Here's a snippet from an interesting article regarding the perception of power:

>>"There are many different ways that men can choose to feel good about themselves. Some powerful men who exploit others might feel great about themselves. A man owning a large company with the power to hire and fire, may feel good about himself through enjoying his power and control over other people. Furthermore, if men's self-esteem is formed on the basis of their access to social power and privilege, then these men are likely to experience a loss of self esteem if their social power and privilege is lost.

Trying to understand the complexities of men's relationship to power, I have turned to Michael Foucault (1977) who maintains that the traditional dichotomous understanding of power is insufficient. He challenges the polarisation of such categories as 'powerful' and 'powerless' because they fail to untangle the way in which power is manifested and constituted subjectively. In his view, power is not a thing or a commodity; it is not something that some groups have and use to control others who are powerless. Women's capacity for inner power and the capacity to develop 'power-against' through resistance means that women are not completely powerless. Thus power is not something that is solely exercised by those who hold institutional power.

This challenge to the notion that men are all-powerful in all aspects of their lives does not lead us to the conclusion reached by Farrell (1993) and others that male power is a myth. In recognising the importance of other forms of power, we should not deny the phenomenon of institutionalised gender power, nor of class and state power. Rather, we should explore how gender power relations can be transformed in local struggles by paying attention to the subjectivities that may influence these power relations at the everyday level of social relations.<<"

http://www.achillesheel.freeuk.com/article22_5.html

This is worthy of a new discussion thread, but am not well enough ATM to facilitate.

Any takers?

What in the hell happened there?? I have been trying to get a post up for 35 minutes!!
Eventually tried clicking out of the site, and could not get back in for 30 minutes!
_________________________________________



"Ginx not sarcasism, rather a genuine attempt to understand how your rejection of calls for better behaviour goes with your complaints about the behaviour of posters who disagree with you. I still don't get it." (Quote:R0bert)

Let's stop playing games shall we? Cut the crap with your claim of sincerity. You are suggesting I have double standards. Double standards are hypocrisy. I loathe and detest hypocrisy, and I don't do it.

'Calls for better behaviour'?? To me? Where?

NOW: In-the-original-post-you-referred-to-I-stated-that-no-one-individual member-has-the-right-to-moderate-others.

I-have-referred-to-a-Boys Club-in-relation-to-'you blokes'. Just-as;-I-might-add,-reference-has-been-made-to-women-protecting-women.

Actually;....what the hell ARE you talking about?

All this from a member who in the original thread on this incident,-referred to it as trivial.

Time for you to put up my conflicting posts, R0bert.
_______________________________

NOW lets see............

"There are many different ways that women can choose to feel good about themselves. Some powerful women who exploit others might feel great about themselves."

Some aspects of Power are illusionary, for example if Joe the Plumber became President of the US instead of Obama, Joe the Plumber would have become the most powerful man in the US.

In business and Politics power only exists as long as a person maintains their position in the hierarchy. As such Joe the Plumber will always be the same person whether he is a plumber or the president.

Power from what I have read can be a aphrodisiac for some/alot of women.

Typically men higher up the social ladder have a much better choice of higher quality females, as females tend to marry upwards and men to marry downwards. This tends to indicate that women do not regard men on the same social level as quality mates.

Perhaps this tendency is a left over of our evolutionary past.

Ginx, I I've put up enough references to the originals toi makie it clear if you were willing to take an honest look at your own responses. Any further posts would just seem to be digging into one of those silly personal conflicts that I try and avoid (not always sucessfully).

Pynchme, my fuzzy intepretation of advocacy (fair call) is based on my intepretation of SJF's comments to me regarding an earlier post of mine. SJF can't understand why some of us might be concerned that a movement which claims to be about equality often takes sides regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation.

Feminism does need to address issues which impact mostly on women, it does have spinoff's which benefit men but sometimes the way the gender focus plays out seems incompatible with claims of seeking equality. If it really is about equality then issues of right and wrong will always be part of the picture. If it's about putting women ahead at any cost then it has nothing to do with equality.

R0bert

Fractelle I loved the link; thanks for that, and also the ideas as you set them out. As I read and considered them I was reminded of an interesting aside somewhere a little while ago where Romany confirmed my perceptions of the overt and subtle ways in which males attempt to maintain dominance in the workplace.

It would be great to see what you've put here in a new thread and up for a good rousing debate. I can't facilitate though - I am only here now procrastinating as it is :)

I hope someone takes up the challenge. If not, maybe we can in a few weeks when I have a little more time and you've recovered (hope that's soon and that you're ok mate).

James: <"In business and Politics power only exists as long as a person maintains their position in the hierarchy. As such Joe the Plumber will always be the same person whether he is a plumber or the president.">

Sorry; I don't understand the point you're making there. Could you expand on it to clarify. Thanks.

R0bert: <"If it's about putting women ahead at any cost then it has nothing to do with equality.">

Are there any social institutions - the economy, politics, religion, family, education, law - where women have gained a lead "at any cost"; especially to men? I sometimes get weary of this whine about women being unfair about "equality"; where it seems to me that the male perception of inequality is just the experience of not having complete jurisdiction over everything that impacts on the whole population - 1/2 of which is female.

Fractelle

‘In recognising the importance of other forms of power, we should not deny the phenomenon of institutionalised gender power, nor of class and state power.’

Very true. By way of example, the fact that some Aboriginal people earn more than I do does not change the imbalanced and unjust power relationship that exists between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australia.

Also, a lot of homosexual men may face more overt discrimination throughout their lives than I do as a heterosexual woman, but that does not change the overall fact that a man – homosexual or heterosexual – will still have access to all kinds of cultural reinforcements that are far less accessible to me as a woman.

JamesH

‘… females tend to marry upwards and men to marry downwards. This tends to indicate that women do not regard men on the same social level as quality mates./ Perhaps this tendency is a left over of our evolutionary past.’

This has got nothing to do with evolution – just common sense.

For centuries, women were denied the means of making a living other than through menial labour. Naturally, they married ‘up’ to ensure their financial survival and social status. Indeed, MARRIAGE itself – up, down or sideways – was imperative to a woman’s very existence!

Although centuries of male-dependent conditioning still lingers in the female psyche, women now have more control over their own financial security. The days when, say, secretaries married their bosses and nurses married doctors are fast disappearing. While this still happens, the pattern nowadays is towards ‘associative coupling’ – doctors marry doctors, executives marry executives, graduates marry graduates, non-graduates marry non-graduates, tradies marry tradies.