homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Live together, never marry? (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Live together, never marry?
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I quite like the idea of getting married during a church service, but I imagine that the elderly churchgoers I know would find such a thing highly irregular.

I don't think it's a good idea in general. In this particular case, it worked, as the young couple were regular parishioners, and the guests were the assembled congregation plus maybe half a dozen of their friends.

And everyone was invited to the bring-and-share lunch afterwards.

But these were unusual circumstances.

We have had 2 weddings during the 10 am Eucharist (our main for the day). In the first, each had been widowed, one twice. The couple was 80 (one a week before the wedding, the other a week after). There were children and grandchildren, and lots of family difficulties. The couple was grateful to the parish for support during the previous bereavements and also in their courtship. So after the sermon, they came forward and were married. Then bubbly, cakes, wedding cake in the hall afterwards. She died some 6 years later, but he's still alive.

Again some family questions in the second, with one widowed and the other divorced. The same procedure. Sadly, the comparatively young bride had a totally unexpected fatal heart attack 3 months later.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

These days, moving in doesn't always carry the same implications of permanence.

Less of a stigma, greater mobility, higher employment levels for women, therefore lesser dependence on men

[ 28. June 2016, 06:05: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291

 - Posted      Profile for M.   Email M.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
lilBuddha, I rarely understand you, so usually scroll past, but this caught my eye.

Are you saying that moving in with someone rather than marrying them results in higher employment levels for women? If I've got that right, I'm interested in knowing why - thanks.

M.

Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For many centuries most people who got married just moved in together and got on with it.

It's strange how vexed we now are over people doing exactly what they used to do before the government decided everyone simply must get a certificate.

It's more that the people decided they wanted certain benefits to accrue to married people, developed the government system of keeping track of who is and isn't married in order to apportion those benefits.
I'm not sure how much of a factor that was in the 1700s when it happened, at least in any sense of public benefits. Though perhaps there was a general sense that more and more people were owning property which could be squabbled over at their death.

Because really, before it became mandatory, it was only the upper classes who went to church and got everything formalised. Because they had land and titles, and a wedding determined who got the land and titles and who was labelled a mere bastard.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the East, marriage (among Christians) was a secular matter until the Ottomans. The Muslim PTB weren't about to marry Christians, and didn't want a shadow Christian government, so they told the hierarchs to take care of it. Thus did marriage move from the secular to the sacred sphere, and it's been there ever since (among Orthodoxen). But we tend to forget it hasn't always been that way.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It may interest western Christians to know that the Orthodox wedding service has no vows. The only thing that the couple say is to affirm that they wish to get married, and haven't betrothed themselves to any other person. That's it. The rest is clergy and choir. The couple do a "dance" (these days a procession, i.e. walking) three times around an icon in the middle of the church, and drink together from a common cup of wine.

There is no walking down the aisle, no "with this ring I thee wed" (the priest puts the rings on their fingers), no "you may kiss the bride," no "by the power vested in me by the Commonwealth of Virginia, I pronounce you man and wife." Some of that shit has been imported artificially from the surrounding culture but it's not in the service books (and may it never be).

Indeed the priest never even says they are married. He says "The servant/handmaiden of God N. is crowned in the name of the F, and in the name of the S, and in the name of the HS." Then he puts the crown on the person's head.

Quite different from things on the other side of the Adriatic.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I should clarify that the service consists of two independent parts, the Betrothal and the Crowning. They are usually served back-to-back but needn't be. For example, one might be betrothed in the groom's home church so his frail grandparents, who can't travel to the bride's city, can be there; then have the crowning in the bride's home church. Although normally as I said they are performed back to back.

It is only in the betrothal that the couple speak. In the service of crowning itself they are silent.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
People always talk about the Eveel Patriarchy as though it represents thousands of years of men conspiring to boss women around and make them do all the dusting. I think it, as well as marriage, was primarily about protecting children. Before any sort of welfare and when having food and shelter required the physical strength to farm and hunt, a husbandless woman and her children were likely to starve. My husband's grandmother had twelve children on a farm in Minnesota. Given the choice of staying inside cooking and cleaning or going out in freezing blizzards to feed animals, farm and hunt, I expect she was grateful to have the inside work. Whether agricultural work or coal mining, marriage protected the women and children.

Even now, if people put a fear of patriarchy above the interests of their children it seems rather selfish thinking to me. No woman today is suddenly forced to quit her job and do more housework just because the couple decided to get married.

Not marrying means a much greater statistic chance of the couple splitting up and that's if the father was ever in the picture in the first place. Even with social programs in place a pregnant or nursing woman is still in an economically vulnerable position where a legal husband is usually a nice thing to have.

Another thing I hear young people say that I don't understand is, "My parents divorced and it was awful so I'll never marry." Do they think the split up of the parents is easier on the children if the parents weren't married? I imagine it's about the same amount of misery and it's more likely to happen.

You are aware of a concept called 'feminism', yes? The patriarchy is a concept within feminism, not some arbitrary concept of men protecting women and children that you have come up with. The patriarchy by definition is the institutional structures within society that are created to oppress women and people perceived to be women, although they do harm people of other genders too. It is not composed of individual men being mean to (or protecting) women, but rather those things are symptoms of patriarchy.

Also, you do seem to be assuming that everyone is straight and everyone wants children. What about those women who don't want children or husbands? I guess they are just irrelevant.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That can only happen if a marriage becomes important for its own sake, rather than just being one way among others for a couple to organise their lives together.

The problem for the clergy, perhaps, is that couples must often choose a religious wedding precisely because they want something 'lovely'. They want something that looks traditional, i.e. likely to cost a lot of money. Those who don't care about that, if they're not especially religious, probably choose a registry office or other low key venue.

Last week my cousin in London got married in pink trousers with a neckerchief and dark jacket, rather than a traditional suit. Would that have looked acceptable at a church wedding? If I got married in a simple blouse and skirt would that be completely out of place in my parish church? Do I really have to 'walk up the aisle? If I only want 10 guests won't a 200-seater church feel incredibly empty?

Ministers could perhaps try to promote the religious wedding as something counter-cultural, something that doesn't have to involve lots of faff and expense. But do they ever try to do that?

The Quakers seem to have cornered the market on small, informal, offbeat religious weddings. No aisle to walk down either.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
lilBuddha, I rarely understand you, so usually scroll past, but this caught my eye.

Are you saying that moving in with someone rather than marrying them results in higher employment levels for women? If I've got that right, I'm interested in knowing why - thanks.

M.

Apologies. No, I was responding to LC's comment that living together is not considered with the same level of permanency it once was. When women were more dependent on men, they might stay in a relationship longer, especially if they were sharing a residence. So more jobs open to women and higher wages means they feel more free to move on.
I hope this clarifies my post.
In future, I am open to requests for clarification, especially as I tend to an over-simplified style. Not that all my posts are worth clarification...

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
The Quakers seem to have cornered the market on small, informal, offbeat religious weddings. No aisle to walk down either.

Not cornered the market (see remarks upthread re LDS weddings) but definitely another good example of how one can buck the trend in meaningful ways.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:



You are aware of a concept called 'feminism', yes? The patriarchy is a concept within feminism, not some arbitrary concept of men protecting women and children that you have come up with. The patriarchy by definition is the institutional structures within society that are created to oppress women and people perceived to be women, although they do harm people of other genders too. It is not composed of individual men being mean to (or protecting) women, but rather those things are symptoms of patriarchy.



Patriarchy by definition is a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. It existed long before the modern concept of feminism. I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society.
quote:
Also, you do seem to be assuming that everyone is straight and everyone wants children. What about those women who don't want children or husbands? I guess they are just irrelevant.
I'm assuming nothing. We're talking about reasons for and against marriage. Raising children is one reason that some people might wish to get married. (You seem to be assuming LGBT people don't want children.) I'm not required to list every possible reason for every person. I'm currently in a marriage where we agreed before hand not to have children and I don't think we're irrelevant.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society.

I can't think of anyone who thinks that-- here or in real life.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society.

I can't think of anyone who thinks that-- here or in real life.
Cliffdweller meet Pomona:
quote:
The patriarchy by definition is the institutional structures within society that are created to oppress women and people perceived to be women, although they do harm people of other genders too.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Considering that the words "man" and "hate" did not feature in Pomona's description of patriarchy, isn't that a bit of a leap?

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Considering that the words "man" and "hate" did not feature in Pomona's description of patriarchy, isn't that a bit of a leap?

I guess I just made the assumption that all those people inside the patriarchy who were oppressing women were probably men, and that she didn't like them. Maybe not. I'll admit I had trouble understanding what she was talking about and why she thought I had never heard of feminism.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whilst I think it inaccurate to say patriarchy was created to oppress women, that is its natural result. Anytime one group is favoured, others will be disadvantaged.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society.

I can't think of anyone who thinks that-- here or in real life.
Cliffdweller meet Pomona:
quote:
The patriarchy by definition is the institutional structures within society that are created to oppress women and people perceived to be women, although they do harm people of other genders too.

So? How does that equate to "hating every man who existed in a patriarchal society"??? If anything, the statement seems to be stating that men are harmed by patriarchy as well.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst I think it inaccurate to say patriarchy was created to oppress women, that is its natural result. Anytime one group is favoured, others will be disadvantaged.

And women know how to take advantage of existing power structures just as much as men do. Ever be the new girl in an office with only one or two other women in it? Welcome to Hell.

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst I think it inaccurate to say patriarchy was created to oppress women, that is its natural result. Anytime one group is favoured, others will be disadvantaged.

And women know how to take advantage of existing power structures just as much as men do. Ever be the new girl in an office with only one or two other women in it? Welcome to Hell.
While I don't buy into the "women can't work together w/o being bitchy" stereotype (I've worked with lots of women in all sorts of configurations and outcomes-- as I have with men), I would agree that power imbalances tend to be addressed in some sort of way. Anytime one group is suppressed you will see the oppressed seeking to regain power/control-- often in subversive, covert ways. Marabel Morgan's Total Woman was a classic at this-- in the same breath in which she'd advocate for "traditional" hierarchical, rigid gender roles with the husband as "boss" (excuse me, head) she would give all these tips for how to subversively manipulate your man into doing your bidding-- while thinking it was his idea the whole time. Which is one among many reasons we should advocate for a more egalitarian society-- because these sorts of subversive, hidden power plays do not foster healthy relationships.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, I don't think it has to be that way, either, but when it is... Ugh.

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's that old adage about the man whose boss yells at him going home and kicking the dog. I think that pattern plays out in a million ways. In a system like the patriarchy, or the white hegemony in the West, the people at the top of the heap use this dynamic to play the people below them against each other, lest they see who the real enemy is and band together and overthrow the tyrant.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That, and this dynamic woudn't work if humans in general didn't have this design flaw where they feel more comfortable knowing there is a significant amount of space on the totem pole between them and the ground. Root of all bigotry, IMO. But maybe that's another thread.

[ 30. June 2016, 04:42: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291

 - Posted      Profile for M.   Email M.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
lilBuddha, thank you, that makes sense.

M.

Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
lilBuddha, thank you, that makes sense.

M.

No worries [Smile]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society.

I can't think of anyone who thinks that-- here or in real life.
Cliffdweller meet Pomona:
quote:
The patriarchy by definition is the institutional structures within society that are created to oppress women and people perceived to be women, although they do harm people of other genders too.

I never said that I hate men (I don't) and hating men is not a requirement of feminism. My comment did not mention hating men. Please kindly retract that falsehood about me, please.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Considering that the words "man" and "hate" did not feature in Pomona's description of patriarchy, isn't that a bit of a leap?

I guess I just made the assumption that all those people inside the patriarchy who were oppressing women were probably men, and that she didn't like them. Maybe not. I'll admit I had trouble understanding what she was talking about and why she thought I had never heard of feminism.
First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.

What part of my comment was difficult to understand? I brought up not having heard of feminism because the patriarchy being institutional systems designed to oppress women is a cornerstone of feminist thought; it did not seem unreasonable that you did not know of it given your misunderstanding of what the patriarchy is.

And yes, as I said, the patriarchy harms men and other genders too, and as I also said, patriarchy is not about individual men oppressing individual women. It is a system. While it is men who benefit from the patriarchy and the oppression of women, men and other non-female genders are also harmed by it, and women can use internalised misogyny to harm other women (which is what Kelly is talking about). It might be wise in future to not make such assumptions.

I would recommend Everyday Feminism's
Feminism 101 and the website in general for more information.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Considering that the words "man" and "hate" did not feature in Pomona's description of patriarchy, isn't that a bit of a leap?

I guess I just made the assumption that all those people inside the patriarchy who were oppressing women were probably men, and that she didn't like them. Maybe not. I'll admit I had trouble understanding what she was talking about and why she thought I had never heard of feminism.
First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.

What part of my comment was difficult to understand? I brought up not having heard of feminism because the patriarchy being institutional systems designed to oppress women is a cornerstone of feminist thought; it did not seem unreasonable that you did not know of it given your misunderstanding of what the patriarchy is.

And yes, as I said, the patriarchy harms men and other genders too, and as I also said, patriarchy is not about individual men oppressing individual women. It is a system. While it is men who benefit from the patriarchy and the oppression of women, men and other non-female genders are also harmed by it, and women can use internalised misogyny to harm other women (which is what Kelly is talking about). It might be wise in future to not make such assumptions.

I would recommend Everyday Feminism's
Feminism 101 and the website in general for more information.

Thank you so much for that link, it was so you, Pomona, I wonder if that's actually you in the video. I've always thought I was a feminist because I believed in equality for women, equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity, etc. I was a charter member of the first chapter of NOW in my town and volunteered many hours on a task force that effected some major changes in the local school system. But now that I've been schooled by your video I realize I was wrong and I am not a feminist per today's definition and won't call myself one anymore.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK, I think I am seeing some sarcasm in the response, but in case there isn't or not completely, in what way would the video* challenge your self-description as a feminist?


*I read the transcript and watched just enough of the vid to satisfy myself the contents did not vary to any significant degree.

[ 03. July 2016, 15:43: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Considering that the words "man" and "hate" did not feature in Pomona's description of patriarchy, isn't that a bit of a leap?

I guess I just made the assumption that all those people inside the patriarchy who were oppressing women were probably men, and that she didn't like them. Maybe not. I'll admit I had trouble understanding what she was talking about and why she thought I had never heard of feminism.
First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.

What part of my comment was difficult to understand? I brought up not having heard of feminism because the patriarchy being institutional systems designed to oppress women is a cornerstone of feminist thought; it did not seem unreasonable that you did not know of it given your misunderstanding of what the patriarchy is.

And yes, as I said, the patriarchy harms men and other genders too, and as I also said, patriarchy is not about individual men oppressing individual women. It is a system. While it is men who benefit from the patriarchy and the oppression of women, men and other non-female genders are also harmed by it, and women can use internalised misogyny to harm other women (which is what Kelly is talking about). It might be wise in future to not make such assumptions.

I would recommend Everyday Feminism's
Feminism 101 and the website in general for more information.

Thank you so much for that link, it was so you, Pomona, I wonder if that's actually you in the video. I've always thought I was a feminist because I believed in equality for women, equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity, etc. I was a charter member of the first chapter of NOW in my town and volunteered many hours on a task force that effected some major changes in the local school system. But now that I've been schooled by your video I realize I was wrong and I am not a feminist per today's definition and won't call myself one anymore.
In what way is it 'my' video [Confused] It's not me in the video, I would have said so if it was? I simply linked you to a resource which I thought you might find helpful, that's all. It was meant kindly. I realised that you may not be au fait with current language and thought this may help you out. So there is no need for such an unkind response.

Also feminism is not IMO purely about equality but about liberation. They are different things - I don't want to be equal to men but to be liberated from the patriarchy's oppression. If you feel that feminism is wrong that's up to you, but nowhere did I or the video suggest that you shouldn't call yourself a feminist. I'm happy to help with more resources if you need them? I am really puzzled by your response though. I'm sure all your previous activity is very laudable. However, it does not change the fact that feminism has a history of excluding many women and other people, hence the need for intersectional feminism. There is no need to behave like a toddler and pout and say 'shan't!'.

Oh and Twilight, where is your apology for saying that I said I hate men? I did not and do not hate men. Why is lying about me OK?

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Oh and Twilight, where is your apology for saying that I said I hate men? I did not and do not hate men. Why is lying about me OK?

If you're not getting an apology for a perceived slight you have two options:

1. Get over it;
2. Call the offender to Hell.

Accusing someone of lying is a personal attack not permitted in Purgatory.

Eliab
Purgatory host

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.


Oh and Twilight, where is your apology for saying that I said I hate men? I did not and do not hate men. Why is lying about me OK?

I did not say you said you hated men. I said:
quote:
" I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society."
I was disagreeing with the position that seems to say that the patriarchy was in all ways oppressive to women. I do agree that it was oppressive in many ways, but I also think, particularly to poor people, that it may have meant shelter, food and survival to many women.

I'm sure wealthy, aristocratic women, wives of plantation owners and landed gentry would have liked more say in their own lives, more interesting things to do, more power, more chance to use their brains, but those women were part of what we call the one percent today and of little interest to me.

For the wives of slaves, coal miners and farmers I expect they were more concerned with how to keep their children alive through the winter and grateful that their husbands had not abandoned them, because they knew that very few of them had the physical strength to do the work the men did. If someone had told them they were oppressed because their husbands were considered the head of the family, I expect they would have been confused, because they thought it was the rich people, the aristocrats, the plantation owners and their wives, who were oppressing them.

I expect you to disagree with me but please don't consider my difference of opinion as "unkind."

If you still think I have given the impression that you hate men then I apologize for that.

I am not actually acquainted with Pamona, they may love men and a man may even be partnered to them for all I know.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.


Oh and Twilight, where is your apology for saying that I said I hate men? I did not and do not hate men. Why is lying about me OK?

I did not say you said you hated men. I said:
quote:
" I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society."
I was disagreeing with the position that seems to say that the patriarchy was in all ways oppressive to women. I do agree that it was oppressive in many ways, but I also think, particularly to poor people, that it may have meant shelter, food and survival to many women.

I'm sure wealthy, aristocratic women, wives of plantation owners and landed gentry would have liked more say in their own lives, more interesting things to do, more power, more chance to use their brains, but those women were part of what we call the one percent today and of little interest to me.

For the wives of slaves, coal miners and farmers I expect they were more concerned with how to keep their children alive through the winter and grateful that their husbands had not abandoned them, because they knew that very few of them had the physical strength to do the work the men did. If someone had told them they were oppressed because their husbands were considered the head of the family, I expect they would have been confused, because they thought it was the rich people, the aristocrats, the plantation owners and their wives, who were oppressing them.

I expect you to disagree with me but please don't consider my difference of opinion as "unkind."

If you still think I have given the impression that you hate men then I apologize for that.

I am not actually acquainted with Pamona, they may love men and a man may even be partnered to them for all I know.

Why have you suddenly started talking about me in the third person? [Confused]

FYI it was this post that looked an awful lot like you suggesting that I hate men (and no, I am not partnered to a man, not that it is relevant). I don't know how I was supposed to view it in any other way, but I accept your apology.

Why do wealthy women not deserve feminism and liberation? I am baffled by the idea that because wealthy women are wealthy, they are not oppressed by men (I don't get the past tense here - the patriarchy still exists and still oppresses women, this is the reason feminism still exists and is necessary). Rape, domestic violence, discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, objectification, etc etc - they affect wealthy women too. I thought feminism was about liberating all women, or do some women not deserve feminism? I think to suggest that feminism for wealthy women only involves things like academic and social pursuits is naive. Two women a week die at the hands of a romantic partner or spouse, that includes wealthy women too.

Poor women were and are oppressed by the wealthy, but ALSO oppressed by the patriarchy. This is what the video I linked to is all about - intersectionality, or interacting spheres of oppression. Poor men are oppressed by classism, but poor women are oppressed by classism and sexism too. Wealthy women are oppressed by sexism, but have class privilege over poor women. I'm using the present tense here, but it did apply to those in the past too. Feminism as a concept may not always have existed, but sexism has always existed regardless, and so yes the patriarchy from a feminist perspective has too. That women may gain some benefits from the patriarchy does not negate the overall oppressiveness of it.

Could I please ask that we not flip-flop between the 'men as head of the household' defintion of patriarchy, and the feminist definition of patriarchy? It is quite confusing when it changes from post to post. I am only talking about the feminist definition of patriarchy, although obviously men being the de facto head of the family is inherently oppressive towards women and as such is part of the patriarchy from a feminist perspective too. I would say that the feminist view of the patriarchy includes the other definition as part of it.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If we're asking questions now, might I ask that those keen on discussing feminism consider starting another thread?

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To make it more on topic - as a queer person I feel uncomfortable with aping heteronormative marriage and family norms, because the nuclear family has been a force for oppression. It is difficult to reconcile that with a Christian perspective, I'll admit - but I do have queer feminist Christian friends who feel similarly, so I'm not unique in that.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know if this is helpful but I keep the distinction in my mind by referring to male-household/family headship as "patriarchy" and the pro-male bias/privilege of our society as The Patriarchy, adding the article and the capital letters. Helps me keep it straight.

[ 04. July 2016, 02:07: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If we're asking questions now, might I ask that those keen on discussing feminism consider starting another thread?

It feels like it is inherently part of the topic, though, unless those who never marry for feminist reasons are not allowed to be discussed.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't know if this is helpful but I keep the distinction in my mind by referring to male-household/family headship as "patriarchy" and the pro-male bias/privilege of our society as The Patriarchy, adding the article and the capital letters. Helps me keep it straight.

Male headship? As opposed to Headship which in my head is about complementarianism/egalitarianism debates.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't know if this is helpful but I keep the distinction in my mind by referring to male-household/family headship as "patriarchy" and the pro-male bias/privilege of our society as The Patriarchy, adding the article and the capital letters. Helps me keep it straight.

Male headship? As opposed to Headship which in my head is about complementarianism/egalitarianism debates.
You're quibbling about things I do not intend to quibble about. I am distinguishing between what you were telling Twilight not to flip back and forth between. Nothing more. If those are two separate things in your mind, then you can fully understand giving one of them one name, and the other one another name. That I have not described them perfectly is beyond irrelevant.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't know if this is helpful but I keep the distinction in my mind by referring to male-household/family headship as "patriarchy" and the pro-male bias/privilege of our society as The Patriarchy, adding the article and the capital letters. Helps me keep it straight.

Male headship? As opposed to Headship which in my head is about complementarianism/egalitarianism debates.
You're quibbling about things I do not intend to quibble about. I am distinguishing between what you were telling Twilight not to flip back and forth between. Nothing more. If those are two separate things in your mind, then you can fully understand giving one of them one name, and the other one another name. That I have not described them perfectly is beyond irrelevant.
Wait, what? I'm not quibbling about anything [Confused] I wasn't making any comment on how you've described anything, I was simply suggesting that male headship could also be used instead of 'patriarchy'. I was actually agreeing with you....?

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:



quote:
I am not actually acquainted with Pamona, they may love men and a man may even be partnered to them for all I know.
Why have you suddenly started talking about me in the third person? [Confused]

Because you asked me to when you said this:
quote:

Originally posted by Pomona:

First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.

quote:
I am baffled by the idea that because wealthy women are wealthy, they are not oppressed by men liberating all women, or do some women not deserve feminism? I think to suggest that feminism for wealthy women only involves things like academic and social pursuits is naïve.

I would be baffled by that idea, too. I did not suggest any such thing. I actually pointed out that The Patriarchy was probably worse for them than for poor women who had more pressing concerns. Also, examples should never be read as "only."

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:



quote:
I am not actually acquainted with Pamona, they may love men and a man may even be partnered to them for all I know.
Why have you suddenly started talking about me in the third person? [Confused]

Because you asked me to when you said this:
quote:

Originally posted by Pomona:

First off, my pronouns are they/them, not she/her, please don't misgender me.

quote:
I am baffled by the idea that because wealthy women are wealthy, they are not oppressed by men liberating all women, or do some women not deserve feminism? I think to suggest that feminism for wealthy women only involves things like academic and social pursuits is naïve.

I would be baffled by that idea, too. I did not suggest any such thing. I actually pointed out that The Patriarchy was probably worse for them than for poor women who had more pressing concerns. Also, examples should never be read as "only."

Sorry, when I referenced the third person I meant you not talking to me directly, but as if you were talking about me to someone else (the 'I am not acquainted with Pomona' bit) - not the pronoun use. It was just a bit confusing but never mind. Thank you for the correct pronoun use though.

I was referring to your comment that wealthy women were/are part of the 1% and therefore you have no interest in them. Surely feminism includes them too? Also as I said, the Patriarchy still affected and affects poor women, just alongside classism. Intersectionality, again. It is possible to be oppressed by more than one system of oppression at once! Poor women in the past may not have thought about their oppression on the basis of gender, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Classism was probably more obvious to them, but it doesn't mean it was the only form of oppression they experienced.

To bring it more on topic - marriage was part of oppression for women across the social spectrum, it just expressed itself differently. All women were put at risk of domestic violence, death and permanent illness via childbirth, a husband drinking away their wages on a Friday night, etc etc, via marriage. Marriage was bad for women, on the whole, and it's not a surprise to me that when the religious life was restarted in England, that women wanted to join. But would have acceptable cohabiting been much different to marriage? Probably not.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
To make it more on topic - as a queer person I feel uncomfortable with aping heteronormative marriage and family norms, because the nuclear family has been a force for oppression.

It is not that I disagree with what you are saying, but I can see why the terminology being used could feel threatening to the average straight folks. At least in the UK/US.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Helps me keep it straight.

no pun intended?

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

Oh and Twilight, where is your apology for saying that I said I hate men? I did not and do not hate men. Why is lying about me OK?

I did not say you said you hated men. I said:
quote:
" I've been a card carrying feminist since 1972. I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society."
I was disagreeing with the position that seems to say that the patriarchy was in all ways oppressive to women.

I appreciate that, and think it's a viable, if debatable, position-- but it's not at all what you said in the part you quoted that Pomona is responding to. I don't see how in the world you get "I don't believe it requires hating every man who existed in a patriarchy society" as equivalent to "disagreeing with the position that seems to say that the patriarchy was in all ways oppressive." I DO see where Pomona interprets that as suggesting she hates all men-- or at least all men in patriarchal societies (which would be pretty much all men).

Of course, that may very well not be what you intended. But it is very much the more obvious interpretation of what you wrote-- whereas your paraphrase seems to be something else entirely.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
To make it more on topic - as a queer person I feel uncomfortable with aping heteronormative marriage and family norms, because the nuclear family has been a force for oppression.

It is not that I disagree with what you are saying, but I can see why the terminology being used could feel threatening to the average straight folks. At least in the UK/US.
Do you mean 'queer'? It has been reclaimed by LGBT people for some time. However, I'm not sure why it's threatening - uncomfortable, maybe, but why threatening?

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
a force for oppression


--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pomona, sorry I misread you.

-------------

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Helps me keep it straight.

no pun intended?
My subconscious is far funnier than my conscious mind.

----------------

I deny that my marriage is a force for oppression. (I only said this because Josephine told me to.)

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that if the term marriage (traditionally, a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman) can and has been changed by both law and common use, there is no reason why the terms "husband" or "wife" cannot similarly attract broader meanings.

Spoken from the perspective of someone married 48 years to the same woman. We both use the terms "husband" and "wife" to describe one another. Others could speak for us, and would confirm that our marriage and the words we use commonly do not in any way reflect a desire to maintain a patriarchal institution. We don't do role dominance and submission. From the start of our relationship, it has seemed that such habits do not reflect self-giving love.

I can understand why other folks see that differently; why people may see marriage as an institution is so affected by its patriarchal history that they do not want to be associated with it. We just asked for "submit" to be taken out of the service. One-way submission was never in our minds. Life long promises to one another were. It seemed then, and seems now, a good idea to make such promises publicly, in front of family and friends as a rite of passage. Different strokes for different folks?

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
All women were put at risk of domestic violence, death and permanent illness via childbirth, a husband drinking away their wages on a Friday night, etc etc, via marriage.

I fail to see how those risks are any different in any other form of relationship.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools