Da Feminism Thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Plenty of people may have been stung by the ole' WASPs in our history, but I don't think it's an issue of making common cause at all. A lot of the convictions and principles in feminism do transfer over into those other issues, so I think it's a natural extension for the movement. Branching into them simply for common cause would be disingenuous.

Who's? The "WASP" doesn't exist outside the US, and inside its some kind of wierd congealing of everyone's fears of oppression. Look at the name, wierd, wierd, because all Anglo-Saxons are white. Glib statements like that go some way to proving my point. There's a shared sense of victimhood there and that's not healthy.

Egalitarianism can cover all the same issues, without any of the same sense of bias of victimhood.

I'm sure many women of those era's were happy, but not knowing anything different doesn't mean the quality of their life was high.

That's a somewhat glib dismissal. It DID become intollerable and then women DID rebel. The logical conclusion is that prior to that it was at least tollerable.

They (like the majority of people back then) had to work within the only option of life offered to them. Most people in the old days were peasants bound to feudal land, heavily taxed, with a single pair of clothes, and no crops stored for a harsh winter. That wasn't a very easy existance for anyone really. The difference is that women's station were still even lower and more powerless than their male peers in all divisions of life.

None of this is really true, certainly not after 1300, there were plently of women who were the wives of knights, merchants, Franklins. Read Chaucer's "The Wife of Bath's Tale".

I agree that the core quality of any relationship is the result of the two people within it and their love for each other (or lack of it), we're certainly not debating that. I have no doubt that there were men who treated their wives extremely well in all earlier era's, and they had a mutually had a happy life together. And similarly, there were, are, and will always be horrible people as well. We can just hope to make a framework that can make as most people live as happy and healthy a life as possible. If you can't divorce, you're endlessly at the mercy of a scumbag. If your society has divorce though, although it's not perfect, it does offer the option to change the circumstance for everyone involved. To me that's why the second is superior, even though we'll never have a system that's perfect.

I see your point, really I do, but when you think that today women have multiple failed relationships (as do men) as opposed to one (or two) marriages and many more people spend larger periods of their lives not only unmarried, but actually alone: It's not that much better is it. On top of that, lots of "battered women" stay in abusive relationships, so I'm not convinced that easy access to divorce has benefitted those who are most vulnerable. That's before we even get to people who get divorced and then decide it was a stupid thing to do, only to discover it's too late.

You do have a point that it's the tallest tree in a forest that tends get cut down first, and in a violent society men do see other men as a threat and so most of their violence is on each other in terms of power struggle. There are benefits to that, like the influence Emma of Normandy from your example was able to hold behind the scenes. However, to be weak and nonthreatening is also to be simple prey, and there's nothing to protect you from be exploited and abused in other ways. And in terms of Emma, it was only a small small fraction of people in those eras who had access to political power to dictate or even influence it. Unquestionably women in nobility and royalty have had significant influence over our history as well, but they and their stories are a very privileged exception to the life of most people. To be able to influence your husband also does not make you his equal in that system. Your presence and ideas are his to welcome, tolerate, or shut out at his own discretion.

Yes, there is a lack of practical political power - but that's offset by not being killed and, frankly, men are easily persuaded to listen to women. It's not a great system, but I would argue very seriously that the men felt like they were in charge because the women let them think it.

That's an excellent example and I agree completely. Being competitive has benefits but also flaws like you pointed out. That's why I think that if some women in the UK Parliament are doing that, then it's not simply in regard for an innate advantage. The degree that you consider competitiveness (and to what amount) as a benefit could result in a lot of different opinions. Why then would they feel the need to do something as drastic as take male hormones for political office? My speculation would be that those specific women may feel they need to exaggerate those qualities to be accepted in such a male dominated arena, and turn to such an extreme and unnecessary method.

Here's an alternative idea - democratic politics was invented by men and it flatters typically male traits.

Well, I would argue more the reverse of that situation, that a patriarchal religion influenced its society (and spread to most of the world to influence them in a similar way) to a similar patriarchal structure. I think a lot of people don't follow a religion innately because they agree with it's teaching. Certainly they agree with much of it, but it's often because they perceive it as the will of an omnipotent god and that disobedience leads to damnation and condemnation in your community. I think most people don't think sacrificing a sheep in a ritual is a great idea or a good use of that resource. There's a reason they call it God-fearing.

The second aspect to that is that a patriarchal religion is less flexible. Where changes of a society in time would naturally lead to changes of the dynamics within them, religion says that this is the way things are and always must be. That's more inherently damaging.

Flexability has nothing to do with it, and that's wrong anyway because Christian doctrine has changed and evolved over the centuries, and there are specific theological systems for weighing particular Counciliar decisions against each other.

In any case, you quoted Paul who was a Jewish Christian missionary who was successful at converting Jews, Romans, Greeks, Syrians... His success had a lot to do with radical theological doctrine combined with conservative social teaching. Subsequent generations of converts found that teaching equally palatable until at the Council of Carthage the African Bishops canonised (most of) his writings. The key mover there was Augustine, who was a Roman-educated North African with a Christian mother and a pagan father. Augustine flirted with pretty much every religion and secular philosophy before settling on Paul interpretation of christianity.

Seperating sex and gender isn't my personal distinction, it's two seperate terms in its relation to sociology. Sex is your inherent genetic make up (XX or XY). Gender are the roles and attitude a society places on and expects of men and women within it. I think what you're getting at is along the lines of "Isn't there an obvious connection between them?"

I think sociology is wrong, I don't believe that "gender" is a social construct, that implies artificiality, I think its an expression of natural difference.

There is a significant impact, but not as drastic as its made to be. Like we've touched on earlier, men and women are influenced by different hormones that affects them and their development. At the earliest stages of development, even in those of us with an XY chromosome, female is the default and original marker in our gestation. At an early point though our Y chromosome causes our body to secrete different levels of testosterone among other things that triggers the development of testes and the beginning of other masculine traits. Of course we come away with a different effect from that.

I will concede that men are in general naturally more aggressive, competitive, etc. than women. Enough that there is a connotation all over the world with that. However, there are also many competitive and aggressive women. And less competitive men. It is a spectrum, like you acknowledged, and there's not a clear cut off on what is masculine or feminine, but there is a general connotation of what is.

I think, when you consider how men and women relate to each other it's a big difference, and that's what we're really talking about. Relations between the sexes and relative suitability for certain social roles (like mothering children).

Where my no comes into play is that there is a significant artificial exaggeration by society on them. One example is a boy playing with dolls, toy ponies, or a cooking set. Most parents get uncomfortable and would take them away or direct them to more typically boy toys. I know there are studies that males are more likely to drift towards masculine toys, but there's always variation, and the point here isn't the child choice, it's the parents reaction.

The father might fear that the dolls are emasculating him, and that he needs to reinforce masculine behavior. After all, he needs to grow up to be a man, and that's not the behavior of a man (at least as he sees it). In the child's perspective he's simply playing a game.

The mother may be concerned for the same reasons, or maybe even if it doesn't bother her, she's concerned about how his peers will perceive him and that he'll be teased. In the end the result is the same, the boy is told that dolls and ponies are for girls (as are the things associated with them), and trucks and for boys. It's the same with pink toys. Pink on a toy isn't changing that much about it, but there's a gendered perception of pink that makes such an incredible impact in our society. These type of aspects are present through the entirety of our lives.

I think you get the idea of what I'm trying to say. Men may be more innately leaning towards one behavior and women another, but we're not aliens from mars and venus. However, the gendered perception of our society teaches us what traits are to define us. On the boys don't cry subject, it's not because men don't cry, or are significantly less inclined to. It's because it's perceived as a weakness, and that to cry in public is to lower your own standing and respect. Does crying do that? Not innately, it does nothing innately in that context other than express your sadness. It's what we make of it and interpret it as in our society that marks how we define it.

I do get the idea, and I sypathise with the desire to see men and women as more similar than different - but my experience of dealing with women is that understanding only comes with accepting that you don't understand. By contrast, men are an open book. Thinking about it a little more deeply though, implying that there is some form of coercive conditioning into gender roles implies that it started at some point. Almost like someone decided to seperate "masculine" and "feminine" when in reality I think social gender roles are about competition within your own sex. Looking at men, rare is the woman who wants a highly sensitive man, more often she wants a man just sensitive enough to empathise, but not one as sensetive as she is - someone who'll cut the throat of the dear he just ran over to stop it from suffering, but won't expect her to watch.

It's a common and simple way to live our lives, but I think it's limiting and cuts the potential and talent of ourselves as individuals. One example that might stick out to people particularly on this forum are the onna bugeisha, or the women of the samurai nobility. They were trained in combat and weapons to protect their household, family, and honor. They weren't just the wives and daughter of samurai, they were part of the Bushi class as well. They did enter actual battle and at the side of men. This wasn't their primary role, they had family responsibilities that they focused on, but they were part of a warrior tradition, so they received the training and were expected to fight if needed. And they did.

I'd wager they weren't allowed if they had suckling babes or were recently married, while their husbands were expected to go out and meet the enemy. Defending the home is very different to the contest of arms in the field, one is basically competition and the other is survival. Pre-Roman Celtic culture functioned in the same way viz women's potential battlefield role.

Traditional society all over the world often says that women cannot and should not fight. That women are simply passive and soft. Women may not be on average as aggressive as men or physically as strong, but that does not mean they are the polar opposite. The onna bugeisha did fight, and they fought well. But it also wasn't the defining aspect of who they were. It was a part of the life that they lived among their other duties. To gender war as exclusively masculine is our own construction.

There's a very good reason for this, three actually. Aside from actual childbearing and feeding there's the breadth of a woman's hips and the narrowness of her shoulders (and to a lesser extent her bust. A woman's bust can interfere with wearing armour, and using a bow, her narrower shoulders reduce her ability to deliver powerful blows and the wider circel of her hips slows down her movements. As a secondary issue, woman have a slightly different elbow joint to men which reduces their ability to throw or strike downwards, taken together all this alters a woman's centre of gravity relative to a amn, which makes certain gymnastic movements. All else, including hight and fat/muscle ratio, the man makes a better warrior, hands down.

My point is, we create the perception of what a gender is meant to be in our society, and we limit ourselves into something that isn't just emotionally damaging, but limits our potential as well.

I don't believe its emotionally damaging, more emotionally damaging would be to have no structure to form your own identity around.

I agree that we don't have to try and label everything, and I do think that's a big part of the problem. However, as a male who's attracted to other men, I can tell you that to live your life hidden away and in silence is not the same in fulfillment or respect than people who can be themselves openly. It's not just a matter of leaving people alone in the privacy of their own homes, we should be so lucky if humans were like that. There's a trail of discrimination throughout the ages for pretty much anything that's not in the mainstream of the majority, and laws against homosexuals was no different. It's not accommodation by any means.

I don't believe that private accomodation excuses making a certain lifestyle illegal - that was why we had the argument - but I was just offering it up as an example of life being more complicated in the past than you might expect. As far as discrimination against homosexuals, it should be noted that such discrimination was, until very recently, aimed purely at male-male relations in the vast majority of cases. This comes back to the idea of sex as power, and the unnaceptablility of men being subservient to other men. Back to rape as an expression of power too. Even more important, the idea that your sexual preference was an important part of your identity is very, very, modern "homosexual" as a word only appears in the 19th century. Prior to that your identity was male or female, and regardless of preference you married someone of the opposite sex and produced children, or you didn't.

As a man, your responsibility would be to marry well and carry on your family name, your preferences did not come into it. That's to say, if she was well dowered and healthy as well as being good at running a household and of tollerable character she was a good catch. Likewise, he was a good catch if he had good holdings, a good head for his business, was healthy, and not a brute.

Against this backdrop, I consider the modern obession, and it's definately an obsession, with classifying everyone according to their accumulation of particular traits and sexual preference as rather quaint. Not only does it lead to decidedly odd debates about whether a man should be allowed to "marry" another man (we are lucky to be able to have such a debate, being so economically secure that we can allow non-reproductive pairings to be enshrined in law in any way) but I have become suspicious that there is now the same pressure on an "out" gay man to behave in a certain fashion in excatly the same way as you described men being expected to be "masculine", but instead because of one particular difference we now seem to expect these men to behave in a way which obviously sets them apart from everyone else.

Whether this is a lazy society, or an attempt to remove these men from the male competative sphere, I'm not sure.

There is no necessary need to really identify as such and it just causes a whole range of issues when you start bringing transgender debate in the arena. The biological differences are separate from the society contributions attributed to such terms. There is so much masculine attachment into the usage of "him" and similar with the feminine attachment into the usage of "her". As a society, simply making that divide salient, you begin to construct differences such as what separates "him" from "her".

If you read the article, it is mostly about allowing children to be children, for them to explore and enjoy themselves. Allowing the girl to play with the lego and let the boy play with the barbie, why should lego's belong to "him" and why should "barbies" belong to her, it is all about removing that social barrier and admittedly would love such things to be adopted on a grander scale.

Then in cases of unknown gender, why should people say "His posts" opposed to having some other term to simply refer to a person as simply that, a person.

The "other term" would be their name. Manners strike again.

Also, I have to point out, my sister played with my lego and turned all my castles into stables or hotels.

An absurd argument, if you don't mind my saying so.

Men, historically were (reasonably) the ones with more 'free' time, women make (in the main) naturally better carers, add to this their (in the main) relative incapacity during the later months of child-rearing, massively high historical mother & infant mortality rates it makes sense for men to be the ones that engage in any activities that are non-domestic. Women of child-bearing age have always been simply the highest value 'commodity' in any society. This naturally leads to a system where non-essential or non-domestic work is devolved to males, it's not a matter of prejudice, subjugation or anything of the sort

Now, when people talk of this commoditization of women, they tend to ignore, completely, the fact that throughout history in almost all societies the majority of men were also 'owned' by one leader, house, government or another. The suffragette movement is still talked about, but the fact that just a few decades earlier most men in the country (UK) had no right to vote. Conscription migt not have been a legislated fact until modern history, but that's because it didn't need to be, the number of mobile fremen in any remotely centralised society was minimal.

Feminism is just another term for the social liberalism movement which attempts to deny biological & sociological reality, however many freedoms and toys you give a man or woman, one man will always seek and gain power over another man: this is the natural order and no amount of trying to obfuscate it will stop it showing through. What is left is to order the enactment to the betterment of individuals and societies. 'Permissivism' has gone hand in hand with technological progress to keep murder & violent crime rising, drug usage increasing, feral & mal-educated children persisting in huge quantities despite a vast educational and support system. Alcoholism & alcohol related injury increasing despite the billions spent on remedying it.

Feminism's 'contribution' to society is purely economic it hasn't been so much a matter of bringing women into public life as about bringing what were traditionally women's spheres into public life, demanding that women be involved in the non-essential work of society just the same as men are. Demanding that they be involved in the economic system in a more direct fashion, which imo does nobody a favour, doubling the labour pool and enabling central government to tax work that was previously done beyond government's scope to control.

The theft of freedom. Beyond those directly economic and private domestic industry related encroachments of the public sphere, families now give up such rights as would be considered slavery looked at objectively. The rights governments now have over offspring are inalienable - where those of the parents are not.

I'll post this before I decide it's insane and delete it =)

Enjoy.

I quotes this in entirity because you threatened to delete it and I think it bears reading. One point is obviously true, sexual equality has reduced social mobility, because people tend to marry their own class, and these days that means that two high earners tend to marry and devote all their earnings to making their children successful, which cuts off access to high earning jobs to clever people who want to move up, because we now have double the workforce for the same size population as we did two hundred years ago.