Feminism and Gender

[Jaxe]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Maybe women are simply not as interested in them as men. I'm sure there are areas where this is reversed. Seems fine to me.

There is hard evidence that supports this in research conducted by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen at Trinity College, Cambridge. Others who have come to the same conclusions include Dr. Richard Lippa Professor of Psychology California State University and Professor Anne Campbell at Durham University.

ETA, i don't really know anyone who disputes this claim, just thought i'd mention it...

[Jaxe]

double post...

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by luchog

The context clearly implied that the abuse you described was justified by scripture.

The abuse, no. The submit, yes. The Bible is all about women as submissive second class citizens. Someone with a penchant for both Biblical justification and physical abuse would not have to look very far.

[Rairun]

Originally Posted by Jaxe

There is hard evidence that supports this in research conducted by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen at Trinity College, Cambridge. Others who have come to the same conclusions include Dr. Richard Lippa Professor of Psychology California State University and Professor Anne Campbell at Durham University.

ETA, i don't really know anyone who disputes this claim, just thought i'd mention it...

There are plenty of scientists who dispute it, actually.

[elipse]

"Similarly, women often talk to their cars and copy machines, as if they had minds and feelings. They don’t realize that they cannot really relate to their cars and copy machines, because they have no feelings or emotions; they have no “minds” they can read."


Did this stand out for anyone else in that Psychology Today article? Because it sounds stupid.

Does anyone actually think that a woman (or a man) who says "Goddammit, you stupid computer!" ACTUALLY thinks the computer has feelings and might be affected in any way by what they're saying? No one thinks that. People talk to inanimate objects, and maybe women do it more then men (I dunno about that, though...the men I know who restore classic cars talk to those cars), but this article appears to be making the claim that women actually think the machines have feelings.

That's really stupid. It makes me wonder about the quality control on the whole article...

[Rairun]

Originally Posted by Jaxe

There is hard evidence that supports this in research conducted by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen at Trinity College, Cambridge. Others who have come to the same conclusions include Dr. Richard Lippa Professor of Psychology California State University and Professor Anne Campbell at Durham University.

ETA, i don't really know anyone who disputes this claim, just thought i'd mention it...

Simon Baron-Cohen's review of Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender
Fine's Response to his review

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Yes, okay. But would this be enough for a normal person to expect to be hit when someone cracked their knuckles?

Only if they are talking to Jimmy "the Hat" Johnson.


So, on the main topic, I think of feminism, or egalitarianism, or whatever-you-want-to-call-it-ism as something that abides by three basic principles.

1. There are fundamental differences between men and women, and therefore men and women should not be considered interchangeable.

2. That doesn't mean that men and women cannot be treated equally, in law, in employment, and in society. Equal does not mean same.

3. All injustice should be fought against either gender. Whilst there are more pressing issues for lifting the position of women in society, the issues for men in society should not be overlooked.


So taking those three principles into account, I consider myself a feminist in that I advocate for equal treatment for both genders and for transgendered people, that I wish to raise the awareness of issues that affect all genders and swiftly deal with prejudice on and from all sides, and also that I will find every copy of any book written by an individual with an axe to grind against the other gender, be they man hating women or "men's rights" morons (mens rights as in "why can't we go back to the good old days" rather than groups that fight for equal custody rights and so on) and destroy them.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by elipse

"Similarly, women often talk to their cars and copy machines, as if they had minds and feelings. They don’t realize that they cannot really relate to their cars and copy machines, because they have no feelings or emotions; they have no “minds” they can read."


Did this stand out for anyone else in that Psychology Today article? Because it sounds stupid.

Does anyone actually think that a woman (or a man) who says "Goddammit, you stupid computer!" ACTUALLY thinks the computer has feelings and might be affected in any way by what they're saying? No one thinks that. People talk to inanimate objects, and maybe women do it more then men (I dunno about that, though...the men I know who restore classic cars talk to those cars), but this article appears to be making the claim that women actually think the machines have feelings.

That's really stupid. It makes me wonder about the quality control on the whole article...

Quality control? In Psycholishness Today?

Don't make me release the laughing dogs...

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Only if they are talking to Jimmy "the Hat" Johnson.


So, on the main topic, I think of feminism, or egalitarianism, or whatever-you-want-to-call-it-ism as something that abides by three basic principles.

1. There are fundamental differences between men and women, and therefore men and women should not be considered interchangeable.

2. That doesn't mean that men and women cannot be treated equally, in law, in employment, and in society. Equal does not mean same.

3. All injustice should be fought against either gender. Whilst there are more pressing issues for lifting the position of women in society, the issues for men in society should not be overlooked.


So taking those three principles into account, I consider myself a feminist in that I advocate for equal treatment for both genders and for transgendered people, that I wish to raise the awareness of issues that affect all genders and swiftly deal with prejudice on and from all sides, and also that I will find every copy of any book written by an individual with an axe to grind against the other gender, be they man hating women or "men's rights" morons (mens rights as in "why can't we go back to the good old days" rather than groups that fight for equal custody rights and so on) and destroy them.

I'd have to add in a 4th principle for myself... along the lines of recognizing harm done by inequality in the past, and devising useful means of mitigating the effects of such.

[epepke]

The only thing that catches my attention about feminism and gender is what feminists are going to come up with with respect to increasingly popular gender reassignment, gender fluidity, and pansexuality.

I've noticed that many of the few remaining radical feminists are pretty hostile to all three, and other feminists seem to have little difficulty (except for pansexuality, which gets a lot of hostility).

If history be any guide, there will never be any coherent, common position.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by epepke

The only thing that catches my attention about feminism and gender is what feminists are going to come up with with respect to increasingly popular gender reassignment, gender fluidity, and pansexuality.

I've noticed that many of the few remaining radical feminists are pretty hostile to all three, and other feminists seem to have little difficulty (except for pansexuality, which gets a lot of hostility).

If history be any guide, there will never be any coherent, common position.

Is there such a one with anything else, though?

[epepke]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Is there such a one with anything else, though?

No. Not with anything else within feminism and not with anything else within most -isms. At the present time, conservatism is the most notable. The traditional claims that conservatism seeks a small government and fiscal responsibility are belied by George W. Bush's exorbitant fiscal wartime profligacy and creation of the DHS, possibly the most officious bureaucracy since Prohibition. (The latter, incidentally, was supported by most feminists and opposed by most conservatives at the time.)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by epepke

The only thing that catches my attention about feminism and gender is what feminists are going to come up with with respect to increasingly popular gender reassignment, gender fluidity, and pansexuality.

I've noticed that many of the few remaining radical feminists are pretty hostile to all three, and other feminists seem to have little difficulty (except for pansexuality, which gets a lot of hostility).

If history be any guide, there will never be any coherent, common position.

I think that's got to be because radical feminism (of the radfemhub stream, anyway) needs the assumption that women are inherently better than men in vitally important ways. If men can be acculturated to partake of the good aspects of femininity, or can do so by drugs, surgery or whatever, then being a woman isn't special any more.

I don't have much time for "biology is destiny" sexism whether it's anti-woman or anti-man, myself. I don't think it's well-supported by evidence about how people actually work.

[Rairun]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

I think that's got to be because radical feminism (of the radfemhub stream, anyway) needs the assumption that women are inherently better than men in vitally important ways. If men can be acculturated to partake of the good aspects of femininity, or can do so by drugs, surgery or whatever, then being a woman isn't special any more.

I don't have much time for "biology is destiny" sexism whether it's anti-woman or anti-man, myself. I don't think it's well-supported by evidence about how people actually work.

There are a lot of things I disagree with when it comes to radfemhub feminism (anti-prostitution, anti-porn, anti-PIV, and anti-trans, etc), but to be honest, they don't think women are better than men because of biology. They define "woman" in terms of their oppression - everything else (preferences, personality traits, skills, you name it) is ungendered, because they are not gender essentialists. In fact, the whole reason for their transphobia is that they don't think transwomen have gone through the same struggles other women have. They deny there is such a thing as "feeling like a woman" other than the fact that women are put in a subservient place in our society.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Rairun

There are a lot of things I disagree with when it comes to radfemhub feminism (anti-prostitution, anti-porn, anti-PIV, and anti-trans, etc), but to be honest, they don't think women are better than men because of biology. They define "woman" in terms of their oppression - everything else (preferences, personality traits, skills, you name it) is ungendered, because they are not gender essentialists. In fact, the whole reason for their transphobia is that they don't think transwomen have gone through the same struggles other women have. They deny there is such a thing as "feeling like a woman" other than the fact that women are put in a subservient place in our society.

Nailed it. This is exactly the problem with radical feminism. Well, that and turning every. single. thing. into proof of that subservience.

A mild example - make-up. Yes, wearing make-up is tied into all sorts of social, psychological and historical expectation. It is used to enhance physical attractiveness. Some aspects of make-up mimic outward symptoms of arousal. Physical beauty is a social expectation of women. Lack of beauty can make some women invisible or make it more difficult for them to be taken seriously. Etc. Etc.

But wearing/not wearing make-up is not a political statement unless that is the intent of the wearer. For millions of women, it's just part of the ritual of getting dressed and carries little significance. Radical feminist see all wearing/not wearing make-up as symbolic and focus only on those aspects which reflect oppression (expectations of sexual attractiveness to strangers) which ignores all the reasons why women wear make-up for themselves.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by bookitty

Nailed it. This is exactly the problem with radical feminism. Well, that and turning every. single. thing. into proof of that subservience.

Does this always happen?

I'm not simply being contrarian. Someone of the more infamous radical feminist pronouncement were never made by radical feminists:

Rape Seeded

Quote:

Feminist legal theorist and anti-pornography crusader Catharine A. MacKinnon is no stranger to controversy. During her more than twenty-five years in the public eye, she has placed herself at the heart of a number of storms raging through the realm of public opinion. She has asserted that rape laws are written to protect the perpetrators rather than the victims, and that pornography is a violation of civil rights. She is notable for the part she played in bringing about Canada's tougher anti-pornography laws, and in persuading the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt the view that sexual harassment is a form of sex
discrimination.

MacKinnon is not universally respected or liked, even within the ranks of feminism. Her outspoken nature and strong opinions have created enemies for her, and she has become a convenient target for anyone looking to run down the movement by caricaturing one of its prominent members as a strident harpy who has loudly asserted as fact any number of fool-headed opinions. It is therefore not surprising that she would be tagged with having made a pronouncement such as "All sex is rape," a statement that calls into question the sanity of the person who utters it even as it alienates most everyone who hears it.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Does this always happen?

I'm not simply being contrarian. Someone of the more infamous radical feminist pronouncement were never made by radical feminists:

Rape Seeded

Yes and no. If you start with the suffragettes, you can find all sorts of "feminist" thought with varying degrees of popularity from hailed to reviled.

My post was a bit more close to home, looking back over conversations with more radical feminists that I have met, known and/or befriended. So there is a personal bias there. (Over the years I've often been told that I don't take things seriously enough. I've even been called brainwashed. Which is pretty funny when you note the rabid opposition I get here.)

[epepke]

Originally Posted by Rairun

There are a lot of things I disagree with when it comes to radfemhub feminism (anti-prostitution, anti-porn, anti-PIV, and anti-trans, etc), but to be honest, they don't think women are better than men because of biology. They define "woman" in terms of their oppression -

That's correct.

Quote:

everything else (preferences, personality traits, skills, you name it) is ungendered, because they are not gender essentialists.

That's not supported by the evidence, at least not as a generalization. Many come across quite a lot like gender essentialists. Many say loudly that they aren't, but then again, they say a lot of stupid and/or inaccurate things.

Quote:

In fact, the whole reason for their transphobia is that they don't think transwomen have gone through the same struggles other women have. They deny there is such a thing as "feeling like a woman" other than the fact that women are put in a subservient place in our society.

Thats's correct.

In a way, though, it's unimportant, unless someone is going to assert that women and women alone suddenly become 100% rational upon becoming feminists and are subsequently unable to produce any sort of ad hoc argument. Of course, this happens quite a lot elsewhere.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by epepke

That's not supported by the evidence, at least not as a generalization. Many come across quite a lot like gender essentialists. Many say loudly that they aren't, but then again, they say a lot of stupid and/or inaccurate things.

Many deny they are essentialists, but whatever their words, their actions plainly put them in the essentialist, if not biological determinist, camp. This should not be surprising, since biological essentialism/determinism is a significant part of Western culture; and it informs thought on gender and gender roles, sexuality, and politics to a very great extent. Feminist or otherwise. Even in the GLBT community, it's hard to find people who have managed to completely break out of that mindset.