Feminism and Gender

[A Laughing Baby]

I disagree. I don't think these perceptions are engrained in our biology at all; I think they're cultural, and we can get over them.

The biological differences between males and females are far, far less drastic than the differences between the man archetype and the woman archetype in our society.

100% agreed.

 

[Indy418]

The fact that the two sexes are culturally and biologically different means that women and men often choose different things -and that's OK. Men traditionally choose to peruse ambitious careers and choose a spouse who will raise their kids. Women traditionally choose their family over their career. These choices can give the appearance of inequality but that isn't really a fair assessment. I guess the argument is: Do women choose this because they don't have the opportunity to do otherwise or because there is some biological imperative?

I think that is a good question. From what I've read and the people I've talked with, it seems that a lot of the way that genders are seen (as far as career vs raising children) are due to tradition and the way things were perceived to have been in the past. Now that women have more opportunities in traditionally male dominated careers, more women are focusing on a career. One thing I've noticed is that more women (and their spouses) are having children later in life after focusing on a career. I'm surprised at how many woman have children at or after 40.

I think that the opportunity vs biological imperative is interesting in that I know women who have no desire to have children and are happy to focus on their career, women who have a career they love and children, and women who are happy to stay home with their children. I know a few men that stay home with their children. I'd be interested to know how many people (women and men) would prefer to stay home with their children if they had enough money to do so. It seems that many families need both parents to work.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I think that the opportunity vs biological imperative is interesting in that I know women who have no desire to have children and are happy to focus on their career, women who have a career they love and children, and women who are happy to stay home with their children. I know a few men that stay home with their children. I'd be interested to know how many people (women and men) would prefer to stay home with their children if they had enough money to do so. It seems that many families need both parents to work.

There's no question that I would prefer to stay home with my children if my situation allowed it.

In contrast, my spouse prefers to work.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I crack my knuckles a lot, in the style of pushing down on top of my hand. My wife pointed out to me that when we were first dating, it made her think I was going to hit her, since I would do it whiled we were talking. I would never dream of harming my wife, but I realize now what it would look like, due to obvious cultural factors.

Actually, while I'm not discounting that there may be issues here with gendered behavior, you might ask you wife if people, especially her parents, were routinely violent toward her when she was growing up. For me, at least, having grown up in a household where physical violence and the fear instilled by it were routinely used as a means of social control, I still shy away from sudden movements that occur at the edges of my fielld of vision, as I have been conditioned to perceive them as a prelude to violence.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It's true! I feel like I just saw a unicorn and I can't tell anyone because they'll think I'm crazy.

Do you have Russell's tea pot in your china cabinet?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Do you have Russell's tea pot in your china cabinet?

That's an awfully inconvenient place to leave one's china cabinet.

 

[bookitty]

Actually, while I'm not discounting that there may be issues here with gendered behavior, you might ask you wife if people, especially her parents, were routinely violent toward her when she was growing up. For me, at least, having grown up in a household where physical violence and the fear instilled by it were routinely used as a means of social control, I still shy away from sudden movements that occur at the edges of my fielld of vision, as I have been conditioned to perceive them as a prelude to violence.

Hmmm...I read it differently. I've always been outspoken. Severe social anxiety makes it much easier for me to discuss issues than make small talk. I'm more comfortable in a heated discussion and I'm a feminist, liberal. While debating in person with men, I have noticed a tendency for their body language to change when I don't back down. Voice gets louder, they move closer, visible clench their fists and other displays that hint at physical aggression. I've also seen this work on other women.

During a rousing debate, if I see a man making these movements, I don't think that they are going to hit me necessarily but they are hinting that they could and that makes me uncomfortable.

Laughing's wife probably has a completely different opinion on the matter, however.

 

[bookitty]

I think that is a good question. From what I've read and the people I've talked with, it seems that a lot of the way that genders are seen (as far as career vs raising children) are due to tradition and the way things were perceived to have been in the past. Now that women have more opportunities in traditionally male dominated careers, more women are focusing on a career. One thing I've noticed is that more women (and their spouses) are having children later in life after focusing on a career. I'm surprised at how many woman have children at or after 40.

I think that the opportunity vs biological imperative is interesting in that I know women who have no desire to have children and are happy to focus on their career, women who have a career they love and children, and women who are happy to stay home with their children. I know a few men that stay home with their children. I'd be interested to know how many people (women and men) would prefer to stay home with their children if they had enough money to do so. It seems that many families need both parents to work.

I have never, ever wanted children. Never heard the tick of the so-called biological clock, even before it was silenced forever. I don't look back with regrets. Had I grown up in a world without access to family planning, I may have had a child. I would have done everything possible to avoid being the primary caretaker.

This is not because I hate children. I don't, I think they are wonderful magical creatures which properly belong with other people. Parenting is not for everyone nor is it so simple that everyone is suited for it. It should always be a job performed by someone with aptitude and passion for the task. My job, which I perform very well, is aunt.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Hmmm...I read it differently. I've always been outspoken. Severe social anxiety makes it much easier for me to discuss issues than make small talk. I'm more comfortable in a heated discussion and I'm a feminist, liberal. While debating in person with men, I have noticed a tendency for their body language to change when I don't back down. Voice gets louder, they move closer, visible clench their fists and other displays that hint at physical aggression. I've also seen this work on other women.

During a rousing debate, if I see a man making these movements, I don't think that they are going to hit me necessarily but they are hinting that they could and that makes me uncomfortable.

Laughing's wife probably has a completely different opinion on the matter, however.

I was specifically referring to a neutral stimulus being read as threatening. For instance, several months ago someone raised their hand to give me a high-five and I ducked because I thought he was going to hit me. I had no reason to believe he in particular was going to hit me,as he had never hit me before and hasn't hit me since, but I, nonetheless, assumed that he was going to hit me.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I'm really sorry that you had to go through experiences like that, mijopaalmc.

 

[GreyArea]

While debating in person with men, I have noticed a tendency for their body language to change when I don't back down. Voice gets louder, they move closer, visible clench their fists and other displays that hint at physical aggression.

That's a very interesting observation. Do you see that behavior as a sign that your opponent is losing the argument? Or does his potential physical threat overshadow the signal?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Feminism, at its worst, is an excuse to encourage hatred and fear of men. It can create new gender stereotypes that constrain us in new ways, and can act as a "women's interest" group - often at the expense of equality for men and women both.

While I hate to play the no-true-feminist game, it is important to point out that extremist groups often appropriate a label to lend their actions and ideas undeserved legitimacy. For instance, there is some fairly strong evidence that early Christianity appropriated ancient Jewish semiotics to lend the movement legitimacy in its supposed antiquity. The issue here is that historians and religious scholars end up with a movement that calls itself Jewish that is not Jewish in the same way that Second Temple Judaism is Jewish and that, more importantly, after the destruction of the Second Temple in 66 CE, was not Jewish in the same way that rabbinic-Talmudic Judaism is Jewish. Thus, there are really two (or more, if Judaism is considered from the semi-legendary, pre-Davidic period) Judaisms that are themselves contradictory in their very nature.

Similarly, there are many feminisms, so to argue that take one self-identified feminist or self-identified feminism as representative of every, or even most, feminisms is making the same category error as assuming that Christian claims to Jewish (or, more properly and specifically, Israelite-Davidic) roots imply that there is a cultural and ideological continuity between Second Temple Judaism and Christian and, possibly, a discontinuity between the former and rabbinic-Talmudic Judaism.

For instance, taking Valerie Solanas as representative of radical feminism or radical feminism as representative of a monolithic feminism or, in a gross abuse of language and linguistics, taking "radical" to mean "extreme" rather than "going to the root", is to ignore (possibly deliberately) the differences between feminisms.

 

[AvalonXQ]

While I hate to play the no-true-feminist game, it is important to point out that extremist groups often appropriate a label to lend their actions and ideas undeserved legitimacy.

That's true, but there's more than enough of this radical misandry and androphobia displayed in popular, well-read feminist works and by celebrated and prominant figures in the feminist movement that it is unreasonable to claim that these activities were not, and are not, part of feminism.

To give an analogy, you can reasonably separate the Westboro Baptists from Christianity; they are a true fringe that nobody gives any serious credence to. In contrast, you cannot reasonably separate the Pope from Christianity -- that really would be playing the "no true Christian" game.

 

[luchog]

Lots of comments on feminism, not much on gender. As a transgendered person, this is something that I have to deal with constantly. And I have to say, that I have rarely gotten as much hate from any mainstream group as I have from hardcore feminists. Not even necessarily the radical fringes, but from some of the most mainstream-leaning but somewhat puritanical types. MtF TGs are often treated as agent provocateurs, and I've listened to some of the more radical types come right out an say that TGs don't really exist, but are a patriarchal plot to discredit feminism. Including one on this board, many years ago. And it's not just MtF, but FtM are also not well-liked, although they're typically treated as simply delusional or fa "symptom of the true problem".

 

[mijopaalmc]

That's true, but there's more than enough of this radical misandry and androphobia displayed in popular, well-read feminist works and by celebrated and prominant figures in the feminist movement that it is unreasonable to claim that these activities were not, and are not, part of feminism.

To give an analogy, you can reasonably separate the Westboro Baptists from Christianity; they are a true fringe that nobody gives any serious credence to. In contrast, you cannot reasonably separate the Pope from Christianity -- that really would be playing the "no true Christian" game.

Did you even bother to read the read of my posts?

I said that each self-identified feminism is a feminism, but the claim that one feminism is representative of all feminism is to (deliberately) misconstrue what other feminisms say.

Instead of making vague accusations against "prominant(sic) figures in the feminist movement" (emphasis mine), why not actually present actual evidence of "this radical misandry and androphobia"?

And please try not to treat feminism as a monolithic movement; it is a sign of intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

 

[Mycroft]

Lots of comments on feminism, not much on gender. As a transgendered person, this is something that I have to deal with constantly. And I have to say, that I have rarely gotten as much hate from any mainstream group as I have from hardcore feminists. Not even necessarily the radical fringes, but from some of the most mainstream-leaning but somewhat puritanical types. MtF TGs are often treated as agent provocateurs, and I've listened to some of the more radical types come right out an say that TGs don't really exist, but are a patriarchal plot to discredit feminism. Including one on this board, many years ago. And it's not just MtF, but FtM are also not well-liked, although they're typically treated as simply delusional or fa "symptom of the true problem".

Yes, the feminist hatred of trans-gendered people is something I've only recently discovered. Has that always been the case?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Did you even bother to read the read of my posts?

I said that each self-identified feminism is a feminism, but the claim that one feminism is representative of all feminism is to (deliberately) misconstrue what other feminisms say.

Instead of making vague accusations against "prominant(sic) figures in the feminist movement" (emphasis mine), why not actually present actual evidence of "this radical misandry and androphobia"?

And please try not to treat feminism as a monolithic movement; it is a sign of intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

Sorry, but this post is phrased too impolitely for me to choose to respond to it.
If you have a point you would like me to address, feel free to present it in a way that doesn't also attack me and accuse me of things.
Thanks.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Lots of comments on feminism, not much on gender. As a transgendered person, this is something that I have to deal with constantly. And I have to say, that I have rarely gotten as much hate from any mainstream group as I have from hardcore feminists. Not even necessarily the radical fringes, but from some of the most mainstream-leaning but somewhat puritanical types. MtF TGs are often treated as agent provocateurs, and I've listened to some of the more radical types come right out an say that TGs don't really exist, but are a patriarchal plot to discredit feminism. Including one on this board, many years ago. And it's not just MtF, but FtM are also not well-liked, although they're typically treated as simply delusional or fa "symptom of the true problem".

Yes, the feminist hatred of trans-gendered people is something I've only recently discovered. Has that always been the case?

Which feminists hate TGs?

Again, I'm not denying that some feminists deride TGs or that the conceptual structure of some feminisms dehumanize TGs, but it didn't take long at all for people who are opposed to some aspects of some feminisms to present their least favorite feminism as representative of some monolithic feminism.

 

[GreyArea]

That's true, but there's more than enough of this radical misandry and androphobia displayed in popular, well-read feminist works and by celebrated and prominant figures in the feminist movement that it is unreasonable to claim that these activities were not, and are not, part of feminism.

Who are some of these figures that you have in mind? And which works are you thinking of?

I am interpreting A Laughing Baby's warning in the OP that this is not a safe space thread to include permission to "name names", as it were. (And please correct me if I am wrong about that, A Laughing Baby.)

 

[mijopaalmc]

Sorry, but this post is phrased too impolitely for me to choose to respond to it.

Yet respond to it you did by refusing to respond to it.

What you, in fact, did is attack the tone of the argument rather than its content and present your post as somehow attacking the content.

If you have a point you would like me to address, feel free to present it in a way that doesn't also attack me and accuse me of things.

I'm sorry you feel personally but asking you for evidence is not in itself a person attack. Neither is pointing out that your post, which apparently responded to a post of mine insofar as your post quoted part of my post, completely ignored the request that people clarify which feminist movement they wanted to address rather than presenting feminism as a monolithic movement, and your post made vague gestures towards some as-yet unnamed feminists without trying to identify the movement they belonged to.