Word.

Natalia:

You seem to have constructed this idea of “conservative cultures” as anti-sex when in fact they often just move it into the private sphere so as to make it easier to control by individual men. You seem to think of these societies as existing in a tragically culturally impovershed backwater in which nobody is capable of acquiring porn or wearing lingerie/lipstick. This is untrue, subtly racist/classist, and fits in neatly enough with predominant Western media’s ideas of Islamic societies as inferior because of the lack of our particular form of capitalist-display-femininity. I also find it really really worrying that when someone who is actually familiar with and from that world tried to disabuse you of your xenophobic notions by pointing out that women in Saudi Arabia know exactly what our version of femininity entails and engage in it all the time in private, you got irrationally angry.

Do I think that wearing lipstick in public in very conservative areas and cultures can be a feminist rebellion? Yeah, sure. Establishing the right for women to wear what they want rather than being controlled by men can be described as feminist. Acting as if women have the sexual agency required to make decisions about where and when and whether they will flirt is feminist. And I do believe that women who do so under threat of death are brave.

I’m also relatively sure that fighting for the right to wear lipstick in public will eventually lead to the type of oppression we have in the US, where women are allowed all the sexual agency and freedom they want so long as they use it to the sexual and hierarchical advantage of men. Feminist revolutions which get sidetracked into brand new versions of patriarchy make me sad, so I find these ladies to be a much more promising beacons of liberation than a statistical increase in the wearing of miniskirts across previously conservative areas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7068875.stm

In short, I get what you’re trying to say and have sympathy for your position, but you’ve really turned me off by the manner in which you tried to say it. I hate to agree with a jerk.

Jael:

Blaming shitty stuff on “human nature” is a cheap trick used to rationalize inaction and capitulation to the status quo, as changing “human nature” is a nearly impossible goal.

I’ve also met plenty of people who aren’t middle class westerners and still want to be liberated from consumer culture/capitalism. Where did you get the idea that this aspiration is somehow middle class and consumeristic? I’ve met plenty of women who were denied access to money and financial decisions, correctly saw capitalism as a tool that was being used to keep them down, and decided that they wished it didn’t exist. What exactly has you so convinced that women oppressed by capitalism really just wish that they were in charge and not that the system was abolished? Why do you think that people suffering terribly as a result of “not having access to money” is somehow not a problem of a capitalist system?

What I’m saying is to fix the capitalism is only to fix the manifestation of the problem.

To fix the problem of domestic violence is only to fix the manifestation of the problem.

To resolve patriarchy, inequality and the whole other range of nasties that spring from them (including capitalism and patriarchy), we need to go to the root, which is the pathology of humanity.

It’s like the whole to-wear-lipstick-or-not-to-wear-lipstick discussion: personal choice and circumstance largely dictate. I’m not going to dig myself a pointless hole by saying ‘x should only ever have y…’

it’s human nature. To take more than we need. The majority of us. Most of the time. Capitalism is a mechanism that facilitates that (and exacerbates it), but the underlying malaise (the seeking fulfillment, seeking happiness in things)is the problem,

If I understand that correctly you think because humans are fundamentally selfish we shouldn’t blame capitalism? Surely capitalism is the economic engine of the patriarchy and therefore fair game.

It’s like saying ‘well, most men are misogynists. The patriarchy is a mechanism that facilitates misogyny, but let’s not blame the patriarchy because the underlying misogyny is the problem.’ It doesn’t work like that. We can’t change other people’s internal beliefs or impulses, for good or ill, but we can attack social structures which enshrine the worst of human nature as virtues.

regarding the rich v poor world, there are very rich people in the poor world, and very poor people in the rich world. I’ll assume you’d not pin this on the poor people in in rich world, either, right?

question is, what constitutes too much? Once your food and medical needs are met? What about enough for education? How much clothing is enough? What about energy needs? Is an electric fan ok?

See where I’m going with this, don’t you? I agree that too much is too much. I don’t think what you’re objecting too is capitalism per say – it’s human nature. To take more than we need. The majority of us. Most of the time. Capitalism is a mechanism that facilitates that (and exacerbates it), but the underlying malaise (the seeking fulfillment, seeking happiness in things)is the problem, not the system that’s symptomatic of the malaise.

Apologies if I wasn’t clear — I do mean that as a message for the well-off, first-worlders… our privilege is inextricable from the poverty of the second and third world. Our consumption is only made possibly by their disempowerment, so I do believe that challenging acceptance of consumer culture is vital to improving the lot of women everywhere. Until we give up some, they can’t get none.

As you say, Cathy, “huge amounts of suffering is also caused by not having access to money”. Unfortunately I don’t believe the solution is to continue to pursue the morally and fiscally bankrupt notions of ‘free market’ economy — which is anything but.

Capitalism is predicated on selfishness and nurturing inequality to the advantage of the “haves”. Until those of us who have more than enough stop craving goods which are only freely available thanks to radical global inequalities we aren’t making a very honest effort to get to the root of the problem.

(Incidentally, this sounds like I’m blaming women, not the P. I’m not. Those chumps came up with this whole ‘capitalism’ business… still, something has to be done)

What about women who are denied control of money all together? Or those women for whom control of money would mean being able to purchase such cleaning products as to aleviate 50% of their labour burden, or care for their families?

while huge amounts of suffering is indeed caused by buying into the money-making regime, huge amounts of suffering is also caused by not having access to money. To pay for your child’s education. For your medication. For food to put on the table. To pay the bills. One of the three cheers for microfinance is that it gives women control of income and this is spent on the family (yes, I know the failings, I’m just making the observation).

While you’re right – taking more than we need, and getting on the rat race of consumption – is hugely detrimental, perhaps your call would be better targeted at the very small minority of women worldwide who are in a position to step back from said culture. To put it out as a blanket call is to encourage millions of women around the world to remain poor and without access to minimal financial resources that would make them self sufficient and adequately fed.

While it is entirely self-explanatory that financial autonomy is a pre-condition to any kind of autonomy in our nasty, greedy, Social Darwinian, dog-eat-dog, money fetishising capitalist culture it is vital to remember we live in a nasty, greedy, et cetera culture.

A vast proportion of the human and especially woman suffering in the world is caused by us buying into the whole evil money-making regime. Learning to critique rich/poor, successful/unsuccessful paradigms is as important as learning to read between the lines of the feminine/masculine paradigm. Maybe instead of trying to learn how to make as much money as a man we should try to find ways to live that minimise our enslavement to consumer culture…

Rather than eradicating them, why don’t we hold men to the same standards ? Why don’t we stand up and say that the future is going to be compassionate and cooperative ? We’re assigned those values (peace, care, sweetness) because society doesn’t value them.

Right on, other orange! It really pisses me off that in order to approach equality, we have to dress and act like them, when they should be acting more like us. Kindness should be valued, but no, they say, “Nice guys finish last.”

And Amananta, you took the words right out of my mouth (but phrased it better than I could). I used to work in a very male-dominated field, and that is exactly what they did to me. They were so threatened by my education, youth and femaleness, they tried to make me feel unfeminine by pointing out all my beauty flaws. Naive Sucker that I was, I fell for it and “gave the P a blow job” by wearing makeup and more feminine clothes. At the time, I rationalized that I was doing it to make it very clear that feminine females most certainly could do the same brainwork as men, and we were not mathematically challenged.

When it comes to assertiveness, it has become very clear that behavior which is considered acceptable for them suddenly becomes unacceptable if I attempt it.

One really troublesome feminine behavior drilled into so many girls, is that we must not take up any space. We must squeeze ourselves into the tiniest space so the menz can sprawl out. We must not take charge, make requests (much less demands), complain, speak loudly, or take credit for our own work. We are supposed to giggle at their jokes which are often sexist. And as phio gistic wrote, above all, we must not scare the boys with our huge brains.

It will be much harder to ditch the behaviors taught since birth than the clothes/makeup. It is much harder for those who were thoroughly brainwashed than for those where were taught self-respect. Give us time, Kira. We’re working on it.

My crazy idea is that they should if they can, because women cannot be liberated from men’s oppression until we are de-otherized.

is a breath of fresh air in a stanked up atmosphere.