Da Feminism Thread

[Subotan]

The physical gender is inevitable, the cultural gender less so.

You mean, the difference between sex and gender, right?

Feminism needs a cultural gender - a womankind - in order to be effective. If only 10% of the women were victims of discrimination due to their female gender, feminism would have no stand. The percentage must be must higher, preferably close to one hundred, because there needs to be a collective victim conscience, something almost every female can relate to; and preferably they all feel equally strongly victimised.

The percentage of women in the world who are treated badly because of their gender is much, much higher than 10%, and it's disingenuous of you to imply as such.

Let's say you want to fight poverty in the world. While it is useful for your purpose to sometimes view the world at large, all its history and content, in terms of material wealth; you wouldn't want to turn your reflection into an all-encompassing theory/ideology that can explain everything in this world in terms of wealth/poverty. This is pretty much where feminism is at; it's not just for a few arenas, but rather for the whole existence. You bet [some] feminists would be eager to explain poverty in terms of feministic concepts.

Pretty much everything is an ideology, and it's a poor argument to say that something is bad because it's an ideology. Geertz neatly summed up these arguments as falling into the familiar paradigm "I have a social philosophy; you have political opinions; he has an ideology."

No, but it does mean that I think there is no legal barrier to a woman being successful, nor are their any insurmountable practical ones. There may be room for inprovement, but it's almost entirely (in the West) about inproving individual attitudes, and only time will really do that.

As well as the women's movement, you forgot to add.

Yes, physically, emotionally and economically. While we're here, lets drop the notion of "safe" sex; you might be relatively "safe" in terms of pregnancy but even then there's great potentially to catch something from the other person - if you're doing it right.

Hmm. This is something we will likely have to agree to disagree on - with proper sex education, he choice to have casual sex is a tradeoff between a good time and informed risks. Also, safe referred to both diseases as well as getting preggers.

So would I, but as men do most of the raping instilling a proactively "anti-rape" mindest in young men and tying it directly to their masculinity is probably more frutiful than tying rape to masculinity in "non means no" campaigns. Yes, no does mean no, but that's a negative message, it can encourage a negative view of male sexuality. Much better to teach men, "if you hear a woman scream, it IS your business". Hand in hand with this, we need to recognise that some men are no better than animals and women need to take this into account in how they dress and whether they let a man they know (and can trust) walk them home at the end of the night.

That reinforces the idea that the only kind of rape is the jumping out of the bushes variety, when actually the majority of rapes are date rapes. Perfect Rape Victims who can have somebody save them are very, very rare occurrences.

I've heard it before, I consider it a relevent generalisation.

Oh, I was referring to the feminist's critique, not your comment.

Every year at Exeter University at least one first year girl is sexually assaulted, this year she was actually raped. The reason is always basically the same, she was walking home on her own in the early hour of the morning, possibly drunk, down a dark streat because she assumed my little city was safe. A couple of times pairs of girls have been attacked, I have never heard of a girl and a boy being sexually attacked. I am utterly convinced that the reason for this is that rapists are predators and a man and a woman together present a more difficult proposition than either a single woman or a small group. This is because generally speaking you can expect the man to move to protect the woman and by the time he is eliminated she will have run off and (hopefully) got help. We're talking about preventing a situation, not aiming to fight an attacker off.

This has definitely strayed into victim blaming.

Oh, I'm not saying it's making rapists rape, but rape should be happening less and less, yet we have a figure of 1 in 4 which (excluding marital rape) seems high even by historical standards. I mean, hell, it's not like we're living through the 30 Years War here. What is clear is that there's more than just violent power-rape going on, there's also date rape, which probably accounts for a lot of the unreported rapes, and that has to do with not respecting boundaries between men and women. You can point to rape by the upper classes, and even domestic abuse, but the fact is historically those weren't any more acceptable then than now, but it seems that despite supposed advances in women's rights men are still getting away with it , but without the protection of power or privilage.

Some historical data on rape would be interesting. I might have a look tomorrow.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As well as the women's movement, you forgot to add.

No more than basic egalitarianism. Picking up on Syl point about religion, egalitarian Christians as early as 1400 were arguing for women to be allowed to preach, as the logical extension of a "universal" priesthood.

Hmm. This is something we will likely have to agree to disagree on - with proper sex education, he choice to have casual sex is a tradeoff between a good time and informed risks. Also, safe referred to both diseases as well as getting preggers.

So long as you accept there's a trade off, I'm happy to call it "safe", but sex is still a fairly serious undertaking.

That reinforces the idea that the only kind of rape is the jumping out of the bushes variety, when actually the majority of rapes are date rapes. Perfect Rape Victims who can have somebody save them are very, very rare occurrences.

You are correct, but you miss my point. It's all about making chivalry manly, a lot of "date rapes" look decidedly ambiguous, which is why cases tended to fall apart. While the woman in question probably was coerced, the extent to which she had drinks forced down her throat, or was actually spiked, is often unclear. Not only will a chivilrous man slay the evil rapist, not only will he NOT spike her drink, he will also not take advantge of her when she is insensible. It's about creating a mindset, creating taboos, and generating revulsion and the associated sense of shame. Shame is very undervalued.

Oh, I was referring to the feminist's critique, not your comment.

OK

This has definitely strayed into victim blaming.

Seven years now I have seen this pattern, you get a bit jaded when you have a box of rape alarms on your desk to give to 18 year old girls, but only 24 hours later. I am certainly not blaming the victims but the fact that it always happens to first years, in the first term, in basically the same place, tells me the unfortunate girls are in the wrong place at the wrong time, without taking adaquate precautions. It has never happened to a girl who was escorted, as long as I have been here.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Everything feels so surreal these days, just a couple of days ago I read a thread on another site where there was a consensus that it was sinful of women to disobey their husbands when they told them who to vote for, I know some people IRL who would say the same.

In the past I would have agreed almost instinctively with the sentiments in this thread, but I feel like I have been pulled out of that world, and away from the accompanying mindset. Which is not to say that I now agree with what the people on that other site said. I don't know what I think, everyone else seems rooted in their own socio-cultural norms, but I feel like I'm torn between different worlds, like I'm just an observer watching on...

I am dismayed about a lot of things these days, and have concluded that the whole modern world is a monstrosity. Whether you believe it is by evolution or deliberate design, people were made to live a certain way, and this just isn't it. We have a need to see the work of our own hands when we make a living, to feel like we are working towards something... not serve like drones in part of a system. We need to have security in our lives, to feel rooted and have a solid job... not fleet around doing 6 months here 6 months there just to get a job, only to have to reapply for it every year. We are meant to be a part of a community, to feel like we have something in common with our neighbours... instead we are trained through the school systems to feel guilty if we don't embrace 'diversity'. When we are physically and psychologically ready, we are meant to go and get married and have kids... instead we get forced into this bizarre, surreal state somewhere between that of a child and an adult, as life gets put on the backburner in the hope that we might get to pursue a career, which is itself a big enough doubt in today's environment.

And to bring this back to the thread subject. There has been a lot in this thread about the 'stuctural' factors that have supposedly generated artificial concepts of masculinity and femeninity that the male and female sexes are expected to adhere to respectively, whether they be in the form of institutional discrimination or societal expectations/conditioning. Indeed, the woes of the world and all its inequalities are often blamed on these largely abstract, 'structural' factors, whether the problem is poverty, racism, or sexism. This blinkered mindset is riduculous, it pre-supposes that without these 'structural' factors, the natural state of mankind would be a perfectly idylic, egalitarian one.

Well, guess what, it works both ways. Far from undermining an an oppressive mesh of structural factors that maintains an artificial divide between the sexes and returning them to a more natural state of equality, I think feminism does the opposite. What is does is create its own artificial ideal of what a woman should be, and what she should do, and how she should live her life. In fact it attempts to make women into a copy of what is essentially the classic male rolemodel.

I mean, feminists complain at how society pressures women into a certain lifestyle. How, until at least very recently, women might be expected to be housekeepers, and many probably will still be encouraged in that direction by their parents or spouses or whoever. Well, the feminist system has created its own pressures. The successful, modern woman is now expected to have her own career and successes independent of her husband, to work her own 9-5 job and maintain herself even when married. And for things like having kids to be put off until her 40's... I've heard a lot about how feminism seeks to deconstruct artificial societal norms and return to a more natural and fairer state... well what on earth is natural about putting off having kids until the absolute maximum end of your fertile years (creating health risks for parent and child), just so that you can life the idealised life of a man in the 1950's?!

No, feminism is not just a redundant ideology like some in this thread have suggested. It is in fact a very malicious force that creates a whole articial system in order to attempt to enforce a form of equality that doesn't lend itself to either nature or practicality.

Away with it!

[Syl]

Some day, maybe hundreds of years from now, a more enlightened people will look back on some of these "activist" movements as having done far more harm than good.

I'd be interested in what other groups you'd lump into that. Also, what's your marker for when they transition from a useful movement into something destructive? My impression of your opinion is that, at least in the United States and the modern world, that since the legislature is caught up in many issues, it's not longer an issue.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that we don't have an amazing system and progress here in the United States. We're incredibly lucky to have what we have. However, Feminism is more than just about law, it's also about attitudes and discrimination. Issues like domestic violence and sexual assault are still a pretty big issue here, among others. Enough that it's worth talking about.

Feminism is also a global subject. Obvious issues aside like countries that don't respect women, there's issues like sex trafficking, female genital mutilation, etc. As this is a global forum, it's not just about Feminism in the west exclusively.

It detracts from the very real issues at hand (like, oh, I dunno--the imminent collapse of the global economy, and the likely very short window of time we have left to do anything about it?) by polarizing people against each other, who might otherwise work together on bigger and more important issues.

I agree that there are other important issues going on and other forms of blatant discrimination here in the United States and the world, such as homophobia and trans-phobia, as well as wealth disparity like you've mentioned. However, the phrase walking and chewing bubblegum comes to mind. Can we not be aware of these issues while we solve other problems? Does taking the time to think about it really shut down everything else?

Also, a lot of feminist theory involves classism, issues on racial discrimination, and gay rights. For men and women, as it's about equality for both sexes in a variety of areas in life, not just exclusively the escalation of women's rights.

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

More on topic: I agree with the sentiments some other posters expressed above: the legal framework is there. Here in the west, to the law, men and women are already equal (perhaps there are some left overs here and there in some forgotten legislation that still have to be removed, but that probably has a less than marginal impact on the day to day life). If there's discrimination against you because of your sex, you can go to a court of law and have your rights enforced.

There's no more need for a movement. If women are discriminated against, then they don't need to start a movement, they need to use the tool that is already at their disposal: the law.

Feminism involves men and women uniting through political activity and the law to make that change as well as a social movement. We vote and speak out on issues. If that's insulting to women, then democracy is inherently insulting to those who participate in it.

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

Feminists want positive discrimination, they want executive positions on the merit of being born with a vagina. I'm a feminist at heart as women should have equal rights, but absolutely nothing more

I had to double check that those two sentences were really back to back. Feminists at heart do believe women should have equal rights and not something more. People who misconstrue what feminism is go with your first statement.

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

A bigger one is ignorance--in this case showcased by people willing to continue throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a cause that has long since fulfilled its purpose. We should be promoting public awareness, enforcing the standard, and making sure everything is honkey-dory, but that wouldn't make nearly enough money for all the organizations that rely on this kind of manufactured outrage would it?

I don't see anyone here asking you to put your money into anything, or divert funding. "We should be promoting public awareness, enforcing the standard, and making sure everything is honkey-dory." We're talking about this issue here in a public space about bringing public awareness to feminist issues. You're frustrated that we're just beating a dead horse.

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

Feminism is basically sexist, it only focuses on one issue, gender, and only from one point of view.

Feminist theory goes into much more than simply the issue of gender from the angle of a woman. It also includes issues relating to men's rights, racial issues, classism, and GLBT rights.

What I have never seen feminism address is the conplicity of the Matriarchy and the benefit women recieved from a male-dominated political system in a violent and uncertain world.

In regards to Matriarchy, proportionately the balance of Matrifocal societies is so rare against the more common Patriarchal system that I'm not sure how relevant it is. Women of the Iroquois had significant political power. I have trouble thinking of much more than that, compared to the thousands of years of our history where it's the opposite.

As for the benefits women receive from a male dominated system, I'd argue that it's a matter of your interpretation. In say, polygamy, if more women are able to be supported by fewer rich men, you could argue it'd be easier for her to find some level of stability in the world than otherwise. You could also argue it reduces women into being more of a commodity. The man can marry multiple women as suits his fancy, but the woman is restricted to that one marriage and under the power of that man. I'm not an expert on any of that so that may be a weak example, but, what I'm trying to argue is that certain benefits as a result of a system does not mean that that system is treating both groups equally or equivalently. In a male dominated society, whatever benefits you perceive to women under it, when the power structure is focused on men, men are more powerful.

I know in the UK there are a number of female MPs in Parliament who take testosterone in orde to compete.

I'm not familiar with that, but I'll naturally take your word for it :p. However, are they taking testosterone for an innate advantage from it, or because in a male dominated parliament they feel that they need the impact of its traits to compete in that demographic?

Women do produce testosterone, (and men do produce estrogen). Obviously it's at different levels, and the method of synthesis is different, but there is balance of those chemicals in men and women that affect certain aspects of behavior. Those levels are also not the same from woman to woman and man to man. Testosterone is largely linked to higher aggression (some argue status-seeking behavior), but that drive exists with in men and women at different levels not just apart from sex but as an individual. So my question is if she is taking testosterone, is she feeling that she needs to be more aggressive than she innately is? I'd say that's her action stems from the pressure presented by a male dominated political system that seems to focus on aggression, and not an innate advantage.

Paul says that when a man and a women marry they should not deny each other sexual relations because they own each other, both equally.

Well, the problem is the bible is full of contradictory statements, and it's up to which one you focus on in terms of how you can make your arguement. It also says the opposite.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Corinthians 11:9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Blaming religion for the oppression of women is like blaming it for war, it makes religion (as a social system) into some autonomous force distinguishable from society at large, rather than an expression of society. To put it another way, an egalitarian society will produce an egalitarian religion, a violent one will produce a violent religion (see Vikings).

I agree here that I certainly can't lump everything into it, and I don't mean to ^^. That was just a branch example that came to me to make a point. There are many secular reasons for the way people treat each other unfairly throughout history, so I don't mean to present my argument exclusively like that.

I honeslty believe that the feminist deabte has done more to oppress women than liberate them, it has made women's bodies more objectifiable by rejecting traditional gender roles that valued the more intangible elements of femininity and it has removed the impetutus for men to treat women with respect by casting the traditional man and simply sexist.

One of the big issues with feminism is that it has failed to recognise the psychological damage that rejecting traditional gender roles has on men. If a man can't provide, can't protect "his" woman, what is he?

I have so many issues with this that it's going to have to wait for tomorrow. I also haven't had time to read everything in the thread yet, so I apologize. I know there have been follow up comments on issues but I'll have to catch up when I've actually had some sleep.

As the first son going back many generations, in the direct line, I have more issues with it. Care to provide an answer?

These sort of tie together so I'll try and address them the same. This will probably come down to just a matter of disagreement between us, but here is my view. As individuals we are all a unique expression of a variety of traits, such as how self-confident we are or aren't, nurturing, passive, aggressive, sensitive, assertive, etc.

However, these traits are largely drawn down an artificial gender line. To be feminine is to be more sensitive, caring, compassionate, passive, etc. To be masculine is to be more aggressive, determined, brave, etc.

While we are our own unique blend of various traits, we are conditioned by society to conform mainly to the aspects of ourselves that match what people perceive our gender role to be. Gender is different than sex, sex being biological, and gender being the expectations that societies have for men and women, which have variation throughout history.

I am male, but I definitely have what you'd consider more of a feminine personality. I'm not very aggressive or dominant at all, I'm rather shy, often anxious, and the traits I tend to find the most important in people is their kindness and compassion to one another and their ability to try and cooperate. I don't like conflict, and while I enjoy discussions like this, confrontation makes me uncomfortable, although I try and speak up for what I believe in. A lot of people consider those to be feminine traits.

I know you know next to nothing about me, but, if all you knew was that profile of me, I doubt you would approve of me (at least in terms of how a man should be in society). I however like how I am and feel I have unique strengths and perspective from that. It's not always an advantage, but it's not always a disadvantage either.

If a boy cries, he's told to not show it, because it demeans him. If a man is sensitive, it can be seen as a positive trait, but if he is overly sensitive with other similar traits, society (and other men) pressure him to harden up.

We used to live in a world where both sexes were held more rigorously to this dichotomy. However, due in large part to the liberation of women, women have more freedom to blend the lines more today. For example, a woman who is confident, assertive, and independent is considered a much more acceptable thing that it was. She can couple that with traditionally feminine traits and society does not mind as much.

However, men are still held much more rigorously to just one end of the spectrum. Whatever your natural disposition is, society typically tries to shape you into the mold of what it expects of you as a man or woman. You hide traits that society does not approve of until they're either suppressed or gone.

I see that as ridiculous and stifling who we are as individuals as well as our natural strengths. I don't think feminine characteristics in a male make him weak, and a lot of people blur the boundary with androgynous behavior.

I'll try and steer this mega post to an end , thank you for your points Philipvs, and I'd be interested in your responding opinion if you have the time ^^.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Feminist theory goes into much more than simply the issue of gender from the angle of a woman. It also includes issues relating to men's rights, racial issues, classism, and GLBT rights.

Thats all about making common cause with the oppressed though. Everybody who has been disadvantaged by the "Old white men".

In regards to Matriarchy, proportionately the balance of Matrifocal societies is so rare against the more common Patriarchal system that I'm not sure how relevant it is. Women of the Iroquois had significant political power. I have trouble thinking of much more than that, compared to the thousands of years of our history where it's the opposite.

The "Matriarchy" exists in every society, just like the "Patriarchy", because of the way that the elder generation interacts with it's own sex/gender and the younger generation. Up until the 19th century the majority of women were happy enough to live in a society which was, politically speaking, male-dominated. Once they stopped being happy with that they started agitating for change. It is simply impossible that women could be actively oppressed by men for thousands of years because their wives would slit their throats while they slept, or wash their jumpers in boiling water to make them shrink, refuse to do the ironing... etc.

As for the benefits women receive from a male dominated system, I'd argue that it's a matter of your interpretation. In say, polygamy, if more women are able to be supported by fewer rich men, you could argue it'd be easier for her to find some level of stability in the world than otherwise. You could also argue it reduces women into being more of a commodity. The man can marry multiple women as suits his fancy, but the woman is restricted to that one marriage and under the power of that man. I'm not an expert on any of that so that may be a weak example, but, what I'm trying to argue is that certain benefits as a result of a system does not mean that that system is treating both groups equally or equivalently. In a male dominated society, whatever benefits you perceive to women under it, when the power structure is focused on men, men are more powerful.

There's a great quote from a WWII two film where a Yorkshireman and an African are talking about marriage. The Yorkshireman is grousing about his wife, then he asks about Islamic polygamy, and the African explains that the Koran allows a man to have four wives. The Yorkshireman asks if the African can have four wives, his response is, "No, I don't think my wife would like that!"

The reality of human relationships is that abusive marriages are still miserable one for all involved. If a man feels like a king it can only be because his wife lets him. I'm not a fan of polygamy, for exactly the reasons you mentioned - but then easy divorce (popular among many early feminists) has all the same problems. A man can select a young and economically dependant bride, and later trade her in for a younger one.

On the other hand, in a society where the exercise of violence is a key criterion of power a man's life is both valuable and unstable. You only have to look at Icelandic chieftans, a relatively equitable society btw, to see how precarious the life of a warlord is. If you are a disenfranchised woman you are well out of that, and so are your children. Being weak is to be nonthreatening, and being an object of desire gives you societal value without the attached danger of being a warrior.

One of my favourite medieval women, Emma of Normandy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_of_Normandy

I'm not familiar with that, but I'll naturally take your word for it :p. However, are they taking testosterone for an innate advantage from it, or because in a male dominated parliament they feel that they need the impact of its traits to compete in that demographic?

I'm going with "both", I mention it as it has "been reported".

Women do produce testosterone, (and men do produce estrogen). Obviously it's at different levels, and the method of synthesis is different, but there is balance of those chemicals in men and women that affect certain aspects of behavior. Those levels are also not the same from woman to woman and man to man. Testosterone is largely linked to higher aggression (some argue status-seeking behavior), but that drive exists with in men and women at different levels not just apart from sex but as an individual. So my question is if she is taking testosterone, is she feeling that she needs to be more aggressive than she innately is? I'd say that's her action stems from the pressure presented by a male dominated political system that seems to focus on aggression, and not an innate advantage.

Actually, testosterone is linked directly to high competetiveness, not so much aggression. Men are much more competetive, especially the successful ones, not that this is always a good thing. The recent financial crisis is an example of male competetiveness run amok, as most traders are still men.

Well, the problem is the bible is full of contradictory statements, and it's up to which one you focus on in terms of how you can make your arguement. It also says the opposite.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Corinthians 11:9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

That's one man's opinion, that other men later agreed with. Patriarchal society produces Patriarchal religion, it's not surprising.

I agree here that I certainly can't lump everything into it, and I don't mean to ^^. That was just a branch example that came to me to make a point. There are many secular reasons for the way people treat each other unfairly throughout history, so I don't mean to present my argument exclusively like that.

I would describe focusing of any institution, be it religion, education, secular law, etc. is just a distraction.

These sort of tie together so I'll try and address them the same. This will probably come down to just a matter of disagreement between us, but here is my view. As individuals we are all a unique expression of a variety of traits, such as how self-confident we are or aren't, nurturing, passive, aggressive, sensitive, assertive, etc.

However, these traits are largely drawn down an artificial gender line. To be feminine is to be more sensitive, caring, compassionate, passive, etc. To be masculine is to be more aggressive, determined, brave, etc.

It's not artificial though, not man made - is it? It may not be a cut and dried line "this much aggression is masculine" or "this much sensitivity is feminine" - the point is that traditional gender roles are social constructs that reflect our natural gender bias. Even in more eqitable societies, like the early British tribes, the gender roles were largely the same, and that comes back to basic biology and physiology.

While we are our own unique blend of various traits, we are conditioned by society to conform mainly to the aspects of ourselves that match what people perceive our gender role to be. Gender is different than sex, sex being biological, and gender being the expectations that societies have for men and women, which have variation throughout history.

I don't agree with this, your sex and your gender are not seperable. We have a discourse in our society that almsot anything you want to do or be is psychologically healthy, and I don't quite buy it. It's like Reg in The Life of Brian demanding the right to have a baby, even though he doesn't have a womb. If gender is just a social construct it doesn't make any sense, except as a conspiracy to keep women in their place by making men "active" and women "passive" in their social roles.

What I find extraordinary about that is it takes at face value the hierarchy of traits which places the traditionally "masculine" above the "feminine". A more intelligent critique would look not at gender roles themselves so much as the relative value they are given by society. Why is going out to work considered to be a more "active" or "proactive" life choice than staying home and raising children?

Which do you suppose it harder? Forget to finish that report by the end of the week and the company loses money, forget to feed the baby and it dies. The survival of our species is totally dependant on women and their tradionally "feminine" role, otherwise we go exstinct.

I am male, but I definitely have what you'd consider more of a feminine personality. I'm not very aggressive or dominant at all, I'm rather shy, often anxious, and the traits I tend to find the most important in people is their kindness and compassion to one another and their ability to try and cooperate. I don't like conflict, and while I enjoy discussions like this, confrontation makes me uncomfortable, although I try and speak up for what I believe in. A lot of people consider those to be feminine traits.

I know you know next to nothing about me, but, if all you knew was that profile of me, I doubt you would approve of me (at least in terms of how a man should be in society). I however like how I am and feel I have unique strengths and perspective from that. It's not always an advantage, but it's not always a disadvantage either.

Oh I don't know, you should try reading some of the things "manly" men wrote over the centuries, Belle Dame Sans Mercie was probably written by a French Knight, the kind who spent a lot of his time getting better at cutting people's heads off.

If a boy cries, he's told to not show it, because it demeans him. If a man is sensitive, it can be seen as a positive trait, but if he is overly sensitive with other similar traits, society (and other men) pressure him to harden up.

This is true up to a point, the number of men who actually tell a man to "buck up" when he cries is actually not that big - but men do tend to burst into tears spontaniously much less often with men, and that is a typically female trait (often when a man upsets her) and it has been suggested that the reason that happens is because men are not, generally, good at reading emotions.

We used to live in a world where both sexes were held more rigorously to this dichotomy. However, due in large part to the liberation of women, women have more freedom to blend the lines more today. For example, a woman who is confident, assertive, and independent is considered a much more acceptable thing that it was. She can couple that with traditionally feminine traits and society does not mind as much.

Strong men have always found weak women boring, see Emma above, but I would contend that the backlash came from women asserting themselves within male spheres of competion. Men need to compete, with other men, the competition is invalid if you introduce women into the mix because it's women you are trying to impress - It's not that impressive if the thing you're better at than other men is something a woman is better at than you, though.

[quote]However, men are still held much more rigorously to just one end of the spectrum. Whatever your natural disposition is, society typically tries to shape you into the mold of what it expects of you as a man or woman. You hide traits that society does not approve of until they're either suppressed or gone.

I see that as ridiculous and stifling who we are as individuals as well as our natural strengths. I don't think feminine characteristics in a male make him weak, and a lot of people blur the boundary with androgynous behavior.QUOTE]

I don't think I agree with this, I think children of both sexes have the capacity to be extremely cruel, but adults are generally more understanding have been historically. I had an argument with my parents the other week when they said that so long as gay people were unobtrusive nobaby cared that they were gay, even though everybody knew. I don't agree with that way of treating people, but it's worth noting that there used to other ways of accomodating difference that didn't involve labeling it.

[Crazed Rabbit]

What? No, it isn't. It's a comment on the way people planning ahead is shunted down particular paths due to economic circumstances outside of their control.

That's insulting to women, isn't it? To say that the initial economic advantage outlined in that cartoon you linked to is outside their control, or that the choice of when or if to have children is outside their control.

CR

[Husar]

I find this thread depressing, like most discussion on gender and the stereotyping that always comes with it. And I didn't even read half the posts due to a lack of time.

A lot of these things are in the eye of the beholder, are shaped by experience, surroundings and what we learned, coming to a common understanding is almost impossible.

I could give you my view but some of you would think I'm an inexperienced idiot so I won't.

[Syl]

I think its time for me to withdraw from this thread. I support feminism and equality--I truly do. I tend to date open-minded and active women, and am not the least bit attracted to your typical house wife no matter how good she looks.

I just firmly believe that this is an issue that divides people who would otherwise work together on bigger issues. As this argument goes on, some of you are trying (and suceeding) to paint my posts as anti-woman or anti-feminism, and I don't want that to be the case.

Gelatinous Cube,

I know you're not anti-woman at all. Nothing you have said even remotely suggests that, and I am not trying to imply anything like that. You seem like a really great and open minded guy from almost everything I've read from you in these forums. I understand that you feel feminism is divisive and that it takes attention away from other important issues. My opinion on it is very very different and I'm pretty passionate about it, and I believe a lot of people have a very wrong impression on what feminism stands for. I believe it's still important and involves a lot of issues that are still relevant today, even with so much of the incredible progress we've made.

That said, our disagreement is not much more than that, and I don't want you to feel that I'm attacking you or trying to construe you as something different.

[Viking]

You mean, the difference between sex and gender, right?

I meant what I wrote, word by word according to common meanings of these specific words.

The percentage of women in the world who are treated badly because of their gender is much, much higher than 10%, and it's disingenuous of you to imply as such.

No person lives in all cultures at once. Feminism claims validity and relevance in every contemporary society. Furthermore, if the degree of which females within the same culture feel treated badly because of their gender varies greatly (from rape and murder on one end, to simply being laughed at in certain situations at the other end), then feminism also becomes weak, because gender becomes only one factor out of many. Seemingly the one factor that has the least to say when you remember that the physical gender necessarily will play a great role when it comes to how people are treated, simply because the physical properties of a person put limits on which roles are possible (example: a female in a former society was not likely to be treated like a melee warrior, because she was not likely to be a relevantly useful one).

Pretty much everything is an ideology, and it's a poor argument to say that something is bad because it's an ideology. Geertz neatly summed up these arguments as falling into the familiar paradigm "I have a social philosophy; you have political opinions; he has an ideology."

Everything is not an ideology. That would make the word meaningless. An ideology is something comprehensive, a big body of thought and ideas to explain the world or society; or at least considerable parts of it. An ideology is not something you create for a cause. Rather it is something that decides which causes are worthy.

[Subotan]

I just firmly believe that this is an issue that divides people who would otherwise work together on bigger issues. As this argument goes on, some of you are trying (and suceeding) to paint my posts as anti-woman or anti-feminism, and I don't want that to be the case.

I don't think you're anti-woman or anti-feminist (For one thing, you're definitely not an MRA. )I mentioned the term Kyriarchy earlier, and I think it's particularly relevant to answer the problems you have with feminism.

I find this thread depressing, like most discussion on gender and the stereotyping that always comes with it. And I didn't even read half the posts due to a lack of time.

A lot of these things are in the eye of the beholder, are shaped by experience, surroundings and what we learned, coming to a common understanding is almost impossible.

I could give you my view but some of you would think I'm an inexperienced idiot so I won't.

No, go on, speak your mind!

I meant what I wrote, word by word according to common meanings of these specific words.

...Sex is biological, gender is mental.

No person lives in all cultures at once. Feminism claims validity and relevance in every contemporary society. Furthermore, if the degree of which females within the same culture feel treated badly because of their gender varies greatly (from rape and murder on one end, to simply being laughed at in certain situations at the other end), then feminism also becomes weak, because gender becomes only one factor out of many. Seemingly the one factor that has the least to say when you remember that the physical gender necessarily will play a great role when it comes to how people are treated, simply because the physical properties of a person put limits on which roles are possible (example: a female in a former society was not likely to be treated like a melee warrior, because she was not likely to be a relevantly useful one).

gender becomes only one factor out of many - Not in all cases.A rich white woman who is raped is just as oppressed for her gender as a poor black woman, to vastly oversimplify. Also, see what I said about kyriarchy.

Everything is not an ideology. That would make the word meaningless. An ideology is something comprehensive, a big body of thought and ideas to explain the world or society; or at least considerable parts of it. An ideology is not something you create for a cause. Rather it is something that decides which causes are worthy.

Will expand on this later - remind me.

[Dagonet]

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.

[Syl]

Thats all about making common cause with the oppressed though. Everybody who has been disadvantaged by the "Old white men".

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.

The "Matriarchy" exists in every society, just like the "Patriarchy", because of the way that the elder generation interacts with it's own sex/gender and the younger generation. Up until the 19th century the majority of women were happy enough to live in a society which was, politically speaking, male-dominated. Once they stopped being happy with that they started agitating for change. It is simply impossible that women could be actively oppressed by men for thousands of years because their wives would slit their throats while they slept, or wash their jumpers in boiling water to make them shrink, refuse to do the ironing... etc.

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. 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.

The reality of human relationships is that abusive marriages are still miserable one for all involved. If a man feels like a king it can only be because his wife lets him. I'm not a fan of polygamy, for exactly the reasons you mentioned - but then easy divorce (popular among many early feminists) has all the same problems. A man can select a young and economically dependant bride, and later trade her in for a younger one.

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.

On the other hand, in a society where the exercise of violence is a key criterion of power a man's life is both valuable and unstable. You only have to look at Icelandic chieftans, a relatively equitable society btw, to see how precarious the life of a warlord is. If you are a disenfranchised woman you are well out of that, and so are your children. Being weak is to be nonthreatening, and being an object of desire gives you societal value without the attached danger of being a warrior.

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.

Actually, testosterone is linked directly to high competitiveness, not so much aggression. Men are much more competetive, especially the successful ones, not that this is always a good thing. The recent financial crisis is an example of male competitiveness run amok, as most traders are still men.

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.

Well, the problem is the bible is full of contradictory statements, and it's up to which one you focus on in terms of how you can make your arguement. It also says the opposite.
Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Corinthians 11:9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

That's one man's opinion, that other men later agreed with. Patriarchal society produces Patriarchal religion, it's not surprising.

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.

I don't agree with this, your sex and your gender are not seperable. We have a discourse in our society that almsot anything you want to do or be is psychologically healthy, and I don't quite buy it.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 had an argument with my parents the other week when they said that so long as gay people were unobtrusive nobaby cared that they were gay, even though everybody knew. I don't agree with that way of treating people, but it's worth noting that there used to other ways of accomodating difference that didn't involve labeling it.

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 hide traits society dissaproves of until I am powerful enough to not care. Sound silly? Sure is. True? Yup.

Just call me a level 70 unsatisfied citizen.

I couldn't help but picture a level 70 Gelatinous Cube. One the size of a pyramid with a castle floating around inside and distressed little soldiers. The horror.

[Hax]

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.

Its posts.

[Beskar]

Its posts.

"It" is impersonal, "it" refers to an object and not a person.

Admittedly, at least we don't have the weird female-chairs and male-tables in English which our European cousins have.

[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.

[Ironside]

Well, guess what, it works both ways. Far from undermining an an oppressive mesh of structural factors that maintains an artificial divide between the sexes and returning them to a more natural state of equality, I think feminism does the opposite. What is does is create its own artificial ideal of what a woman should be, and what she should do, and how she should live her life. In fact it attempts to make women into a copy of what is essentially the classic male rolemodel.

I mean, feminists complain at how society pressures women into a certain lifestyle. How, until at least very recently, women might be expected to be housekeepers, and many probably will still be encouraged in that direction by their parents or spouses or whoever. Well, the feminist system has created its own pressures. The successful, modern woman is now expected to have her own career and successes independent of her husband, to work her own 9-5 job and maintain herself even when married. And for things like having kids to be put off until her 40's... I've heard a lot about how feminism seeks to deconstruct artificial societal norms and return to a more natural and fairer state... well what on earth is natural about putting off having kids until the absolute maximum end of your fertile years (creating health risks for parent and child), just so that you can life the idealised life of a man in the 1950's?!

First rule of induvidualism is economic independence. So any induvidialistic solution needs to resolve this first.

The aging matter is also based on increased education and applies to both genders.

The "Matriarchy" exists in every society, just like the "Patriarchy", because of the way that the elder generation interacts with it's own sex/gender and the younger generation. Up until the 19th century the majority of women were happy enough to live in a society which was, politically speaking, male-dominated. Once they stopped being happy with that they started agitating for change. It is simply impossible that women could be actively oppressed by men for thousands of years because their wives would slit their throats while they slept, or wash their jumpers in boiling water to make them shrink, refuse to do the ironing... etc.

It's simply impossible that North-Koreans are being oppressed by their goverment. Or slaves to be oppressed by thier masters.

And to be picky, the big boost in woman rights was because during the 19th century, thier rich fathers suddenly ended up with daughters impossible to marry off properly (due to lack of men with proper status in the cities). Ergo, they had to do something.

The reality of human relationships is that abusive marriages are still miserable one for all involved. If a man feels like a king it can only be because his wife lets him. I'm not a fan of polygamy, for exactly the reasons you mentioned - but then easy divorce (popular among many early feminists) has all the same problems. A man can select a young and economically dependant bride, and later trade her in for a younger one.

Instead of all optional brides being economically dependable and cheat with the maid later on?

Really? We're arguing about the evils of modern grammar now?

What next, the Moon is secretly plotting against women?

This is the sort of thing that makes certain portions of the population very skeptical of ALL Feminist causes, whether that's fair or not.

While "his story" is going way into overdrive, the dominant male form does have influence in the thinking and a gender neutral pronoun should be quite practical sometimes (dear sir/madame).
Gelatinous Cude didn't get pregnant with an elephant by a French soldier, nor is he a bigotic idiot who flies naked from his backroof during the weekend. Thanks to the mind ignoring the word "not", you'll probably feel a bit insulted reeding the statement above even if it's true.

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2053410503]
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.



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.

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.

Gender is used to describe the social construct on top of the sex. Of course it's going to be artifical.

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.

Source please. Obviously, it suddenly made it possible for the woman to move up by their own accord, as the starting point.

[Viking]

...Sex is biological, gender is mental.

The English language is not completely with you on this one.

gender becomes only one factor out of many - Not in all cases.A rich white woman who is raped is just as oppressed for her gender as a poor black woman, to vastly oversimplify. Also, see what I said about kyriarchy.

That is a very shallow analysis. First, who is most likely to be a rapist if you randomley chose a case? Looking at strength alone, this would be a male person. Who is most likely to be a victim? Again, looking only at strength, this would be a female.

Now of course, men can be stronger than other men by a lot (and women stronger than men). But since most men happen not to be interested in sexual activity with other men, a man-on-man rape should not be expected to be very common; looking at no other parameters. And indeed, this is the case for the real world.

So if a woman is raped merely for being a woman, then this would have to imply for this to be relevant; that she was assaulted for a hatred of her gender. That is to say that a rich man would be robbed not because he is a good target because of his wealth (gain for the robbers), but because he belonged to a group of people that is labeled as 'rich'.

A hatred of a gender should be distributed relatively evenly within a society through culture. Thus, if a woman is treated pretty badly by a man, this is much more likely to be an isolated incidence if women generally are treated well in this society, rather than stemming from a particular point/side of this culture.

For feminism, the cultural aspect is the most important one, so it wants bad treatment to stem from the culture, in one form or the other.