through the motions of respect but they only do it because you told them to and not because it feels right. They imbibe what you say in the same spirit as if you tell them they need to brush their teeth. They don’t understand why until they get older and study tooth decay.

They may not understand respect but they do know that you never hit someone because they may themselves have felt the pain of being hit or seen someone else’s pain and pain is not pleasant. They know that you should share things because they know how it feels when they are left out. They do not need to be given reasons for doing this since they already know. Their feelings are giving them clues all the time. If you punish them when they share or do not hit back when struck then you are creating doubts in their minds already about the value of their feelings as a part of their human nature.

Lillian:
“This is not gender, this is emotional immaturity [what is?]. If you have a problem, get to the bottom of it, do not blame the other and get violent.”

You presume to infer a great deal from my post that isn’t there, Lillian; I’m sorry to disappoint but I’m not given to violence. I was merely observing the emotional/rational sort of cross-purposes women and men are given to pit against each other. As I’ve suggested above, there are all sorts of levels of complexity and strata to the topic of male violence and this one obtains at the mundanely interpersonal.
It’s interesting that you use the phrase “emotional immaturity”—though I’m not sure how it applies to my comment—as if emotional maturity was a measurable quantity or more than a discursive construct. Emotional immaturity is one of those impressive reproaches women level at men without bothering to define or understand their terms, while the typical response to questioning is that it’s over our heads anyway. It’s commonly deemed a weakness in men—on dubious grounds—that they repress their emotions, but emotional women who confound reason are praised for their maturity. Reason is of course a male invention, adapted to address life’s challenges efficiently, but it’s curious that so many women despise it. I realise I’m on dangerous ground here—it’s ok for women to call men emotionally immature, but not for men to call women irrational. Well I’m sorry, but in my not insignificant experience with women I have commonly observed that when cross, they respond to reasoned argument with emotional abuse and even violence. I hasten to add that probably just as often the male antagonist only “thinks” he’s being reasonable, but this is no excuse for his combatant to dredge up unrelated grievances or hurl abuse adapted for maximum effect.
My point was that at the domestic level this kind of stereotypically gendered pattern of behaviour is a common driver of violence. It takes two. I think we should consider the possibility that men and women are emotionally incompatible, and not make the unsubstantiated claim that one is deficient.