My Little Princess

Straight up, I don't have on hand my usual readers on the ubject to quote from, nor can be bothered looking for summaries and excerpts on Amazon.com, needless to say the books to read are:

female chauvinist pigs
nice girls don't get the corner office
shutting out the sun
absurdistan
feminims for beginners
just fuck off its our turn now

Not exactly penetrating to the degree of plowing through Germaine Greer's encyclopedia's of feminism, the female Eunuch (haven't read it), the change (read about a page and a half of it) and the boy (read a goodweekend blurb on it).
But from my recent experiences, I feel outside of my female friends that have arts degrees the above dismal list (excluding of course the frequent articles that appear in periodicles and other news media) represents more active attention to the issue than most girls I have come across. Feminism to me, no longer has the feeling of a movement, or if it is moving nobody is at the wheel. Groups like Womyn and shit I believe can be so extreme as to become unpractical if not incorrect.

But enough of that, today I am waiting for the washing machine to complete its cycle of 8 hours or so as it seems to me, in the past two days I have enjoyed this and other pleasures such as washing dishes, cooking, shopping for groceries. I did idly sit on the couch and watch someone else whilst they vacuumed and mopped. But Brenton has a penis so I didn't see it as a gender divide.
Conversely in the other places I have stayed in Japan, I have not been allowed (unless I find the house abandoned and can sneak some independance) to make my own toast, that's right pushing down the fucking handle and waiting for the toast to pop up. Whilst my laundry was naturually to conform to the needs of the household as in a return to the daily dumping that I haven't experienced since leaving ballarat. Still the question of me helping fold or iron was treated as a ridiculous one. As was washing dishes or preparing dinner.
I'm not saying give me a pat on the back, what a brave man I am, but to me the issue of domestic chores and gender roles is such a fucking old one and so far risen above that I find Japan a little shocking in this regard, and Japanese men, nothing short of ridiculously incapable babies (when it comes to the domestic, I am not above befriending and ackowledging them as otherwise delightfully friendly people).
What are the issues in my view, my opinion from the reading and living I have done thus far?

Well bottom line up front, the issues are all confused, but the major mismark is that if feminism seeks equality with men as it's ultimate goal, it will never succeed, it is doomed to following in footsteps. Maybe it was Germaine that said it, I can't quote because I don't have the materials but what it was is 'women should not seek equality wit men, when they themselves are not free' that is to say, the issues surrounding male gender roles and the negative fallouts are perhaps even less resolved than women, but more to the point the issues pressing men are not framed in the context of what women are doing, for the most part, excluding paternity leave and paternal visiting rights in divorce cases and shit. That is the issues stand boldly on their own two feet, they do not become issues comparitively. That said I'd like to look at the issues as I see them, and try and stand alone, and where possibly, try not to draw possible solutions from what men do now. As men have their own issues. Comparisons I probably will use ony to highlight that there is a different way of living.
Furthermore my greatest shortfall is that I am not myself a woman, I have only third hand or second hand accounts of what living as a woman is like. So sorry if I don't hit the nail on the head, but I sure will bash it with gusto. (just like how I make love)

Your father gir, your father:

From my observation, in Australia at least, there is no enemy. There is nobody actively trying to keep women down. I have come across boys clubs to be sure, that joke about women as sex objects, I have participated. But there was no explicit, deliberate or cocentrated effort to ever exclude girls from such circles of power. In most cases without much conversation women had for the most part earned their place on the outer.
I have heard sexist opinions, but generally these have taken a less than significant impact in a knowledge based workforce. What I do see, is women conducting themselves in the office in a way that can only be technically described as 'retarded'. The first big one is the handshake, in any formal commencement of a professional relationship, you hve about 2 seconds before most of the next minimum 6 months of your life is decided, and these 2 seconds are the handshake. Nothing fills me with dread more than the wet fish, as a low level employee, I had the misfortune of having absolutely no say in an interview process, nor any choice about who was presented to me to work with, sometimes for years. Fortunately I never struck out, and my colleagues were truly supergreat people that I liked working with. But if I was in an interview and recieved poor handshake that I am afraid is where it would end.
A handshake is not instinctive body language, in Japan there's the business card swap and the bow and shit, this behaviour is learned, and where does one learn it? My father insisted on the hand shake every evening when he came home. Thus the number of weak timid handshakes I have recieved from girls tell me something (or two things rather) a) their father is an accountant/lawyer/tax professional or b) their father never shook their hand.
I realise I'm being sexist right now, if you are a mother with a young child, I implore you now, log onto http://www.manager-tools.com download the podcast on handshakes (I hear it is a 13 step process) study it and start practicing it with your female friends and daughters and such.
But I do put the onus on any fathers as possesors of the knowledge on how to do such a crucial lifeskill right, withholding its teaching to any of their children.
Case two, another biggy, working hard. I have talked at length before and even recently about the pitfalls of hard work and workaholia. Largely though I would say that to attempt to be anthropological or socialogical about it, work is the process of delivering value, what value and the specifications are determined in agreements and contracts. This includes, how much work, the quality of work, the more specific the agreement or cntract the more likely the full value is to be recieved, and furthermore through a collaborative effort expectations are met, and satisfaction is achieved.
The vagueness is wht leds to overwork, this is where the law of diminishing returns is not applied. example; I tell you I'm hungry and want to eat an apple. You give me an apple and I am happy. Workaholia is the process of giving me 5 apples, of which I eat one and am happy.
Does that put it simply enough? there was also a service industry craze of 'delighting customers' whereby you try cleverly to outperform customer expectations and thus achieve delight. In this case this is where I say I'm hungry and would like an apple, and you cook me a christmass feast and seat me at a table with all my idols to shoot the shit. delightful.
The problem is that the strategy eats into margins, profits and furthermore, delight is unsustainable, its very difficult. Once delight has been achieved once, then it becomes much harder to delight the second time by applying the same service. The delight originates from an element of surprise. The second time around the customer isn't so surprised, they instead have a new expectation. This is the basis of a competitive advantage deriving from superior service, it reduces churn, but if your delightful service levels are easy to replicate they end up just reducing your profits, that is your resources you have to invest in your growth.
But as I said, the good workaholic women I observe put in the extra effort and contribute something of value. Most put in the extra effort and leave 4 uneaten apples. They do however get a pat on the head for enthusiasm from time to time.
But this squandering of the precious resource of time is a communication of an inability to manage resources, if your employer is any good, this will be frowned upon.
Of course this can be smiled upon if the overtime takes the form of make up time, and that is that an employee stays back to make up for the time they spend chatting and building relationships around the office, or elstwise known as managing their career. Then after 5 when the customers are off their back, they sit down to work on their work.
Those are the two big ones, the two key behviours as far as I see them that contribute to the subconscious recognition not of 'women as inferior' but 'an inferior employee' I don't want to be an apologist, I imagine many a company manager has cognated the thought 'why are our inferior employees predominantly women?' a recognition of the gender inequality but I think what compels managers to discriminate isn't necessarily malicious desire to keep women in their place, but a much simpler reason that they simply don't want to. They often don't feel the woman deserves the position, an aversion to 'affirmative action' if you will.
So why the big difference? Women outperform men in their education results, have the same degrees, attend the same courses and subjects and don't perform anywhere ner as well in business.
Well my explanation is that hard skills are overrated, infact, they are almost inconsequential. Career progression ultimately leads to management, and management is by definition soft skills. Soft skills aren't taught at all formally, though there is an ever increasing tendancy for universities to add co-op and work placement, professional skills etc. We learn most of our soft skills from our parets, our earliest social conditioning, and probably equally from our peers in school. These are where our learnedbehaviours come from.
Girls, the most ruthless sexist man you ever met was in all likelihood your father. He didn't teach you how to shake hands, gave you anything you wanted, pampered you, protected you, eyed your boyfriends with mistrust when they turned out to be douchbags, dressed you up like a princess and opened his wallet to you often to circumvent mum's authority. You loved him for it, he is the yardstick by all men in your life are measured.
I really shouldn't be asserting this is YOUR story, as there are those other, abusive drunken arsehole fathers, and they usually produce a pretty interesting progeny.
But the point is in most cases, the earliest reinforcer of firstly the belief that you are inherently special and important is the father. Whats wrong with this? Michael Jordan has the answer: it isn't earned. People I will concede are inherantly unique, but that being said, by mathematical definition, most people must be what is called 'mediocre'.
This sets up a social conditioning that at some point your due will come, no effort required, no self reflection, no personl discipline, no bstrat thought or experimentation required.
But there is a seeming contract, there is a requirement to be daddy's little girl, or his angel, or his princess. I don't think in relatively repressed male australian society that most cases ever lead to this delusion ever being real. My experiences in Asia usually yeild more extreme 'princesses' in adult life. Usually the girliness of the proposition is abandoned and from my view, it takes the form to conforming to an outside expectation of what you 'should' be.
In the end though all you should be is 'you' and do the work you agreed to do, not going around trying to be extra nice to your employers through self sacrifice. 'the business of business is business' or in other words the very nature of business is mutual benifit. A consumer has a need satisfied, and the supplier recieves a profit.
If suppliers went around expecting success to arise from pandering to the consumers every whim (not need) companies fold pretty quickly unless customer is willing to pay premium, and that such premium cutomers do indeed exist.
Most compnies as the conumers of work, would rather pay two people to work at their height, than watch needless self sacrifice for you to perform t your least effective, when you are overworked stressed and tired.
Thus strike from your minds, "A woman has to work twice as hard to be considered half as good as a man" which is correct, this is usually what happens when you work twice as hard and produce half the result (the same effective result but buried in a whole heap of extra shit).
Instead think "A woman has to work half as hard to be considered twice as good as a man" this is, if you can be effective in hlf the time as anybody else, you will be considered twice as good. And pops, shake your duaghters hand when you get home at night.
Can I say, that my female highschool friends, particularly those I was either most able to relate to or most attracted to (not that that's necessarily a reward for womanly virtue, but merely indicates my respect and admiration) where almost all members of the girls Aussie rules football team. I still find them infinitely more impressive than I glam bitch with jewellery on her fingers and fancy handbags.
Princesses make for losers in this post fuedal age.

Hypocrits:

One day I overheard a bunch of ladies talk about how the women's movement went too far. How they liked to have a chair pulled out for them at a restaurant and all that shit. I've also heard girls talk about how important the diamond engagement ring and shit is.
The website intellectual whores (google it, I can't figure out embedding hyperlinks on this fucking mac) also is a whiners account of how women select possible male partners.
I think the labour involved in the extremes of personal consistency overwhelming nd frankly not worth the effort. I descend into hypocrisy all the time, a favorite arguementative tactic of mine is to merely completely change my position from affirmative to negative and vice versa in the same sentence.
But that being said, I frankly hold the notion that a woman to love, is one to be worshipped, to be delighted, to please nd care for. I love to impress. I love to surprise most of all. And time to time I also love to push the line and infuriate.
What needs to be acknowledged is that the act of accepting such niceties as having a gentlemen open the car door, pull out the chair and pay the bill as your own acknowledgement of your inferior position.
The courtship becomes as such, the mans decension to your level, rather than (unfortunately similar to the business anlogy) the relationship of mutual benifit.
The 'gentlemen' way whilst I enjoy it smacks of an implicit contract that what the woman provides is sex after the man has lavished sufficient material gain and groveled enough.
When thinking of a 'free' mentality, it sounds ultimately identicle, I for my part will try to impress, surprise and sbsequently delight girl on a date. With Miki I pulled out all the stops, but I don't see myself as fulfilling a social contract or roles, or ettiquette. I see this as an expression of how impressed I am by the individual. What I expect is entertaining conversation, interesting points of view, personal information. I want to see an equal share of enthusiasm and indeed, the next date I demanded Miki pick the restaurant and also pick what I was to eat. This possibly caused her a great deal of stress, but I don't give a shit, I expect to have my turn. In otherwords, never rest on a give&take expectation, nor should the specific types of giving eg - who pulls out the chairs be designated along gender role lines.
In short, demanding respect and demanding to be pampered and treated like a dandypuff are two mutually exclusive goals. You can't have both, at some point one has to give to the other.

The sexual identity:

Avril in Female Chauvinist pigs gives a definitive count of the mess caused by the mixup betwixt the sexual revolution and the women's movement. But the basic fallicy is that to determine who sex and sexualisation is empowerment to is to look at who benifits.
Who benifits from wearing skimpier clothes, cosmo magazine articles on how to please your man and so forth? men of course, parading your ability to please in bed is not empowerment in the way it is practiced by the various misogynist industries that dominte pop culture. I like looking at attractive women, I like hotpants, but I also like creativity, ambition (the one of my desired qualities I ascribe my persistent single status to), and balls, big fucking balls.
There is nothing empowering about a focus so single as the ability to attract a mate, and please them. Of course the reason I would never have sex with a doll or machine, is the absence of the ability to give pleasure, even if technology succeeded in giving them the ability to arouse me.
I love lingerie and blah blah blah. You get the point, the point is though that nobody looks at the gyrating girls in a hip hop video and thinks "gee I respect her" or not using respect in any use that would actually denote respect.
We all like to feel attractive, and attractiveness is in its way a kind of power. But I wouldn't take career advice from someone as attractive as an import car model, nor necessarily respect their views of the state of the union.
And here's the catch, its not like being attractive and being profound are mutually exclusive, but they simply don't cause eachother. There may be some bearing, as in a teacher is more likely to pay attention to an attractive student, intelligent men are more likely to desire conversation with an attractive girl and so forth, but getting your knowledge and wisdom second hand aren't really empowerement.
The only empowerment indeed of being 'saleable and fuckable' is that you can earn an income from relatively unchallenging work. (relative to say, running a change management project to inegrate responsibility accounting into a marketing & sales department). But this empowerment is indirect, it works if the model/stripper/pornstar places their revenues into an investment in their future, such as tuition but not if they spend it on consumer durables.
I for one would love if I could make it in the modelling industry. But I would never be satisfied with it in terms of intellectual stimulation. Being a provider of sex is not empowerment, the sexual revolution was all about being able to enjoy sex without fear, empowerment in sex is and should remain all about your ability to exercise choice, gain pleasure, and do so safely. Sexual empowerment is safe effective cntraception, it is about being able to sit atop your man's face, or sleep with a woman should you so choose. It is about feeling lucky if your man waxes his back, not demanding it, just as for you the choice to wear underwear, what pattern your pubic hair forms are yours, not something a man is ostensibly* or societally entitled to demand.

The most vicious fights are over the scraps:

The deadend soul crushing profession that is PAs constantly amazes me. These people have such an opportunity to effect change in an organisation, I myself had considered applying for a PA role as a career move based on such potential. Wht I see most often are women in the chair, and these women fighting over petty squables.
A lot of it is an inability to delegate and leverage off the assistent. I'd like to see such roles broken into pieces and handed out to people with actual career paths.
But in all my organisational experience, I have never overheard or been privy to, more political aggression than amongst the women in the organisation. The very existence of this phenomena tells me the women's movement has a long way to go. Though hopefully my generation will make significant headway.
What amazes me though, is how the effort of fighting seems inversely proportional to the reward. Top level management may manouvre eacother periodically, in times of transition, and these seem to be a) related to constructive output and b) temporary states although temporary can last a year or so until the matter is settled and the rumours of transition quashed.
Furthermore they are arguably by Machiavelli justified by what is at stake.
What I have seen in women though is that just like a pride of lions some dominnt male has come and taken the 'lion's share' and the rest is the petty squblings over a race that has well and truly been lost.
From the women in my own generation I choose to associate with, there are I believe organisations that meet to counter this phenomena where women in business meet to support and advise eachother. They can even be strategic and look at the bigger picture.
What the greater symptom of concern is though, that the competition seems to be limited in scope, to members of the staff that are female, and excluding those who are of rank. Instead of helping eachother they try to be 'the winning loser' and this is possibly the central issue of feminism in the modern era. For true 'equality' all issues most be abandoned as distinclty 'female' and adopt a mindset where they are just 'people' issues. Some biological ones will always need their own seperate place, but in terms of operating in the work force, the race can't artificially be limited to women only. The business of business is business. That's the be all and end all. Nowhere in that is any allusion that business is the domain of men, that a female business is not beholden to the exact same market that a male one is. The issues relating to sex and career are essentially the same.
How to have a rewarding career, a balanced life, how to have a pleasurable sex life, how to recieve comfort and support from a partner, how to interact sustainably with the natural world, how to achieve better communication with our peers, how to exercise more compassion, how to enjoy the experience of life.
These are not gender specific. These are problems everybody faces. That men and women are different, no doubt, but where relative advantage/disadvantage is the process of learned soft skills, there an effort is needed to identify and correct the shortfalls, where they are distnct genetic inheritances, then the value should be determined and appreciated. And thats where to leave it as far as I see.

*I have no idea what this means.