Patriarchal Oppression

Johro

My sis lives with her boyfriend, father of her two kids. What I consider unfair is that were she to lose her job and have to claim benefits, she'd be better off not telling welfare she's co-habiting, because she would be considered her boyfriend's dependent. It would be the same if they were married. Why is that? Seems archaic to me in 2010. I would think most women would prefer not to be classed as depending on their partners, yet it is automatically assumed that they are.

Johro

Another thing, I can't believe how many twenty/thirty-even fortysomething men still live at home and get their mammies to run around for them, one guy I know in particular, he lives in his parents' council home with eight, yes eight brothers, they pretty much lie in bed most of the day, get up around two or three, loaf about for a bit in town, come back in time for dinner, then go up to their rooms to smoke/play music/play playstation til four in the morning. I know because one of them used to be a mate of mine, and I couldn't believe how they were waited on. As soon as I'd got in the door and told: 'Hiya, he's upstairs', mum would be up the stairs with mugs of tea and a plate of biccies, collecting assorted items of clothing from the floor for washing and collecting dirty plates and cups.
My ex told me she used to have to be up before her brother got up to make his lunch for work. His mum would have his clothes laid out.
I wasn't brought up over here you see, we had to clean our rooms, make our beds, we made our own sandwiches to put in our lunchboxes and after dinner we'd take turns washing/drying/putting away. But at least I don't feel like I don't have a clue about how to look after myself.

donfers

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Just a quick reminder to everyone about the charter:


Maguined, stop trying to drown out female voices in this thread.

May I ask how one can drown out a voice on a messageboard?

Unless you delete someone's posts I think it's impossible and only you mods have the power to do that.

Anyway I bow to your greater wisdom.

On the point in the charter, I have to say I find the wording quite interesting, "it is a place primarily for Women or any other user to post without fear of being out numbered by a majoritively mysogynistic viewpoint"

Who does any other user refer to, if it's not women then I guess it must be men right, can you even bring yourself to say men or perhaps we are hoping some alien race (hopefully androgynous) posts on this forum?

I fully expect to be infracted, banned or whatever for this post but the one thing I would urge is that if a man happens to disagree with your view it isn't always because he is misogynist...and if you play that card too often then it's unsurprising that accusations of hysteria are forthcoming.

whatdoicare

I've myself experienced the "men" talking now, sit and be quiet malarchy etc etc but may I throw in an interesting point, most of the pressures, oppressions and expectations that are placed on me to this day have been placed on me by the women I've encountered in life.
I'm newly married and was heavily pressured by mammy and mammy in law as to how exactly I married and what I was to wear etc( of course I ignored all of this with total support from the men in my life)
Now I'm married comments start sliding out of womens mouths "babies now" "have more than one" "baby time now, quick as you can" etc etc
My dad actually turned to me once and said " babes, don't listen to that talk and enjoy being married- go and travel a bit more, yr only young once!"
In my life it was always mammy that oppressed me with her ideas of what my position in life should be and my dad was always the one to encourage me to break out of those ideals and be who I want to be. My mam is very concerned about what the neighbours are thinking while my dad couldn't care less!

So might be an interesting point of view to look at.

Silverfish

donfers, please do not use these threads as an opportunity to get in complaints about this forum.
If you have an issue, you should be well aware by now that Helpdesk or Feedback are the places to discuss these.

If you cannot contribute to a thread other than to argue with moderators or make insinuations, then please do not post.


This is a warning, and it is final and not up for discussion on this forum.

sam34

metrovelvet wrote: »

I would add to that list. Im sure a lot of women here who had brothers would have enjoyed second status in the home.

you know, that really bugs me.

the extent of it can vary though

in my family, there was always a huge emphasis placed on education, for both males and females.

thanks to hard work and scrimping & saving on my parents part, they got each one of us through college and we all have good jobs now, thanks to them.

they encouraged us girls to follow career paths we liked, even though they traditionally would have been male dominated careers... we were told if we wanted to do x/y/z that gender shouldnt stop us etc

yet, when any of my brothers and i are at home together, i am expected to make a cup of tea for them if they want it, they do not help with cooking or other housework etc

so much for equality

* note, before anyone jumps down my throat, i am not saying that being expected to make a cuppa for my brother means i am oppressed, i'm just pointing it out as an example of double standards

Maguined

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Just a quick reminder to everyone about the charter:


Maguined, stop trying to drown out female voices in this thread.

Apologies i really did not think i was coming across as misogynistic but merely discussing the issues, i was not intentionally trying to "drown out" the female voices but respond and discuss the points that were offered as part of the discussion.

What frequency of posting would be acceptable from me? As i would like to continue with the discussion in this thread but do not want to get an infraction or banned from it.

pickarooney

Johro wrote: »

Another thing, I can't believe how many twenty/thirty-even fortysomething men still live at home and get their mammies to run around for them, one guy I know in particular, he lives in his parents' council home with eight, yes eight brothers, they pretty much lie in bed most of the day, get up around two or three, loaf about for a bit in town, come back in time for dinner, then go up to their rooms to smoke/play music/play playstation til four in the morning. I know because one of them used to be a mate of mine, and I couldn't believe how they were waited on. As soon as I'd got in the door and told: 'Hiya, he's upstairs', mum would be up the stairs with mugs of tea and a plate of biccies, collecting assorted items of clothing from the floor for washing and collecting dirty plates and cups.
My ex told me she used to have to be up before her brother got up to make his lunch for work. His mum would have his clothes laid out.
I wasn't brought up over here you see, we had to clean our rooms, make our beds, we made our own sandwiches to put in our lunchboxes and after dinner we'd take turns washing/drying/putting away. But at least I don't feel like I don't have a clue about how to look after myself.

Has the term passive-oppressive ever been applied to these kind of eejits (and the mammies who enable them)?

metrovelvet

pickarooney wrote: »

Has the term passive-oppressive ever been applied to these kind of eejits (and the mammies who enable them)?

Behind every asshole is a mammy who has been enabling him.

donfers

Xiney wrote: »

Ireland is just generally more ignorant and discriminatory in practise than what I'm used to in Canada: I see it against the Africans here, women here, religious minorities, etc.

Besides that, oppression is often more about how we are made feel and the intangible "vibes" we get out of a situation (think eye rolling, being brushed aside, ignored, etc) than anything that can be proven - if it could be proven it'd be in the courts of course.

This is interesting...you talk about how we "are made feel"....I take responsibility for how i feel about myself and if for example I am in Canada and someone calls me a thick paddie or something it has absolutely no affect on how I feel about myself, quite the contrary if someone eye rolls me, brushes me aside or ignores me then it doesn't make me feel weak or powerless or stupid or discriminated against, it just makes me feel the other person is a bit of a tit and I tell them so.......basically we should be strong enough to be responsible for how we feel about ourselves and not let idiots have such power over how we feel about ourselves....if you let idiots "oppress" you they will, if you don't let it affect you and tell the idiots where to go then the "oppression" is not successful.......oppressors seek the weak to be almost complicit in the oppression, don't sacrifice yourself like that......the point is I don't believe I am worthless, therefore I think people who treat me like that are idiots....simply don't let it affect you or it suggests you are tempted that their views have some credence

oh and the vast vast vast majority of people are fair-minded, open-minded and decent, this is another reason why the occassional idiot stands out in your mind......they have the problem with themselves, not you...just laugh it off, pity them and move on, their oppression is built on their self-hatred and they're trying to drag you into that world, don't let them

metrovelvet

donfers wrote: »

This is interesting...you talk about how we "are made feel"....I take responsibility for how i feel about myself and if for example I am in Canada and someone calls me a thick paddie or something it has absolutely no affect on how I feel about myself, quite the contrary if someone eye rolls me, brushes me aside or ignores me then it doesn't make me feel weak or powerless or stupid or discriminated against, it just makes me feel the other person is a bit of a tit and I tell them so.......basically we should be strong enough to be responsible for how we feel about ourselves and not let idiots have such power over how we feel about ourselves....if you let idiots "oppress" you they will, if you don't let it affect you and tell the idiots where to go then the "oppression" is not successful.......oppressors seek the weak to be almost complicit in the oppression, don't sacrifice yourself like that......the point is I don't believe I am worthless, therefore I think people who treat me like that are idiots....simply don't let it affect you or it suggests you are tempted that their views have some credence

oh and the vast vast vast majority of people are fair-minded, open-minded and decent, this is another reason why the occassional idiot stands out in your mind......they have the problem with themselves, not you...just laugh it off, pity them and move on, their oppression is built on their self-hatred and they're trying to drag you into that world, don't let them

I used to buy into this. I used to believe Eleanor Roosevelt's "No one can insult you without your permission." But let's look at that phrase again. Note the word 'permission.' In order to give permission, one must have authority first. Women have had power, mostly in the domestic and family realm, but never much authority, like alot of subordinate groups.

Have you heard of Paul Robeson? He is a famous singer known for 'Ol Man River and his deep baritone voice. He had won a sports scholarship to Columbia Law and initially was a practicing lawyer. One day, very early in his career, his secretary refused to take notes from a black man. He realise then, if he cant even get his secretary to take notes for him, he wont have much of a career in law, so he became an entertainer. This kind of racism is not something one can laugh off.

Also, Columbia Law was one of the earliest schools to let women in[1930s Harvard didn't let women in until 1952]. Early women graduates will report than in classes back then, when you would try to speak, the men in the classroom would stamp their feet and make enough noise so they couldn't be heard. You can imagine how they felt?

While, I can appreciate the empowerement, or attempts therein, of modern therapy to do enough ego development so that we no longer give a **** about what someone else thinks, that cant change the fact that people have inner realities that are penetrable, and that someone in power, more power than you, granted by privalege, can hurt it and the less privaleged person cant do much about it without putting themselves in very vulnerable positions, like a greater chance of getting fired, losing clients, or not graduating from school, or even a greater chance of a prosecution.

Knit wit

My mother was firmly of the view that all her efforts should be directed towards educating her sons ... Her daughters would get married and would have husbands to look after them! We (my sister and I) worked our way through school and college. My brothers 'concentrated' on their studies!

As a mother of a son and daughter ... They will both be expected to work!:P

Feeona

metrovelvet wrote: »

Have you heard of Paul Robeson? He is a famous singer known for 'Ol Man River and his deep baritone voice. He had won a sports scholarship to Columbia Law and initially was a practicing lawyer. One day, very early in his career, his secretary refused to take notes from a black man. He realise then, if he cant even get his secretary to take notes for him, he wont have much of a career in law, so he became an entertainer. This kind of racism is not something one can laugh off.

It takes some courage to ignore the unjust rules of society, rules which are based on nothing other than fear of the unknown. Rosa Parks did well to overcome the rules of society in her time. How many other men/women did the same and their lone voice was ignored? Parks was lucky in that it started a movement, other dissidents (such as Robeson) weren't so lucky.

I'm often surprised by the open disregard for feminism that can be found in media. Speaking out against the status quo can be reduced to 'must be her time of the month', 'she's hysterical', 'look at the state of her clothes', 'she's ugly', 'she's a hard nosed bitch'. The woman's opinion is totally undermined by reference to something that has nothing to do with the original point whatsoever. I think it's driven by fear...I often see the most obnoxious children in the playground using the same tactic when another child challenges their authority. They don't want attention drawn to the fact that they have little to offer when all is said and done, so instead they resort to belittling the challenger.

WindSock

metrovelvet wrote: »

Behind every asshole is a mammy who has been enabling him.

...and that mammys' enabling is the product of the patriarchal society she was raised in.

It's a vicious circle

Maguined

metrovelvet wrote: »

I used to buy into this. I used to believe Eleanor Roosevelt's "No one can insult you without your permission." But let's look at that phrase again. Note the word 'permission.' In order to give permission, one must have authority first. Women have had power, mostly in the domestic and family realm, but never much authority, like alot of subordinate groups.

Have you heard of Paul Robeson? He is a famous singer known for 'Ol Man River and his deep baritone voice. He had won a sports scholarship to Columbia Law and initially was a practicing lawyer. One day, very early in his career, his secretary refused to take notes from a black man. He realise then, if he cant even get his secretary to take notes for him, he wont have much of a career in law, so he became an entertainer. This kind of racism is not something one can laugh off.

Also, Columbia Law was one of the earliest schools to let women in[1930s Harvard didn't let women in until 1952]. Early women graduates will report than in classes back then, when you would try to speak, the men in the classroom would stamp their feet and make enough noise so they couldn't be heard. You can imagine how they felt?

While, I can appreciate the empowerement, or attempts therein, of modern therapy to do enough ego development so that we no longer give a **** about what someone else thinks, that cant change the fact that people have inner realities that are penetrable, and that someone in power, more power than you, granted by privalege, can hurt it and the less privaleged person cant do much about it without putting themselves in very vulnerable positions, like a greater chance of getting fired, losing clients, or not graduating from school, or even a greater chance of a prosecution.

Is that not the difference between oppression and discrimination though? Back then his secretary refused to take notes from him because he was black and there was nothing he could do about it, if he reported it to his superiors they wouldn't care or if he brought it to court he would be ignored while if that happened today either the company or the courts would oppose her racism.

It is like the class system of the past, the legal status between the rich and the poor, the gentry and the commoners, in the past there was completely different legal standards between the nobility and commoners. If a commoner struck or stole from the nobility his punishment would be far more severe than a crime against his own common class, this was an oppressive legal system and social system however that is gone these days. The rich still have far more advantages due to their wealth but they do not have the same level of oppression, a rich man could look down on me and discriminate against me because i am not wealthy but that would not be oppressing me, but he certainly could not assault me and get away with it due to his class like he could in the past.

metrovelvet

WindSock wrote: »

...and that mammys' enabling is the product of the patriarchal society she was raised in.

It's a vicious circle

I remember back in the day when I was studying women's gothic literature in college and we had to read a lot of Freud and a lot of French feminist theory, [which on reflection those frenchies seem cuckoo] and neo Freudian theory refracted the whole penis envy into phallus envy. What this means is that because women have no authority, they utilise the authority [phallus- to become symbolic of male authority and power] of their sons and the son becomes an extension or tool [forgive the poor choice of word, bad pun not intended] of the sovreignty she covets.

metrovelvet

Maguined wrote: »

Is that not the difference between oppression and discrimination though? Back then his secretary refused to take notes from him because he was black and there was nothing he could do about it, if he reported it to his superiors they wouldn't care or if he brought it to court he would be ignored while if that happened today either the company or the courts would oppose her racism.

It is like the class system of the past, the legal status between the rich and the poor, the gentry and the commoners, in the past there was completely different legal standards between the nobility and commoners. If a commoner struck or stole from the nobility his punishment would be far more severe than a crime against his own common class, this was an oppressive legal system and social system however that is gone these days. The rich still have far more advantages due to their wealth but they do not have the same level of oppression, a rich man could look down on me and discriminate against me because i am not wealthy but that would not be oppressing me, but he certainly could not assault me and get away with it due to his class like he could in the past.

I would say they are on the same continuum or spectrum.

I would also say that oppression can manifest in all sorts of ways, arguably the bourgousie model of marriage oppresses everyone involved, the golden handcuffs, etc.

POwer is not always linear, static or obvious.

Rabble Rabble

metrovelvet wrote: »

I would say they are on the same continuum or spectrum.

I would also say that oppression can manifest in all sorts of ways, arguably the bourgousie model of marriage oppresses everyone involved, the golden handcuffs, etc.

POwer is not always linear, static or obvious.

There is so much wrong with that phrase. Most important one is that marriage did not begin with the "bourgousie", nor end with communism.

There was ( and is, to a certain extent) a counter belief that marriage traps men. Particularly alpha-men. This is more an evolutionary view of history, probably not suited to people who think that marriage is both a western concept, and something invented by the ( ever mystical) bourgeoise. Whomever they are.

metrovelvet

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

There is so much wrong with that phrase. Most important one is that marriage did not begin with the "bourgousie", nor end with communism.

There was ( and is, to a certain extent) a counter belief that marriage traps men. Particularly alpha-men. This is more an evolutionary view of history, probably not suited to people who think that marriage is both a western concept, and something invented by the ( ever mystical) bourgeoise. Whomever they are.

Ech no.. that's not what I mean.... I mean in the Igmar Bergman 'Scenes from a Marriage' kind of way.

Rabble Rabble

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ech no.. that's not what I mean.... I mean in the Igmar Bergman 'Scenes from a Marriage' kind of way.

Oh, fair enough. The staid old style marriage. Definitely traps both parties.

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

What this means is that because women have no authority, they utilise the authority [phallus- to become symbolic of male authority and power] of their sons and the son becomes an extension or tool [forgive the poor choice of word, bad pun not intended] of the sovreignty she covets.

Could you not equally argue that the mammy's boy is under more control of his mammy, albeit a sideways control? That while she does everything for him, by doing so she also controls him. I have found that mammy's boys 9 times outa 10 are very controlled by the mammy(as is the daddy) and they end up with partners that repeat that control. From what I've seen there's usually more friction between that kind of mammy and girlfriends seeking to replace her. In a way the baton of control over him is passed from the mammy, to the partner/wife of a similar bent, when the latter passes the formers "tests".

It can also continue beyond that point. EG the suitability of the guys partner/wife as a partner and especially as a mother. There are a lot of couples out there where this goes on, with the men pretty much sidelined. Indeed of all the long term couples I've known, its far more the case where the woman has most of the control across the board than the man. Rare enough is the equal partnership IME.

You could also argue against women being without power, even women in many what appear to be overtly patriarchal societies. On a primitive level they have a very strong power, IE control of reproduction and access to it. Men will often fight among themselves and work like crazy to gain access to that reproduction. You see this from an early age too. Young men going out of their way to competitively prove themselves to women.

Of course I'm talking about personal relationships here, not the business/career/academic world, where it's largely reversed.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

Could you not equally argue that the mammy's boy is under more control of his mammy, albeit a sideways control? That while she does everything for him, by doing so she also controls him. I have found that mammy's boys 9 times outa 10 are very controlled by the mammy(as is the daddy) and they end up with partners that repeat that control. From what I've seen there's usually more friction between that kind of mammy and girlfriends seeking to replace her. In a way the baton of control over him is passed from the mammy, to the partner/wife of a similar bent, when the latter passes the formers "tests".

It can also continue beyond that point. EG the suitability of the guys partner/wife as a partner and especially as a mother. There are a lot of couples out there where this goes on, with the men pretty much sidelined. Indeed of all the long term couples I've known, its far more the case where the woman has most of the control across the board than the man. Rare enough is the equal partnership IME.

You could also argue against women being without power, even women in many what appear to be overtly patriarchal societies. On a primitive level they have a very strong power, IE control of reproduction and access to it. Men will often fight among themselves and work like crazy to gain access to that reproduction. You see this from an early age too. Young men going out of their way to competitively prove themselves to women.

Of course I'm talking about personal relationships here, not the business/career/academic world, where it's largely reversed.

I totally agree with you. Maybe I was a little confusing. A neo freudian would argue that this kind of dynamic happens in cultures where the women have little power or authority outside of the home, that it all gets channelled over and through their sons [the mother's phallus so to speak]. In some ways its a barometer of a woman's public status.

Also in patriarchal cultures, everything gets invested in the males, including the mother's love, care, nurturing and attention. Just look at China, your life is in danger if you are born a girl.

Ever hear that saying 'It will take me 20 years to make a man out of my son and another woman 20 minutes to make a fool out of him."

Your penultimate paragraph. We could argue that till the cows come home. Women compete too, like her animal opposite genders, through display. Control over reproduction.... oh gosh... I think I will pass on that poisoned chalice.

seenitall

metrovelvet wrote: »

Control over reproduction.... oh gosh... I think I will pass on that poisoned chalice.

Well said... what control over reproduction? Look at Africa and at how women get on with their control over reproduction "on a primitive level".

Wibbs

OK lets look to Africa. Which part? Which culture or nation? That's the problem, Africa is a very big place. In many many of the cultures the woman drives the competitiveness of the men for the chance to marry and have children with her and the women have a lot of influence over who marries whom. As well as dowries there is also bride price paid and woe betide the man in many African cultures who shows up with no worldly goods to woo a woman to marriage. One can argue all over this one.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

OK lets look to Africa. Which part? Which culture or nation? That's the problem, Africa is a very big place. In many many of the cultures the woman drives the competitiveness of the men for the chance to marry and have children with her and the women have a lot of influence over who marries whom. As well as dowries there is also bride price paid and woe betide the man in many African cultures who shows up with no worldly goods to woo a woman to marriage. One can argue all over this one.

Ahem. My friend's uncle purchased his bride from an African tribe king. He was an American Jew who brought her to the US.

Doesn't sound like she had that much power to me.

seenitall

Wibbs wrote: »

OK lets look to Africa. Which part? Which culture or nation? That's the problem, Africa is a very big place. In many many of the cultures the woman drives the competitiveness of the men for the chance to marry and have children with her and the women have a lot of influence over who marries whom. As well as dowries there is also bride price paid and woe betide the man in many African cultures who shows up with no worldly goods to woo a woman to marriage. One can argue all over this one.

Oh come on... In the example above it is surely the men haggling the price of how much dowry their daughter/bride-to-be is worth. And even if it is the women (in general) having "a lot of influence over" who marries whom, that very sentence indicates that the women (the brides-to-be in particular) have proportionally less influence on whom they marry.

Are you seriously going to dispute the fact that the more primitive the society is, the less empowerment for women and most definitely less control the women have over reproduction?

metrovelvet

seenitall wrote: »

Oh come on... In the example above it is surely the men haggling the price of how much dowry their daughter/bride-to-be is worth. And even if it is the women (in general) having "a lot of influence over" who marries whom, that very sentence indicates that the women (the brides-to-be in particular) have proportionally less influence on whom they marry.

Are you seriously going to dispute the fact that the more primitive the society is, the less empowerment for women and most definitely less control the women have over reproduction?

They are essentially purchasing brides.