Author
|
Topic: women behaving like men
|
|
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072
|
posted 07 June 2006 02:37 PM
While I agree that the master's house can't be brought down using the master's tools, I totaly object to some of what you are saying- there's no such things to me as male and female behaviour, these are just constructs that rob us of choice. Isn't feminism competing with oither views on how the world should be ? Women have always competed with each other- i.e my sunday dress is nicer than yours or making social connections like marriage to achieve more status for themselves and their families. With regards to the study you encourtered, I think its a chicken and the egg question that goes back to the way that women and men are socially engineered- i.e the girls wear pingk , boys bkue, men are taught to be aggressive, dominate, compete in sports, etc. Women may do these things as well, but will be ones to sort of socially network instead, to be nice,we are more language oriented, etc- pardon me I can't put it into words too well. The different sectors of the brain handle different things- like language, logic, personality, etc. If women's brains are different, it is because of the following: we are taught to be and behave diffrently due to our assigned sociaetal roles, and thus we will use certain parts of our brains more, develop them more. The world is the way it is because of the current sex/gender system ( patriarchy just denotes domination as oppoised to living system of oppresion) that is maintained by both sexes- aren't there and weren't there white women who oppress non-white women ? Look at Cannda's natives in the residential schools for example, where nuns were most certainly involved, and they most certainly supported the Catholic Church, a patriarchal institution. The 1970's feminist movement was racist as was the first wave. First wave feminists like Margaret Sanger may have supported birth control, but they did so because they didn't want the "wrong" people breeding and overwhelming the middle and upper classes. So we can't make the assumption that women finally getting half the power , or half the seats in parliament will make things better, or that women don't already have traits like competitiveness or agression towards others and the other. Also, isn't good to have MBA's in top positions, to alter the age old perception they shoulnd't be there in the first place ? [ 07 June 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 07 June 2006 02:55 PM
Pride for Red Dolores, are you sure you're not blurring the line between how you would want the world to be and how it might actually be? It is hardly a mainstream view among neuroscientists that there are zero innate differences between males and females, as your post assumes. quote: Isn't feminism competing with oither views on how the world should be ?
There either are innate differences in general or there are not; in other words, the question of innate differences is a descriptive ethics question, rather than a normative one as your post assumes. Personally I take the view that there are genuine differences in general, but that we should be wary of applying stereotypes too rigorously. morningstar It's all about the path of least resistance I think. With respect to the MBAs, it pays to be a bitch 72% as much as it pays to be an asshole, which can be pretty good. That being said, your post assumes women are becoming more masculine. Assuming that's true... Is it not possible men are likewise becoming more effeminate? [ 07 June 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072
|
posted 08 June 2006 01:34 PM
But you guys are making ht eassumption that women have never before competed, that they have always been the opressed ones and not oppressors as well, and thats just plain wrong. Like I pointed out in my post, women have alweays competed, just in different forums- such as social climbing by making firends with the right people, buying nice dresses to show off status and gain more. In the 19th century, women were important to the colonising project as many went abroad as missionaries to educate the "savages" and convert them from their "supperstitions" to Christianity". So the qualities you are worrying about have always been there, but now are just being displayed in a different forum.It's great to have women get half the power, but we have to take into account racism, and all theother ism's. It's not only men oppressing women, its women oppressing women as well. And Jas, the idea that chemicals rule my behaviour reminds me of the idea that women are ruled by their reporductive system ( and that if they use their brains too much their reproductive systems would atrophy so they couldn;t fullfill their main social function of having children. This is clearly not so. And morningstar, what is feminism if not working for gender equity, so youy can't say it's never been tried !!!! quote: it stands to reason that real gender balance in societal decision making is our logical best chance as a species; it doesn't really appear to ever have been tried, probably because women have been at the mercy of their fertility.
And as for the fertility bit, that's foolish, there's been many feminists who've had children- Simone de Beauvoir or Margaret Sanger anyone ?[ 08 June 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 08 June 2006 01:39 PM
Pride for Red Dolores wrote: quote: And Jas, the idea that chemicals rule my behaviour reminds me of the idea that women are ruled by their reporductive system. This is clearly not so.
I'm not inclined to agree... [ 09 June 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529
|
posted 08 June 2006 02:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
And Jas, the idea that chemicals rule my behaviour reminds me of the idea that women are ruled by their reporductive system ( and that if they use their brains too much their reproductive systems would atrophy so they couldn't fullfill their main social function of having children. This is clearly not so.
Both men and women are affected by their hormones and probably other biochemicals that I don't know anything about. There is no suggestion that only women are affected or that women therefore shouldn't use their brains. - ? 'Equal, but different' is my philosophy. I believe the fight of feminism is not so women can "be like men", but so women can come into their own power as women (and have that validated in society).
[ 08 June 2006: Message edited by: jas ]
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072
|
posted 08 June 2006 05:11 PM
I think what's going on here is a different view of what femenism is about- I don't take the equal but different view that morningstar express as the ultimate social justice goal. For me, what would be best is to de'gender qualities as being either male or female. So I view the statement of women behaving like men sexist. [ I wonder if there's a generational 2nd wave third wave conflict going on here ] In addition, I do agree that not having control over one's fertility in the form of access to birth control is a sign of lack of empowerment. However I think that this can produce feminism, because women want control over their bodies, they want choice. Also I suppose with regards to morningstars post, I should have distinguished between "tried" and worked for or attained. [ 08 June 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ] [ 08 June 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ] [ 08 June 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 09 June 2006 12:44 PM
i'm old and not great at this computer talking. i don't really know what trolling is. my work involves watching and listening and a great deal of thinking. combining this with a fair bit of research enables my work to keep ploughing along. i bounce my ideas off of friends but they are old too so this is a very useful way to have the chance to hear what younger people think. the young people that i know either love me[my 3 kids] or they are daunted by me in person so this venue seems ideal. i appreciate all of your comments and observations. it's a nice thing for you to talk to me. i clearly have not explained myself well. i'm not saying that the historically male patterns of behaviour are inately 'bad', although they have wrought mostly horrific results and continue to do so. the problem seems to be the lack of effective venue for female patterns of behavior to be incorporated equaly into the mix as a balance. it doesn't really matter how these behaviors have evolved, but it really matters that we examine our histories and acknowledge the patterns.the global human condition is primarily the direct result of human male behavior. all global societal institutions have been designed by men for men.they have always held the reins and it's all turned out rather badly.had women ruled humanity without male balance, i strongly suspect that the results would not have been any better. in the few instances in history where societies developed an approximation of gender balance it was on such a small scale that they were vulnerable to aggressors and were destroyed. my research indicates that by participating in the male friendly structures[govt, churches, military, etc] women could well adapt to the most damaging aspects of unchecked male behavior and exacerbate the situation in catastrophic ways. all human behaviors are useful in balance but if women lose their innate birthright of knowing how to ammeliorate and complement historically male behaviors ,my fear is that humanity will have forever lost the chance to evolve to our full potential and regardless of what women chose to do after that they and their children will continue to be the losers. we surely don't need more compeditors, more fighters, more people at the top of the heap. why should those choices be regarded by women as a good thing? can we do those things? of course. should we want to? i surely hope not. i truly wish that my generation of women had been more effective in flattening out male hierarchical social structures and ensured more appropriate support systems for young women with children. i wish our legacy to you had been an elimination of this dreadful winner take all corporate and political mentality.
From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 09 June 2006 06:56 PM
quote: i'm wondering if by selling out women will actually adapt right out of their inate ability to bring balance.
Women have no more innate ability to bring about balance or nurturing or what have you than men do. Or giraffes, for that matter. Women are as competitive as men are and it was ever thus. We may be socialized to handle it differently, but the same patterns, emotions and proclivities are there. What makes me most impatient about notions such as the above is that they're as bloody sexist and essentialist as any male chauvanist pig's ideas about what men and women are -- or *should* be. And about the brain studies: IIRC, there was some evidence that men and women's brains activate differently to solve problems, but that the conclusions/solutions they reach and the time involved in coming to a solution are about the same, with a neglible bit of difference. And that there is a greater range of difference within each sex than between the sexes themselves. People are people. Men and women are less different than you'd think. [ 09 June 2006: Message edited by: Timebandit ]
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529
|
posted 09 June 2006 10:22 PM
quote: Originally posted by Timebandit:
Women have no more innate ability to bring about balance or nurturing or what have you than men do.
I better not step into this one quote:
Women are as competitive as men are and it was ever thus. We may be socialized to handle it differently, but the same patterns, emotions and proclivities are there.
How would you prove this though? If women have historically been kept out of the public sphere. quote:
What makes me most impatient about notions such as the above is that they're as bloody sexist and essentialist as any male chauvanist pig's ideas about what men and women are -- or *should* be.
I don't think it's accurate to equate essentialism with sexism. Essentialism doesn't mean a world populated by 'Real Women' and 'Promise Keepers'. It means acknowledging the strengths and tendencies of each sex. It's hard to do though, having lived in patriarchal structures for so long, it's hard to ascertain what a woman-valued world might look like, and what strengths women have that may be unique to women. I feel funny arguing this. I really never thought of myself as an essentialist before. But I absolutely disagree that a woman-oriented world would look exactly like this one (nor am I arguing for one, ftr). And how, as a feminist, can you argue the existence of "patriarchy" if you are arguing that women would create the exact same problems? It's logically inconsistent. What the hey is feminism for then? Feminism in this scenario becomes to the status quo what unions are to capitalism. Flip side of the same dirty "give me some" coin (and I am not anti-union).
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 10 June 2006 12:35 AM
I'm not arguing that patriarchy does not exist. Not at all. But what makes you think women aren't heavily invested in patriarchy? Can patriarchy continue to exist without a certain amount of female complicity? I, personally, don't think it can. Who's raising all the little patriarchs and shaping their values? Women, for the most part. Most of the patriarchal males are too busy out doing manly things to do women's work like raising children. I don't know that I'm any more interested in a "woman-oriented" world than a "male-oriented" world. Sounds like more or less the same thing to me. Now, a world where we can exercise our strengths regardless of our sex... That I'm interested in. quote: I don't think it's accurate to equate essentialism with sexism. Essentialism doesn't mean a world populated by 'Real Women' and 'Promise Keepers'. It means acknowledging the strengths and tendencies of each sex.
The assumption that men or women have specific qualities, strengths and weaknesses implies that men and women must conform to a certain standard of what men and women are at base. So, when someone says that women are weaker, women aren't smart enough, women are so ruled by their hormones as to be ineffective, etc, isn't that an essentialist position? I think it is, and so is the notion that women are non-competitive and nurturing. Both positions set up a construct defining male and female behaviour, which as far as I'm concerned, implies a rigidity in expectations of behaviour -- one that would leave us in the same boat as we are in under patriarchy. Essentialism may not mean proposing that the world is all "REAL Women" and "Promise Keepers", but it does mean that men are men and women are women and never the twain shall meet. I find that an unspeakably depressing position, and I also don't buy that there's any evidence that there is any specific tendency related to sex that couldn't be argued to be socialized rather than innate or instinctive. quote: How would you prove this though? If women have historically been kept out of the public sphere.
And taking the same tack, how do you prove they weren't? Are you proposing that women are competitive in their own traditional spheres? Read "Anne of Green Gables" as a for instance -- women are competitive in terms of housekeeping, what kind of table they set, sewing, the list goes on. Ever hang out with a group of female performers? Competitive as all hell, frequently worse than the guys. I can't, in fact, think of any "sphere" I've been active in that hasn't had some level of competition between women, even in (sometimes especially in) all-female groups. So while I suppose I cannot absolutely provide proof in the form of empirical data, the pragmatist in me has to shake my head at anybody who's missed competition and rivalry between women.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 10 June 2006 05:03 AM
quote: Originally posted by Timebandit: I'm not arguing that patriarchy does not exist. Not at all. But what makes you think women aren't heavily invested in patriarchy? Can patriarchy continue to exist without a certain amount of female complicity? I, personally, don't think it can. Who's raising all the little patriarchs and shaping their values? Women, for the most part. Most of the patriarchal males are too busy out doing manly things to do women's work like raising children.
It's true. And there are a lot of women who prop up patriarchy in more explicit ways, too. Take the Promisekeepers group, for example. You get tons and tons of wives claiming that the Promisekeepers is the best thing that ever happened to their family. They're often speakers at Promisekeepers retreats. These are women who have something strong invested in patriarchy. They have social standing based on it, especially in their church communities. And, if they married men with status occupations, they have a lot invested in keeping up the status quo so that they don't lose their Mrs. Doctor or Mrs. Esquire (whatever that would be) status. (You'd be surprised - or probably not, I guess - that church status often depends on the financial and occupational status of the people attending. It's the rich, successful business types, or status occupation types who run the church, and I think this holds true even in more liberal churches.) Not to mention that you get incredibly positive strokes from men and many institutions when you reinforce the patriarchy. To get positive strokes from religious right troglodytes, you have to be a Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter type, who completely puts down feminism in every way, shape, and form, and preach to women to get the fuck back to the kitchen where you belong. To get positive strokes from more moderate, centrist type men, you can be an "I'm not a feminist, but" type - someone who believes in rights for women, but doesn't really want to fight for them, or to seem to threaten male privilege in any way. To get positive strokes from (many, but not all, thank goodness) lefty men, you can call yourself a feminist, but make sure you let them tell you how to run your movement, make sure you shave and make yourself attractive to them in conventional ways (grow that hair long!), and don't challenge them to make more space for female leadership in progressive movements, or ask them to give up their natural place of leadership - and defend their privilege strongly when other castrating bitches challenge it. Okay, I know that was controversial, but I think organizationally, it holds true all too often.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529
|
posted 10 June 2006 08:53 AM
I wouldn't argue that women aren't complicit in patriarchy (and this is an instance where I would argue socialization). Nor that they aren't competitive. quote: Originally posted by Timebandit: The assumption that men or women have specific qualities, strengths and weaknesses implies that men and women must conform to a certain standard of what men and women are at base.
It doesn't imply anything of the kind. You are making a caricature out of that argument. To say 'different' does not imply one is better or stronger, the other is weaker or stupider etc. It just means different strengths and abilities, or you could just say different behaviours, that become apparent by sex (and I won't try to speculate what those might be here). quote:
So, when someone says that women are weaker, women aren't smart enough, women are so ruled by their hormones as to be ineffective, etc, isn't that an essentialist position?
I don't think so, but if it is, then I'm probably not an essentialist. quote:
I think it is, and so is the notion that women are non-competitive and nurturing. Both positions set up a construct defining male and female behaviour, which as far as I'm concerned, implies a rigidity in expectations of behaviour -- one that would leave us in the same boat as we are in under patriarchy.
Again, I don't think it implies any more rigidity than the nurture argument. Although I can concede that it has probably been used by socially rigid thinkers. quote:
Essentialism may not mean proposing that the world is all "REAL Women" and "Promise Keepers", but it does mean that men are men and women are women and never the twain shall meet.
Why do you say this? We're talking about general tendencies, which also include wide variation. Not about rigid sex roles. quote: I find that an unspeakably depressing position, and I also don't buy that there's any evidence that there is any specific tendency related to sex that couldn't be argued to be socialized rather than innate or instinctive.
Well, this is the question.
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 10 June 2006 03:10 PM
don't be sad or angry about the likelihood of very basic, significant, inate behavioral differences between men and women. for far too long feminists have fought this concept instead of rejoicing in our good fortune. there is too much compelling evidence to continue to deny the very contrasting and seemingly utterly complementary differences between men and women.in no way does any of it make us less or deny us choice. the only thing that is doing that now is men! it's quite stunning once you combine post '95 brain studies, animal studies[yes we are animals]global anthropological studies, and human history. if indeed we can rejig societal institutions to encourage female abilities and give them equal weight[in effect androgynizing the organization of society] we could conceivably change world society forever. i suspect that many women are behaving badly for much the same reason that aboriginal cultures appear to behave badly when the soul of their culture has been pillaged. if nothing else,women have historically had each other-their own ongoing subculture of intergenerational,extended family support. the enormous push to isolate women, to label their closeness as suspect,to deprive them of the ability to maintain large, warm, close lifetime networks of other women has i think weakened us and disoriented us. we're even losing our natural connection to the rythms of mother earth. we must not fall for the divide and conquer mirage that is presented to us. men are not the enemy but they must be brought to heel and made to behave better globally. women have the natural tools to do this . perhaps a global llysistrata campaign?
From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 10 June 2006 06:16 PM
quote: It doesn't imply anything of the kind. You are making a caricature out of that argument. To say 'different' does not imply one is better or stronger, the other is weaker or stupider etc. It just means different strengths and abilities, or you could just say different behaviours, that become apparent by sex (and I won't try to speculate what those might be here).
I'd be more inclined to say that the argument would make caricatures of us all. No, different does not necessarily mean better. But if you define one different as a female different and one different as a male different, there is an implication of the expectation for men and women to conform to their defined differences. I would argue that the majority, if not all, of those differences are socialized, not innate. As long as we go with the argument that they are innate differences, we play into the hands of those who would keep women in an inferior position in our social structures. So I think that's a dangerous position to take. quote: don't be sad or angry about the likelihood of very basic, significant, inate behavioral differences between men and women. for far too long feminists have fought this concept instead of rejoicing in our good fortune. there is too much compelling evidence to continue to deny the very contrasting and seemingly utterly complementary differences between men and women.in no way does any of it make us less or deny us choice. the only thing that is doing that now is men!
With all due respect, morningstar, that's bull. First of all, what liklihood of difference? Where is this compelling evidence? I would also argue that it's a patriarchal societal structure that denies us choice, not men specifically. Half or nearly half of the support for that structure, the acceptance of it is female. quote: it's quite stunning once you combine post '95 brain studies, animal studies[yes we are animals]global anthropological studies, and human history.
What, the brain studies that note any difference in pragmatic terms is statistically negligible? Or haven't drawn any hard and fast conclusions as yet? History's suddenly become objective and not written through a patriarchal lens, as you are so fond of bringing up? quote: i suspect that many women are behaving badly for much the same reason that aboriginal cultures appear to behave badly when the soul of their culture has been pillaged.
quote: if nothing else,women have historically had each other-their own ongoing subculture of intergenerational,extended family support. the enormous push to isolate women, to label their closeness as suspect,to deprive them of the ability to maintain large, warm, close lifetime networks of other women has i think weakened us and disoriented us. we're even losing our natural connection to the rythms of mother earth.
You're a great earth mother, huh? At what point are you going to ask us all to break into interpretive dances to express our feelings? Honestly, I've always regarded the above as largely mythological and a highly sentimentalized mythology at that. There may be a subculture of women, or had been in the past, but it wasn't any warmer or fuzzier than male culture. It was often competitive and unkind, from what I can tell. We humans are status-conscious little monkeys, whether our gonads are on the outside or the inside. quote: we must not fall for the divide and conquer mirage that is presented to us. men are not the enemy but they must be brought to heel and made to behave better globally. women have the natural tools to do this . perhaps a global llysistrata campaign?
Oh, so men aren't the enemy, they're just dogs. True enough, Lysistrata made 'em sit up and beg. But that was satire. The thing is, women aren't going to behave better than men globally. Thatcher showed us that decades ago. Condi Rice isn't going to suddenly get all nurturing and cooperative, and I don't think it's in her nature. I don't see a heckuva lot of evidence that women in general do have it in them any more than men, nor do I see you backing any of this terribly stirring speechifying up. [ 10 June 2006: Message edited by: Timebandit ]
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529
|
posted 10 June 2006 08:34 PM
quote: Originally posted by Timebandit:
Thatcher showed us that decades ago. Condi Rice isn't going to suddenly get all nurturing and cooperative, and I don't think it's in her nature. I don't see a heckuva lot of evidence that women in general do have it in them any more than men, nor do I see you backing any of this terribly stirring speechifying up.
Thatcher and Rice are simply examples of who succeeds in that power structure. Not an example of "womanhood gone corrupt". None of us are able to back any of our speechifying up because we don't have any examples currently or historically where women have outnumbered men in government and public affairs. But some of us might be able to make comparisons in our workplaces or other contexts. But whatever. I know what you're saying here. I maintain the possibility that some differences are innate, and I don't believe that that automatically implies conservative social ideals. You may be able to say that social conservatism depends on essentialism, but it's not true that essentialism needs social conservatism.
From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 10 June 2006 08:42 PM
it is well accepted by historians, herstorians and anthropologists that women have, in most cultures ,had large, close, supportive, female networks, indeed their own subcultures, for all known history. most of these female subcultures operated under the male radar. i suspect that it has always been safer that way for the women and the men weren't inclined to notice or care. in north america this subculture began to erode in the 50's and has eroded until it is almost unrecognizable now.when the feminist movement revived in the 60's ,men used the same tactics of divide and conquer that they used in the 1800's and the early 20th century.most women's studies dept. have reams of info. most good research on this stuff has been done since the 70's when women started doing it themselves.i've read books and books about herstory and although gutwrenching at times it's given me great hope. women are particularily connected to the earth because of the cyclic nature of there fertility and their ancient ties to the land through farming. we were the first farmers and 80% of the earths farmers are still women. your connection to the earth is in your cells and its your birthright-not very glam but there it is. i have farmed myself and to raise crops, food gardens and animals a bond must form. i had some female friends who went as a group to visit a mountain of mythical import for women in peru. as they crossed the summit every one of them started their period... even those long past menopause. don't discount myth. it is more powerful and true than our corporate society would like us to remember. like women, myth has been slandered and disabled for so long it's almost unrecognisable.i'd highly recommend doing some reading around this. a few guy wannabes like thatcher &condi do not a trend make.yet. i'm sure that millions of african women [who aren't too ill to laugh] would laugh at their chest thumping.they still have the shreds of their female support subculture to help them know who they are. it's only us['1st' world people who don't understand that they are ridiculous. don't discount intuition. we are not just talking heads. some of my very best intellectual work has come from pulling on an intuitive thread.[so to speak]. it was pure intuition that drew me to a discussion board. i thought that i had all of my research done.i had somehow rather arrogantly assumed that i had a good idea what young women were feeling. hmm oh, and the brain research. there is a recent and very compelling book [i think from cal u?] it was written up in the star-it summarizes gender brain studies and i'm very sure that you will soon see less cautious and wishy washy talk from this field of research.
From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 11 June 2006 08:34 AM
Hi morningstar, I hope you have a good time at babble. Thanks for starting this discussion.As a long time feminist I agree with many of your points. Of course patriarchy is the reason why much of the world is completely fucked up right now. I'm with you on that one! But this thread has gone into a lot of areas and I want to focus on something you mentioned in your OP (opening post) about women becoming more like men, specifically, in terms of increased violence in young women. As a sociology macro-kinda gal, I would need to see some stats about that, in the North American context, which is what I assume you're talking about. quote: there is too much compelling evidence to continue to deny the very contrasting and seemingly utterly complementary differences between men and women.
Sorry, but I'll need to see some of that evidence. I don't take it for granted that socialized genedered behaviours are meant to be complementary. They are meant to encourage the continuation of patriarchy, and they pretty much work quite effectively. Women and men, of all classes and races, who step out of their prescribed gender roles receive many sociatal sanctions for doing so. quote: if women choose to emulate the men who are 'winning' because they too want to win, idon't think it will improve the human condition in the least.
Which women are we talking about here? I have a bit of a problem when terms like "women are more caring and can provide a balance to men's behaviour" since it assumes a lot. Do you mean only white women? And only white men? "Women are more caring" is a stereotype about middle class white women; it only describes the "desired behaviour" for a small group of women. Some of whom follow or aspire to the stereotype and some of whom don't. It makes me think about the difference between second wave white women's feminism that began in the 1960s and 1970s that said "We want access to a piece of the pie" and the new activism/solidarity and coalition work that connects indigenous struggles, anti-globalization, anti-capitalist, anti-racist and anti-oppression struggles, and feminism, that says "The pie sucks. Get rid of the pie." Pussy footing indeed! Having access to high-level jobs at globe-destroying institutions like advertising and consumer chain conglomerates that will continue business as usual, ie. wrecking the planet, will happen just as quickly no matter who does those jobs.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 11 June 2006 10:43 AM
I've been staying away from babble for obvious reasons, but bcg's comment was pointed out to me by e-mail (a call for help?) and I can't let such an obvious falsehood or generalisation stand unchallenged: quote: It makes me think about the difference between second wave white women's feminism that began in the 1960s and 1970s that said "We want access to a piece of the pie" and the new activism/solidarity and coalition work that connects indigenous struggles, anti-globalization, anti-capitalist, anti-racist and anti-oppression struggles, and feminism, that says "The pie sucks. Get rid of the pie."
All the women I know who were active feminists in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s got their start in the "movement", as we called it back then. It's backbone was the anti-war movement (in North America basically anti-Vietnam, in France also anti-Algerian war), and it had a strong grounding in the civil rights movement and other events which made us concious of the evil of racism, from the Holocaust to Apartheid. These women were active in socialist groups, whether social-democratic or far-left. Our feminist consciousness emerged as a result of the contradiciton between the radically democratic, egalitarian and anti-establishment (as we said back then) anti-capitalist (among the far left, including Judes, myself and many others on this and related boards) and the way women on the left were relegated to technical, supportive tasks and abused by cant about "smashing monogamy". Corporate feminism didn't take centre stage until the decline of the left, including movement feminism, and the disarray of left organisations in the early 1980s, the Thatcher era. And even now, I know more feminists of my generation who are still active in community groups, trade unions and the World March of Women than corporate board members.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 11 June 2006 02:28 PM
Morningstar, you have my support. It's the same for me when I hear the younger generation (under 30) saying "I'm not a feminist, but..."Change is needed, required, and I daresay, necessary for the planet's survivial. The interconnection of issues: environmental, feminist, anti-racist, aboriginal, anti-poverty, non-status workers, is overwhelming. And we're all, or most of us, complicit in the system. Who uses a credit card? Who owns property? The list goes on. My answer is to chip away, little by little, educate others, and to try not to get too discouraged.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 11 June 2006 05:33 PM
quote: most women's studies dept. have reams of info. most good research on this stuff has been done since the 70's when women started doing it themselves.i've read books and books about herstory and although gutwrenching at times it's given me great hope.
Some of it credible, some of it not. But hey, if you say so it must be true... No need to actually back yourself up with specifics or substance. We'll all just bow to your wisdom because you've read "books and books", not that any of the rest of us have. quote: oh, and the brain research. there is a recent and very compelling book [i think from cal u?] it was written up in the star-it summarizes gender brain studies and i'm very sure that you will soon see less cautious and wishy washy talk from this field of research.
And some studies and publications have been criticized for coming out with pronouncements that are no more than theories and are methodologically flawed. So you'd have to be more specific before I would be inclined to agree with you. Right now, pretty much of the studies I've read about have been inconclusive in any real sense. I'm not so worried about wishy-washiness than I am about bold pronouncements based on assumptions that are limiting to people at large. quote: women are particularily connected to the earth because of the cyclic nature of there fertility and their ancient ties to the land through farming. we were the first farmers and 80% of the earths farmers are still women. your connection to the earth is in your cells and its your birthright-not very glam but there it is. i have farmed myself and to raise crops, food gardens and animals a bond must form.
Oferfuxaches. Men are farmers, too. We are no more connected to the earth than men are. That's a ridiculously sentimentalist statement. Where are you getting this 80% from? Oh, yeah, and men have hormonal cycles as well -- they just aren't marked by a week of inconvenience. quote: i'm sure that millions of african women [who aren't too ill to laugh] would laugh at their chest thumping.they still have the shreds of their female support subculture to help them know who they are. it's only us['1st' world people who don't understand that they are ridiculous.
Well, I'm certainly glad you're sure. Why do we romanticize the lives and doings of women in Africa or other 3rd world countries? I noticed this a lot when I was going to La Leche League meetings, in talk about how women in Africa never put their babies down, co-sleep, that sort of thing. I once asked a friend of mine, a refugee from Africa, if it was so, and she said of course -- they didn't have the option. One of the first things she wanted when she arrived in the west was a stroller. My point, I suppose, is that we western women really have no clue about subcultures and motivations within them that we can only view from the outside. It's presumptuous of us to sentimentalize them and their social structures. quote: don't discount intuition. we are not just talking heads. some of my very best intellectual work has come from pulling on an intuitive thread.[so to speak]. it was pure intuition that drew me to a discussion board.
I'm an artist, for pity's sake. I don't discount intuition. However, I do believe that men are as capable of it as women, and will continue to do so until you show me some evidence to the contrary. quote: i thought that i had all of my research done.i had somehow rather arrogantly assumed that i had a good idea what young women were feeling. hmm
I think the flaw in your research is that you are regarding young women (what does that mean, anyway? How young is young?) as a uniform group with uniform thoughts, opinions and feelings. I think you'll find there's a wide range of all that within any age-group of women. Or women in general. FWIW, I'm not all that much younger than you are. [ 11 June 2006: Message edited by: Timebandit ]
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 11 June 2006 07:12 PM
timebandit where are you getting tthe idea that i don't believe men to be capable of this, that and the other thing? i've miscommunicated if you really believe that's what i'm saying. just like women, men have a wide range of choices in their behaviors. you surely don't need studies to see what a disaster they've created however; so i would put to you again that their choices are destructive-they have, as a species, chosen to engage in behaviors that harm women and children on a massive scale. its been going on for a very long time. we know that the more certain neural pathways are used, the more developed they become. for much of man kind on earth , right here, right now, their behavior indicates that certain pathways must be like regular highways-especially the ones that don't involve empathy,unifier thinking,impulse control etc. i could't possibly document all of my research here- this is after all not a thesis assessment, it's a discussion. you yourself don't document your ideas either. i'm not sure that it's appropriate in this venue especially as i'm not up to mastering the link thing yet. my submissions are already far too wordy but i loath not making an argument as welrounded as possible. you underestimate some western women. some of us[more, than it seems that you would credit] have had the time, the education, the travel and the deep abiding interest and love for other women and their children to develope an empathy and even an understanding of their lives. largely because of my life experience i have a deep abiding sense that all women are sisters and that we must trust and take care of each other wherever possible. mostly that we must all figure out how to work together effectively before the guy wars and weapons destroy us all. the reason you feel so young to me is your frustration and seeming contrariness in grasping the essense of what i am really saying.you keep focussing on out of context details instead of hearing the idea as a whole. you also seem to feel somewhat alienated from women in general, and i have noticed a strange wariness among young[30-] women with regards to other women. you also are uncharacteristically[for an older woman] resistant of my efforts to bounce a condensed and awkwardly underdeveloped idea off of the people on this board. that felt young to me as well. i am clearly poor at 'reading' the situation; i'm far more used to the voice and visual cues in face to face conversation. perhaps my shameless passion and complete lack of any postured objectivity for this subject irks you. i was never cool. i do know when i'm on to something. i feel it in my whole body. 20 years ago when i started the lawn spray work in ontario, i was ridiculed, my research fought over, and i was generally dismissed as a nut. i knew that i was right and the obscure research that i dug up was all vindicated in the end. i feel the same way about this male/female balance as a way to revolutionize modern human society. i don't actually care that much anymore about male potential-i see the behaviors and they've actually had long enough to decide to behave well. women and the few real feminist men are going to pull them into balance. thats all i know i can't explain it any better. my appologies.
From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 11 June 2006 08:05 PM
quote: you surely don't need studies to see what a disaster they've created however; so i would put to you again that their choices are destructive-they have, as a species, chosen to engage in behaviors that harm women and children on a massive scale. its been going on for a very long time.
Men are not a seperate species. I think that's what I've been trying to get across all along. Men and women are both complicit in the harm. I think if we addressed class issues more directly than we do, or recognized classism as part of feminism, we'd be further ahead than railing at men in general. quote: you underestimate some western women. some of us[more, than it seems that you would credit] have had the time, the education, the travel and the deep abiding interest and love for other women and their children to develope an empathy and even an understanding of their lives. largely because of my life experience i have a deep abiding sense that all women are sisters and that we must trust and take care of each other wherever possible. mostly that we must all figure out how to work together effectively before the guy wars and weapons destroy us all.
While it's lovely that this has been your life experience, it certainly hasn't been mine. The good 'uns I've encountered come out 50/50 male and female. Some of the good 'uns, the fair thinkers and stand-up people have been patriarchal males. Go figure. I've had time and education and a deep, abiding interest in women and children. But I've also included men in that interest. Perhaps your view is less "balanced" than you think. We aren't "all going to work together" until you include men in the mix. quote: the reason you feel so young to me is your frustration and seeming contrariness in grasping the essense of what i am really saying.you keep focussing on out of context details instead of hearing the idea as a whole. you also seem to feel somewhat alienated from women in general, and i have noticed a strange wariness among young[30-] women with regards to other women. you also are uncharacteristically[for an older woman] resistant of my efforts to bounce a condensed and awkwardly underdeveloped idea off of the people on this board. that felt young to me as well.
Or maybe not so uncharacteristically -- it could be possible you need to get outside your circle more. FWIW, I do grasp what you're saying. I just don't buy it. I think your argument is flawed and it doesn't make sense. I'm resistant to the idea that men and women are on opposite poles because it's been flogged to death and it just doesn't stand up, and it doesn't matter how passionate you are about it. quote: i do know when i'm on to something. i feel it in my whole body.
Oh, well, that settles it then.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 12 June 2006 09:09 AM
I research and make documentaries, experimental films and drama. I guess one could call those large, creative projects. I don't think one does this with disdain for the creative process, if that's what you mean by "this process". I live by the creative process.However, it's only in a superficial sense like gestation. Even the film I'm currently making about pregnancy and female identity. And I have to tell you, it's no different for me than it is for the many male filmmakers I know. The creative process is not inherently female, nor do we tap into any better or much differently than men. Yes, there's a certain amount of go with your guts, but that doesn't mean "I feel it, therefore it's so" is going to stand up. Personally, I think your disdain for the head in favour of the heart doesn't speak so much to balance in the world as it plays into the worst kinds of stereotypes of women -- "Men think with their heads, women think with their hearts, that's why man is the natural head of the household", as an old fundamentalist Christian once told me. I think what it comes down to is that you have a very strong idea how men and women in general are constituted, and I disagree with you -- some individuals may be, but I think you're making a sweeping generalization with your theory. And I also think it's a theory that isn't going to gain women any ground in the struggle for equality. [ 12 June 2006: Message edited by: Timebandit ]
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 12 June 2006 09:27 AM
i forgot about your question about farmers. the u.n. state that 80% of the worlds farmers are women. i was one of them for quite some time. i'd like to tell you about my experience with animals. i trained horses and dogs for years and usually the difference in the sexes, almost from birth is obvious. ive also raised goats, pigs, cattle and a wide variety of birds. we raised ferrets, puppies, kittens,etc and most of them ran quite free so they behaved reasonably naturally. i have had a very busy life which has also involved owning businesses w. employees and working in large corporations , if only briefly. watching people is a lifelong obsession w me . the similiarities between humans and even my lowly little chickens is both comical and humbling. we are animals. one observation that stands out between male and female animals is the range and versatility of female behavior. if something happened to a group male, one or more females would take on much of his role.[usually protection and organization of the group] rarely if ever did i find that the males would take on the female jobs when those jobs became vacant [exept males that had been neutered young, even then it was rare.] this to me reflects the undisputable evidence of denser crossover neural connections in the human female brain. i contend that men are probably more limited in their behaviors then women, and that may be a part of where we find ourselves globally today. i also contend that anything is possible with human beings, but from where i stand most male humans are indeed behaving like another species.
From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378
|
posted 12 June 2006 10:54 AM
timebandit have you considered that your male friends are artists? my only male friends ,anymore, are artists and usually gay guys. i love them becuase they don't posture, they seem more sensitive and creative. they also put life into their bodies more than most men. most men aren't like them.when i was starting that environmental movement , the people who showed up were almost all women. old women, girls, rich and poor. the few men that showed up, were almost invariably artists and often gay. i remember david suzuki saying the same thing at a meeting years ago. i also found that even among the young males that were involved with our groups [and groups that we worked with], it was very telling at how quickly they would be willing to toss the essence or soul if you will, just in order to 'win'. they never understood how short term 'wins' would gut what was most valuable about any of the movements. they just didn't have a sense of long term and wholeness and essence. they also seemed to miss the organic developement of partial and sometimes [on the surface of things contradictory] answers. they didn't like the surprizes that can happen with that kind of openness. the young women never had a problem with that.[exept for the few that were trained in things like engineering-i suspect that it was trained out of them.] but looking at individuals never adds up to looking at cohorts. the cohort of global male humans has a life of its own. no group is just the sum of its members. this group[human males] is creating death and mayhem around the globe despite the select few thoughtful men that we all know. you're a type of journalist,yes? you must know that just because something has been flogged to death by popular culture, just bacause there is un undercurrant of denigration, just because some of it seems wrong or even offensive does not mean that it has no import or basic truths. it just means that human fear worked it over good in hopes that our heads could, with relief mind you, dismiss its disturbing tale
From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
moal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12290
|
posted 12 June 2006 07:30 PM
Since morningstar seems interested, I figure I'd weigh in on a few things as a young woman. (note: I make no claim that I'm speaking for anyone other than myself.) I think that morningstar generalizes a lot about women and men. Many of the so-called "women's" behaviours do not reflect me or many of my women friends and I don't think that this is because we are being socialized to act like men. I'm definitely less "feminine" than many women in multiple ways: I'm not very intuitive at all and I'm not as interested in talking about relationships or feelings, for examples. I was raised by feminist, socialist parents so I don't think my personality was shaped by some competitive, "masculine" worldview. I feel that the way we behave should be taken on an individual basis, and no characteristics should be labelled by gender, since this is inherently divisive. We also need to re-shape our decision-making structures so that they don't only benefit one type of personality. I also find that blaming "men" in general for the woes of the world to be sexist. It ignores the many, many ways in which women have supported and continue to support the destructive behaviours of our society. It also ignores the men who try to improve our world. We are not struggling against MEN - we are struggling against patriarchy, igonorance and sexiam, and I feel that these are not the same thing. I wanted to comment on one last thing. morningstar said that women will fill men's roles in a group when there is a gap, but men will not fill women's roles. she then said that this shows that women's brains are more complexly wired and that men are more limited in their behaviours than women. I'd like to suggest that the reason women will fill men's roles and not vice versa has more to do with the development of feminism and women's rights in our society. I think that we have (sort of) reached a point where it is not taboo for women to assume "masculine" roles, but we have not achieved a society where men are free to take on women's roles without ridicule. To me this comes back to the idea that we need to de-gender characteristics and roles, so that everyone can achieve their own individual potential in a supportive, non-divisive society.
From: flat places | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|