Da Feminism Thread

[Montmorency]

A relevant piece of scholarship:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Abstract

Female labor force participation can be influenced by persistent dif-
ferences in cultural norms about the perception of women in society.
We empirically examine where these dierences come from. Central
to our explanation are historic dierences in agricultural technologies,
which generated historical dierences in the organization of market
versus household work along gender lines. We show that, consistent
with the existing anthropological evidence, in societies with a tradi-
tional use of animal plough agriculture the division of labor is split
along gender lines, with men working outside of the home in agricul-
ture and industry, and women working within the home. We then
document the persistence of these cultures over time by examining
the relationship between historic plough use and contemporary fe-
male labor force participation, female participation in politics, and
individuals' attitudes about the role of women. We present estimates
at the ethnicity, sub-national region, and country levels. We identify
the causal eect of plough technology on attitudes about women by
instrumenting for the historic use of the plough with the society's en-
dowment of geography suitable for growing crops that require plough
cultivation with those that do not.

Precis:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

One feasible method for achieving gender equality is to create men and women that are, in all respects - particularly reproductive and neurophysiological - anatomically identical. That is: unisex posthumans.

[PanzerJaeger]

One feasible method for achieving gender equality is to create men and women that are, in all respects - particularly reproductive and neurophysiological - anatomically identical. That is: unisex posthumans.

This is actually pretty spot on, apart from the reproductive element. From infancy, people are forced in to pretty narrow boxes based on all sorts of factors during socialization, gender being one of the biggest. Children should not be separated by gender in the way they are socialized, and should instead be allowed and encouraged to pursue their own identity. If a girl shows interest in pink, Barbie dolls, and a future in home making, that is great, but it should not be foisted upon her.

And prohibitive socialization does not just impact women. Gender roles are increasingly forcing men into lower paying, less influential jobs as they are considered more masculine.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And prohibitive socialization does not just impact women. Gender roles are increasingly forcing men into lower paying, less influential jobs as they are considered more masculine.

I for one actually don't mind this one. If the abrasive “masculine” types all decide to go logging or truck driving in Canada, I say that is to be encouraged. It frees up many positions for more pleasant company. The berks get to be all cool (literally) and masculine (in their mind) and the rest of us get a more enjoyable workplace as a result.

[Papewaio]

Sorry but as someone who has worked in mining, banks, contact centers and IT:
Most aggressive where generally the least masculine... They have to prove something with their red tape.
Women at minesites had a preference for the more feral drilling men who are pretty much the closest to cave man movie physique you will find. Just like a lot of them will prefer men in uniform ie military and fireman but not nurses.

So what is driving evolution there? Sexual selection and who are women choosing?

Masculine =/= sexist, sex =/= gender.
Masculine = body confidence.

If you are confident and capable you don't have to be arrogant and conniving. The first is outdoors men the second is stockbrokers and some of pro sportsmen.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Papewaio: I was being sarcastic. Me I don't quite buy the idea of people being pressured into gender-affirming jobs or something, we simply don't have such luxury; but if it did happen Canada seems like a convenient long-way-away type of destination for the sort of person who genuinely feels he “has to prove his masculinity” to me.

If you are confident and capable you don't have to be arrogant and conniving.

I'd write “bullish and conniving” but otherwise very much agreed. (Confidence tends to lead to a certain careless arrogance, after all.)

[Papewaio]

I'm painting with broad brush strokes but generally arrogance is more external and confidence internal. Confidence to me is being comfortable in ones own skin, arrogance is wanting a spotlight and an inability to view others abilities outside of a competitive win or lose paradigm.