HOWEVER, at the same time I think it is necessary to address the issue of gender-equity in childhood. In 1999, the Boy Scouts of Canada (now Scouts Canada) opted to convert every troop to co-ed status. Prior to this, it was up to the members of the troop to vote on whether or not to go co-ed (I remember taking that vote myself...we were a small troop and voted 5-1 against, but I digress).

While co-ed troops offer a great place to interact with the opposite gender at a young age, they fail to address the one-on-one same-sex bonding that can occur within a single-sex troop. Girls now have the choice of either or both, which offers the best of both worlds for their development, but boys are now forced to participate in co-ed activities. I think it is important for both genders to have the option, lest we fail to offer places for them to develop in a healthy environment that addresses their specific needs.

quote:

---

Beyond childhood, it is important to recognize that both genders have basic, instinctual differences (Let's face it, though it of course does not apply to all women, women are more likely to be nurturing, and though it does not apply to all men, men are more likely to want to pursue activities such as hunting & fishing).

---

I think biology gets a bad rap. We're so hooked at this point in history on insisting that everything is cultural, everything is learned, that it's all nurture and no nature...we ignore that fact that we're mammals and have inherited traits, just like monkeys and bears and horses. Because we have bigger brains, we've decided that we're above our own biology.

Baloney. We didn't 'think' ourselves down from the trees in an instant; we evolved over thousands of years and to deny that and our ongoing evolution is silly.

As an aside, I used to think that everything was cultural, that nature was far behind nurture in importance. Then I met my birth family and found that many of my 'learned traits' were exactly like my birthmother's...and her mother's.

To curtail this thread drift...

I agreee with Michelle's post in another thread, on nature or nurture in child developement : there are two different spheres linked to eachother with lots of overlap. I certainly wasn't a "girly" girl, but I don't dispute that there are deep-seated differences between men and women. They may not even come up in everyday life for most of us, but I think they're there.

Women have the ability to bear children and feed them for years soley from their own bodies for years if need be. That's a natural thing. When an infant cries, the mother lactates. She can identify her child by smell alone. A woman who has not had children will protect her upper body if she is about to be hit by or with something, a woman who has had children will cover her abdomen. These are reflexes, and some test subject may vary of course. Therefore there must be some sort of "instinct" at work in the female sex to "nurture". It's the basis of the advancement of the human species. The young must survive, and naturally the female is the primary -not ONLY,- but primary care-giver or nurturer.

I'm not saying that men don't love and nurture their babies, in most human societies they do, and I strongly believe that this is vital for human progression - for both sexes to be involved in the rearing of children and the gathering of sustanance.

However, I feel these are "add-ons" as a result of our evolution, and that deep in the brain, there is a "base" instinct for females to nurture their off-spring by feeding and performing the primary care-taking, and there's a base instinct for males to hunt for protien and defend their off-spring from competing species and other humans.

quote:

---

I agreee with Michelle's post in another thread, on nature or nurture in child developement : there are two different spheres linked to eachother with lots of overlap.

---

Actually, I remember thinking the other day that the way you rephrased what I said wasn't quite how I meant it, and today it's similarly phrased. So I'm thinking I wasn't quite clear enough in my rambling.

I wasn't saying there are two spheres. I wasn't saying there were two ways of acting with overlap.

What I meant was, imagine a horizontal line - this is the continuum. Actually, here, I just drew a little thing in my paint program:

(I hope it comes up)

This is completely unscientific and not based on any numbers or research. It's just more of a thought experiment than anything. It's my way of describing a continuum.

Anyhow, so you see from this that there are no "two spheres". There are girls and boys at both extreme ends of the continuum. It's just that it's weighted a bit differently so that the AVERAGE for both boys and girls will be somewhere in the middle, but for boys it will be slightly closer to the noisy, rambunctious side and for girls it will be slightly closer to the quiet side.

That is what I meant. And I believe that there are girls and boys at BOTH extreme ends, it's just numbers after that.

Great graph! I still agree with you... if that makes any sense. The thing I screwed up on was that you meant there are extremes in behaviour rather than sex and that the sexes tend to generally fall on either extreme in accordance to their sex?

Do I get you now?

quote:

---

women are more likely to be nurturing

---

In reading "Times Like These" the one thing that struck me was McClung's use of strategy. Some where down the line McClung decided it was useless to question every assumption her audience held so she picked one widely held assumption and used another widely held assumption to question it. Which is why you have to read at least two of her books (the other being Sowing Seeds in Danny) to get any idea what she believed or didn't believe. Every once in a while though you caught her using Assumption A to dispell Assumption B and then in the next sentence or paragraph using various assumptions or arguments to dispell assumption A. I don't know if she so much as believed that women were more nurturing than men than she believed that it was more convincing to use that belief as the basis for suffrriage rather than to divide one's efforts. But she also made an effort to convince others that there is one population of people not two - even back when she was a teacher playing football with her students.

quote:

---

We're so hooked at this point in history on insisting that everything is cultural, everything is learned, that it's all nurture and no nature...we ignore that fact that we're mammals and have inherited traits

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

We didn't 'think' ourselves down from the trees in an instant; we evolved over thousands of years and to deny that and our ongoing evolution is silly.

---

quote:

---

Then I met my birth family and found that many of my 'learned traits' were exactly like my birthmother's...and her mother's.

---

quote:

---

Women/girls have been shut out of so many things for so long... the pendulum has to swing all the way to the other side.

---

quote:

---

Beyond childhood, it is important to recognize that both genders have basic, instinctual differences (Let's face it, though it of course does not apply to all women, women are more likely to be nurturing, and though it does not apply to all men, men are more likely to want to pursue activities such as hunting & fishing). While these differences cannot offer an excuse for our actions, it is important and healthy for each gender to maintain places where they can pursue gender-specific activities without interference from the opposite gender.

---

quote:

---

it is important and healthy for each gender to maintain places where they can pursue gender-specific activities without interference from the opposite gender.

---

I don't think pulling out knives like racialism and calling someone's thoughts bs are very helpful in this discussion.

Perhaps Limpy didn't phrase his post well and that has some hackles up, I know he's pissed me off in other threads.

Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: judym ]

In fact, I stated that (because of our evolutionary process) our instincts are no longer defining factors in our actions or most aspects of daily life. However I do believe instinctual activities--when they are inoffensive--are important and healthy in everyone's development as a human being. And gender-specific activities allow for more leeway, because they are less likely to contain people who would be offended. There is also the matter of same-sex bonding.

And I know there are people at both ends of the spectrum, from both genders.

quote:

---

I understand what you're saying, Andrean. I just get exasperated when a man comes into a feminist forum, states his opinion as though it is fact, and then uses it as a basis for any number of arguements.

---

[]Girls should take it to the streets

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Judes ]

quote:

---

Women have the ability to bear children and feed them for years soley from their own bodies for years if need be. That's a natural thing. When an infant cries, the mother lactates.

---

Trinitty, have you ever breastfed? 'Cause I have to tell you, instinct has very little to do with it. Seriously. It's learned -- mother learns it, baby learns it, and if you don't have supportive people around to help you learn it, it's a lot more difficult. Also, lactation is constant -- it's "let-down" you're talking about. Which can happen when baby cries... or when you make the grocery list... or eating dinner... So much for instinct....

I honestly don't think we can say that women are biologically more nurturing than men, and in fact, it's almost insulting to men to suggest that they are. Same as it's insulting to women to say they aren't "tough" enough for any number of things.

Wasn't there a brain study released recently (October? November?) that found that men and women do think differently, but that in problem-solving came to largely the same solutions at about the same speed?

Of course breast feeding is a learned SKILL, but it's not a learned phenomenon... if you know what I mean. All other female primates and mammals "breast"feed, thus, I say it is "natural" for females to nurture their young.

Of course, I'm talking about our base make-up, and not modern societal constructs -which I think are good, I'm just talking about instincts.

I know what let-down is, and it's not the same thing I was referring to in the case of infants crying. Tests have been done that show this happening specifically when an infant cries, and of course you know that an infant roots for a teat. This is what I'm reffering to when I say natural or instinctive. Meaning biological.

I'm not saying all women are good at it, know how to do it well, enjoy it, that all infants are great at it right away or that men do not nuture and feed their babies with bottles. All of that is valid... and darn well wonderful in my opinion... accept for the frustration felt by some mothers, but, y'know what I mean.

I'm just stating that we are not celestial beings (yes, I know the stardust thing) that spring from the ground as blank slabs of clay. We are mammals living on an organic planet and for most of our existance had to fight and compete for food and shelter with many other animals and weather disasters to ensure the next wave of our species is healthy. That's the "base" that I'm reffering to.

Yes, there is a whole heck of a lot built ontop of that, and I'm thankful for that!! I embrace the fact that some men are now enthusiastic about all aspects of child rearing and that women can go build bridges by day and box an opponent in the evenings. In the timeline of the human presence on the planet, this is a relatively new thing for most cultures... new, but, progressive in my books.

Nonetheless I find our "natural" roles as opposite sexes of a primate species REALLY interesting and I don't think we need to deny their existence in order to progress.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: LiMpY ]

And, I'm sure some of the participants are still fumed at you for saying women get the upper hand in rape cases.

quote:

---

I hate that I am being portrayed as anti-feminist. It's just wrong.

---

Meanwhile, over on the "Male Rights" thread, you wrote this:

quote:

---

I think someone has to define the difference between feminism and anti-masculinism for those who seem to think they are championing equality, when in fact they are simply pursueing inequality--in favor of women.

---

It's quite undertandable, therefore, that people take you to be anti-feminist. You condescend to feminists ("someome has to define the difference... for [them]"), and in the same breath accuse them of pursuing inequality.

quote:

---

Listen, Limpy, you've got Trinitty arguing your point. If I were you I'd sit down and relax. You may even turn out to be moderate in comparison.

---

Trespasser I don't think that's fair. Trinitty was merely pointing out a biological fact. Breastfeeding doesnt always come easily or naturally but when it does....well see her post.

I think we make a mistake by belittling the things that make us unique as women in an attempt to prove who much like men we can be.

quote:

---

Of course breast feeding is a learned SKILL, but it's not a learned phenomenon... if you know what I mean. All other female primates and mammals "breast"feed, thus, I say it is "natural" for females to nurture their young.

---

You can read about breastfeeding to the cows come home, but you don't get a real sense of what it's all about until you've seen it up close and personal. I read lots before I had my first babe, too, and I didn't have a clue. I've had a lot of other women tell me they've shared that experience.

Perhaps breastfeeding is instinctual among other animals, but it is not instinctual among humans. It is a learned behaviour. Even the La Leche League hardliners will tell you that.

Breastfeeding is one way to nurture an infant or toddler (heck, I've known a preschooler or two who was still into it), but it's only one of many. And the implication in your argument is that this impulse to nurture an infant is strictly feminine, and makes women different from men. And I take exception to that. Men are, except for breastfeeding, quite capable of and just as naturally inclined to nurture their children as women are. There's a lot more to it than putting babe to breast.

quote:

---

Here's an interesting article (as opposed to Margaret Wente's column) on the difference between girls and boys when it comes to street hockey. You'll have to scroll down to see it.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps breastfeeding is instinctual among other animals, but it is not instinctual among humans. It is a learned behaviour. Even the La Leche League hardliners will tell you that.

---

First off, there's a high mortality for infants in the wild. Mothers are known to abandon newborns. They are also sometimes dry. Secondly, I think it's a learned behaviour for all animals (including the human kind).

The thing is, other animals aren't so messed up about it, so the young can watch it being done and learn from their elders. In some human cultures, women are pressured to hide the act, and to not perform it when a child is "too old."

Books are a poor substitute.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: judym ]

The "ability" to breastfeed, to me is a result of instinctive nuturing, or at least a physical manifestation of the nuturing of young by females.

And again, nowhere did I say that men cannot or should not nurture. I was simply pointing out differences between men and women. And lactation is one of them. Of course it is learned... NOW. That doesn't mean that the early females did not have the "drive" to feed their babies at their breasts. Again, if a woman cradles an infant in her arms, the infant is at breast level, the infant eyes have the sharpest focus at about 30cm, it roots, the woman lactates when the infant cries, I'm sure at some point, instinct kicked in, and the infant fed instinctivley at the breast.... or we wouldn't be here, right?

I know that it is a taught skill for women in many cultures, otherwise they wouldn't have classes right?

I did not intend to turn this into a discussion about breast feeding.

quote:

---

In some human cultures, women are pressured to hide the act, and to not perform it when a child is "too old."

---

Ayup, and that would include our culture, right here and now. We have so hyper-sexualized the female body that any other use for the breast is discomfitting to many. And we have been conditioned to be ashamed of our bodies, even in nurturing our children.

We talk about dealing with the Madonna/Whore dichotomy in our culture.... This is just one more example...

And it's perfectly true that as this very normal, healthy and useful behaviour has been suppressed, young women do not learn about it in any immediate sense. I'll use myself as an example -- I was the first woman in my family to breastfeed in 3 generations. There was no-one living to give me tips on how to manage things. Thank god for a few good friends, my SIL and the LLL!

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

I'm not trying to turn this discussion into one on breastfeeding, I have other fora I visit for the purpose -- I'm just pointing out that having the equipment for nurturing doesn't make it instinctual. Not all women are nurturing.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

There is a bit of a difference between being accepting of breastfeeding and being a bit too eager to see someone's DDs.

I think you should breast feed for a few months to get the antibodies up, but after that the child's nutritian should take presidence. A person usually doesn't feel like eating much after giving birth after forsing themselves to eat discusting food all through pregnancy and tends to stick to food that is both easy to prepare and easy to stomache.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

I will address this for the last time on this thread, and implore those who still disagree to either e-mail me or post to the "male rights" thread in the Politics forum.

quote:

---

It's quite undertandable, therefore, that people take you to be anti-feminist. You condescend to feminists ("someome has to define the difference... for [them]"), and in the same breath accuse them of pursuing inequality.

---

Well 'lance, I would like to ask you why you thought I was addressing that statement to a particular group? I feel it would be beneficial for EVERYONE to know the difference between feminism and anti-masculinism, that way feminism is not equated to anti-masculism.

Just as it would be beneficial for people to know the difference between men's rights activists and anti-feminists.

As StephenGM stated on another thread(in response to Too Old To Lie):

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the name of 'gender-equality' and fairness to the 'most accused sex', I think audra should create another Forum named: 'whatever the proper word is for the same thing for men'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, since most schools of feminist theory and practice hold that both the principles and goals of feminism are beneficial to, and should apply, to everyone... that word would be feminism, too old to lie.

---

Therefore I am both feminist and pro men's rights, but am anti-neither.

I am an equal-rights activist.

Now, if people think I am anti-feminist because I see things that work contrary to equal-rights, then they are contradicting themselves and need to ask themselves if THEY are, indeed, feminists according to the definition.

quote:

---

However, it is pretty absurd to claim that women are necessarily more "nurturing" in an obvious, binary sort of way. It's more appropriate to say that under certain conditions, women tend towards an optimal strategy of nurturing behaviour more than men.

---

zoot capri

quote:

---

I honestly don't think we can say that women are biologically more nurturing than men, and in fact, it's almost insulting to men to suggest that they are. Same as it's insulting to women to say they aren't "tough" enough for any number of things.

---

LiMpY

quote:

---

though it of course does not apply to all women, women are more likely to be nurturing, and though it does not apply to all men, men are more likely to want to pursue activities such as hunting

---

quote:

---

I think you should breast feed for a few months to get the antibodies up, but after that the child's nutritian should take presidence. A person usually doesn't feel like eating much after giving birth after forsing themselves to eat discusting food all through pregnancy and tends to stick to food that is both easy to prepare and easy to stomache.

---

Vaudree, there are few North American women who are so malnourished as to produce breastmilk of a quality inferior to formula.

I think I was born a feminist. While growing up in a large family mostly consisting of boys I remember how envious I was of all the privelages they had. I let them know about it of course but there were very few images of strong females back then.

Jumping ahead a few years I enrolled in my first gender studies class fully expecting to receive the lame "Feminazi" label from the chauvinists around and they didn't hold back. But what I found in our class (all women except for a few guys) was discussions that were engaging and enlightening and not just a bunch of lesbian male-bashers (the usual stereotype)

The readings were well researched, intelligent and discussed issues that are rarely discussed in the mainstream. Far from being a closed discussion anything was fair game for discussion. The guys looked very uncomfortable at first but they also discussed their frustrations related to male stereotyping.

I am proud to call myself a feminist and I can't believe the slurs that feminist's receive. Mostly they're not true and when fem-bashers are challenged their arguments often fall apart quickly. The word has been appropriated by people who are threatened by it-some who want women to stay passive and devoted to patriarchal ideals.

I welcome this forum-most of the others I've looked at are dominated by lard brains.

I am looking for recommendations of films I can watch with my 2 neices-aged 9 and 15 as well as a 13 year old nephew. My criteria are loosely:

the female's body should not be her personality

the male's and female's are strong character's

the film isn't demeaning

Now, back to the children.
Equality isn't necassarily sameness.
There are several components to gender identity (which is a part of human identity which can't be denied without making the person more or less dysfunctional).
Biology and evolution; personal development; family relations; peer relations; social roles - which include mating and reproduction.
A human adult, in order to be successful and happy, needs to be secure in all of these areas, and in order to achieve security, the individual must both live up to personal potential and be able acquire status in society.

When we teach children, we need to take account both their inner realities and the environment for which we are preparing them. It doesn't matter how well adapted a child is to its parent's idea of Utopia, if it can't cope in a world of unreconstructed nine-year-olds, or teenagers. This causes the conscientios, politically correct parent a lot of disappointment. But if we've given them a solid value-sytem, it will resurface in the young adult.

quote:

---

I am looking for recommendations of films I can watch with my 2 neices-aged 9 and 15 as well as a 13 year old nephew.

---

CBC Kids also supplies movie review written by kids.

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

Back to the children.
If we could raise a hundred test-tube babies in a completely isolated environment, without human or animal contact, without a spoken language - say, a computer for mentor and only one another for company - we'd know for sure how much of the final product was nature and how much nurture. Not an experiment i'd approve.

quote:

---

Because, physically and tempermentally, little boys tend to need a bit more control and little girls tend to need a bit more encouragement

---

I remember once sitting at the board with a few kids and I had just answered the last few math questions and decided on my own that I should take a break and let somebody else answer. Well there was total quiet and then the teacher started pleading and pleading for anybody to answer the question. I broke down and answered the question for her and she told me to shut up.

I guess not all of us needed the encouragement.

Those we teach to be tough we don't allow to cry. Those we teach to be weak we shield them from their own strength. Those we teach to deny their own identity become masculine and feminine. Our true selves is just a dark little secret we don't tell anyone.

One experience that really hit me between the eyes was my grandfather's wake. So there we all are, at the funeral home the night before the funeral, people are coming and going... My father is stoic, so am I, other relatives are weeping and gnashing teeth (these would be the ones who didn't care enough to show up when he was sick -- Dad and I had been there every day, were both very close to Gramps)... Anyway, I went out into the hallway to find the bathroom and overheard myself being described as an "ice princess".

I was shocked. I'd just lost someone I loved deeply, and because I wasn't weeping hysterically (and stereotypically), it was taken that I didn't care. Nobody would have made such an assumption of my father, but then, he was male.

Strong, independent women get slammed, even in situations where the issue of feminist/non-feminist isn't really relevant. It's cultural line-drawing.

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]

I would never cry at a funeral - it is disrespectful to the one who just passed away. You cry afterwards you cry before but you do everything in your power NOT to cry at a funeral. If there is a slight tear in your eye you act like you are just clearing the hair away from your face when you wipe it. You do your best to hide it.

Crying loudly is taken as a sign of insincerity and as a deep seated need to take the spotlight away from the deceased. (Atleast that's what my dad would say).

Anyway as the family you are expected to be greeting and mixing with guests and making them feel both welcome and appreciated. Guests come for one or both of two reasons, to tell the family that this mostly wonderful person will be missed and to reunite with family and friends you haven't seen for a while. It may not be the best of timing but funerals and weddings tend to be times of reconnection.

------
My mother made a conscious decision not to call anyone who lived out of town (except for my dad's sister) because she didn't want to impose on anyone or make them to feel obligated to make the trip. That is the way my mother is and it comes from being the only person in her whole grade for most of her gradeschool years. Her cousin (who was bridesmade at her wedding and dated my dad's brother for a while and who is now working as a grief councellor) has told my mom that she would have preferred the "imposition" to being told two weeks after the funeral and that she would have made it if she had to drive all the way from Alberta.

I did give my mom a copy of "becoming an Ex" but she reminded me that I made her read it when she first retired.

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

quote:

---

Coyote Ugly
reviewed by: Payday
rating: 5 stars
review: It's a great movie if you like singing and dancing.
likes: All the singing and dancing.
dislikes: Nothing

Big Momma's House
[b]reviewed by: Natalie, Edmonton
rating: 5
review: It's really funny !
likes: The part where the guy in the fake suit pays basket ball and bumps the players.
dislikes: None

Bring It On
reviewed by: Rayan R., Toronto, ON
rating: 5 stars
price: $15.00
review: Bring It On is a movie with cheerleaders who are in a competition to win the cheerleading championships.
likes: The things I like about this movie is it is very funny and is full with music that cheerleaders sing and its exciting.
dislikes: There is nothing I hate about this movie; it's the best movie I ever saw in my whole life.

---

Ones with reviews such as Likes: everything and Dislikes: Nothing are not very informative. Some reviews are better than others. You got a better page that goes over movies you may not have seen yet?

I'm sure that the kids wouldn't go for
"Jesus of Montreal" or "A Walk in the Clouds" and I haven`t seen every kids movie out there. Though last year before they changed their use of chemicals in the theatres I was keeping up pretty good.

The Harry Potter movie was definately not as good as the book - the CBC kids were right about that one.

I'll send you My son's review of Great Expectations.

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

"I'm not going to tell the story the way it happened - I'm going to tell it the way I remembered it." This line opens the movie Great Expectaions, a rather unfortunate mockery of the classic Charles Dickens novel of the same name. At this point in the movie, even with that premonition, one might have some hope that Hollywood might have done this classic some justice. However, that fear does not linger much longer, as director Alfonso Cuarón quickly reduces it to a cheap pop film focusing mostly on sex scenes and... well, mostly on sex scenes. If the viewer gained anything in watching this movie other than the joy of seeing Gwyneth Paltrow's silhouetted nipple, I would be quite surprised.

Readers of the book will be somewhat surprised at some of the changes, some quite drastic, made to the original. Firstly, Pip is now Finn. This really makes very little sense. If they were going to change his name to "update it" to the times, why did they chose Finn? Well, apparently, Ethan Hawke, who was cast as Pip, did not want to be Pip. He wanted to be Finn. And being the literary genius that he is, we could not dare think of telling Ethan to shut up and be Pip. And heck, why would we, when everyone else is being changed around too? Miss Havisham, the vengeful spinster who was left at the altar and raised her... in this case, niece to torment boys as a way of punishing men for being evil (you may recall this plot from such other works as anything written by hardcore feminists) has become Ms. Dinsmoor. What this accomplishes is unknown, as both names are quite nicely fitting for an old bat to possess. And Magwitch, the convict who poor Finn encounters early on in the story while wandering about in his motorboat, has become Lustig. It's rather confusing for anyone who thought they were familiar with the story before writer Mitch Glazer got his hands on it. In addition, the part of Mrs. Joe as Finn's stepmother was completely obliterated and replaced by a seemingly nice woman named Maggie, who did not treat Finn poorly, and if she did own a device called "the tickler", she probably would have reserved it for all the men who were taking tours of her bedroom. Great praise should be given to the actress who played Maggie, however, as it seems she quite quickly realized what sort of mess she had gotten into being in this movie, and disappeared with little explanation, other than Finn's helpful narrative informing us that she had left and never came back. Too bad she was the only one.

A major complaint about this film would be that we never recalled Finn, or Pip, or whoever he is getting so much action in the book. The day they meet, Estella and Pip, both about the age of ten, wind up kissing quite... unchildlike... at a fountain. In their late teens, they go out on a date, and before the evening is finnished, Finn's hand has wandered off somewhere in the depths of Estella's dress. Where is cruel and cold Estella? She was certainly quite defrosted in that scene.

Alas, the two are parted, as Estella goes abroad to study. Meanwhile, Finn decides to become an artist and runs off to New York. As we see him lean over to sip water from a fountain, we worriedly recall the last fountain scene, and hope that they wouldn't dare do that again. Of course, they do, because they have no scruples, as we should have known by now. Later on in movie, as Pip is standing outside shouting to the citizens of New York City from the streets (I would have thought that somebody might have a gun handy in that scene) in a manner unique to this and several hundred other films, he shouts, "Everything I do, I do for you". This time, we are surprised not to find that horrible song included in the soundtrack. This literally saved the movie from being an utter disaster, but it did not manage to catapult it out of its bad writing and awful implementation. I would have liked to hear Dickens' reaction to this movie, but I wonder if he'd even care to associate himself with it enough to complain.

quote:

---

Our wide hips make us prone to cry more? The energy that would otherwise go into making us taller goes instead into our long hair? Wha?

---

quote:

---

Actually it's very very fair. Also it's very very easy to prove it, one way or the other. One only has to point out arguments from both points of view.
Okay, now that I've pointed out the rhetoric: Rather than PROVE or ARGUE, simply look at the human experience - uh, unless you're a creationist....if you are then close the window QUICK! - it's a cultural symptom that boys are not allowed to cry and girls are not allowed to spit or have short hair. Thats in the short term. In the long term, it's a biological symptom of evolution. Hard core feminists will love me for what I'm about to say, but... for far too long women have been put into those cultural situations, and I mean LONG time, enough for evolution to mold the female body into a very specific shape and strength. Thankfully - and this is from personal experience - the human mentality is not so quickly shaped or molded.

---

Do you ask for possible instances? I doubt it would be something so obvious as long hair. Rather I would myself look at areas where hormones affect human behaviour to see this in operation among men and women if I were to actually investigate this. Of course I would claim that this applies to men too--but men have generally not been sexually subjugated in the way that women too.

You might find WindDreamer's post clear: I do not. Apparently, neither does earthmother.

I also don't find your latest post particularly clear.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: judym ]

quote:

---

You can even come straight out and call me a liar.

---

quote:

---

I also don't find your latest post particularly clear.

---

In the meantime, may I offer my readers at least one reference as to this perspective? First of all, there is Stephen Pinker's famous book on evolutionary psychology for the popular press, How the Mind Works. One of the chapters is wryly entitled "Family Values" and is quite readable. I don't agree with much of his arguments, but in the basic outline--that biology and culture form a relatively clear feedback system particularly in relation to reproductive and family behaviour--I agree. I would not recommend it to those inherently hostile to evolutionary psych, as it seems that some are.

However, if you correctly nuttshelled it, then, yes, I do "get it" now. Interesting imagery there, "creates a feedback loop".

Hmmmm. Facinating, Captain.

quote:

---

Why am I peeved? Because really vague language is being used to explain my life. And (if I read it right - I am but a simple goil) deterministic crap is being used to explain away the "natural" subjugation of women as part of evolution.

---

And in fact, you set up a rather odious strawman which, I think, is the center of the problem:

quote:

---

Was this kind of thinking not used to justify slavery in the past? I'm outta this thread.

---

1) Counter evolutionary-psychological claims with logic and evidence to the contrary.
2) Attempt to integrate EP into their theories and views, and perhaps reclaim some of its more regressive attitudes--I am thinking of Hrdy's excellant book The Woman Whe Never Evolved, which I had a chance to take a look at a couple of years ago.
3) Eviscerate epistemology and hand its squirming entrails over to sociology, thereby gutting science and reason.
4) Become radical creationists.

quote:

---

2. Take a look at how evolution was used to justify slavery. You might be surprised.

---

quote:

---

3. For someone who goes on about academic elitism, you do indulge.

---

Were that true surely womens weights bustlines and hip sized would be rather like adjustable rings going up and down in and out as the culture determined was acceptable to men!

In WindDreamers original posts he states that it is not ok for men to cry or women to spit or have short hair. Where the hell does he get this. I regularly see spitting from both sexes ( and find it equally disgusting ) women having short hair and men having long hair is a changing fashion and men cry at births, ball games, and other special occasions.

I didnt realize that otherwise educated people still adhered to this biology is destiny crap.

Were women designed to birth and feed the offspring of the species sure.

Are mens stronger muscles due to the fact that human babies have a long dependency period and so the family needed fed and protected for that amount of time likely. However as most of us have moved on from caveman times this things for the most part do not have a bearing on current times.

Yes women still birth and feed their offspring but we do not need to be mothers if we choose not to. I dont see too many men wrestling with wild animals to protect their families or going on long hunting trips for any thing other than dubious sport.

quote:

---

I'm amazed Mandos that you can't see how language can shape culture yet you believe culture shapes biology!!!!

---

quote:

---

Were that true surely womens weights bustlines and hip sized would be rather like adjustable rings going up and down in and out as the culture determined was acceptable to men!

---

quote:

---

In WindDreamers original posts he states that it is not ok for men to cry or women to spit or have short hair. Where the hell does he get this. I regularly see spitting from both sexes ( and find it equally disgusting ) women having short hair and men having long hair is a changing fashion and men cry at births, ball games, and other special occasions.

---

quote:

---

I didnt realize that otherwise educated people still adhered to this biology is destiny crap.

---

quote:

---

Were women designed to birth and feed the offspring of the species sure.

Are mens stronger muscles due to the fact that human babies have a long dependency period and so the family needed fed and protected for that amount of time likely. However as most of us have moved on from caveman times this things for the most part do not have a bearing on current times.

---

quote:

---

Yes women still birth and feed their offspring but we do not need to be mothers if we choose not to. I dont see too many men wrestling with wild animals to protect their families or going on long hunting trips for any thing other than dubious sport.

---

quote:

---

So should our culture not now be shaping us as nearly androgenous?

---

Whatever.

quote:

---

First of all, there is Stephen Pinker's famous book on evolutionary psychology for the popular press, How the Mind Works.

---

Ever notice that in nature that when the male bird screws and leaves he is much more colourful than the female but when the male bird stays and helps raize and feed the children that the males and females look a lot alike? I have a theory behind it.

quote:

---

I don't think that your humour was related to what WindDreamer was saying, which I thought was pretty clear--he is claiming that cultural evolution and the subjugation of women would quite logically influence biological characteristics of women if given long enough to do so--in other words, culture and biology form a feedback loop. The answer to this question depends on how long you think it takes for culture to affect biology--I suspect not necessarily all that long.

---

I would submit that your thesis is flawed; it's all cultural. Fashion tastes and even bodily tastes change from generation to generation; not 100 years ago, women who corsetted their waists were considered beautiful.

Or, to reframe the case, your thesis that culture and biology form a feedback loop doesn't take into account the fact that culture changes much faster than gene frequencies do. ("Biological evolution is slower than cultural evolution")

Vaudree - that's really interesting. The theory may be valid. I'll consult Audubon on its incidence. But there is another, equally valid aspect of bird mating: the female chooses; therefore, males have to do all the competing - even when (as in peacocks) the cost of competition for mates is personal danger. We have some resonance here.

Now, back to the children.
I think they're about two years old.
Mostly walking - that is, they all can; some do it most of the time; some are still on all fours most of the time. I predict that boys comprise the majority of crawlers, because they are more goal-oriented and the tested method is the shortest route between A and B. Also because their bodies are - average+2% or something - a little top-heavy. Walking comes more easily to girls (average + 2% lighter and leaner), and they are more likely to be process-oriented, to revel in the new skill for its own sake. This is a difference the babies have not been taught, but that comes naturally with their genes.

They're mostly talking, too. In general, the girls started sooner and make more effort at accuracy and clarity; the boys persist longer in misheard and mispronounced words and generally take longer to construct a sentence. There are two reasons for this difference. The first is temperamental: boys use language to get or accomplish something (goal-oriented); as long as the reward is forthcoming, they have no need to change the stimulus they emit; girls use language to communicate: the reward they seek (often) is comprehension itself, rather than a treat or thing. The second is interpersonal. The parents have learned to guess and try to fulfill a boy baby's wishes, because they want to avoid a tantrum. They have learned that they can defer fulfilling a girl baby's wishes with less noisy consequences. Depending on the cultural bias, the parents may be proud of an aggressive boy and a patient girl, so reinforce these tendencies at every opportunity - often without being aware of doing so. Both kinds of child has already learned the meaning of "no", but in slightly different contexts. Both have learned an approximate version of "good" and "bad' in relation to their own actions, but to slightly different actions.

We didn't take these babies outside the home yet, but society, with its expectations and assumptions, has already come in; has already influenced the development of these children.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

I'll try to be more clear in what I was saying.
If you think of evolution as a process taking HUGE expanses of time, and adaptation or cultural revolution as processes taking relativley small amounts of time, you can see how a large chunk of evolution(LONG TIME) can be made up of lots of smaller chunks of cultural adaptation. The general (and I mean GENERAL) human shape and appearance hasn't changed for thousands of years, yet we've had hundreds of smaller cultural chunks of time - Roman empire, dark ages, middle ages, Austrian Empire, The Soviet union, Western civilization ect - and with each new adaptation or revolution from one culture to the next there hasn't been much of a change in how human beings look and act. I mean, everyone since recorded history has urinated and grown hair, and when the Roman empire fell people didn't suddenly change in appearance or biological being. But, if you look close, slowly over a huge evolutionary amount of time, less and less people are growing hair on their bodies, because less and less of our time is spent outside and cold.
Larger hips and all the other things that signify female are there because they are required to reproduce, just the same - not the same, but equivical - as us poor males must walk around with penis' dangling from our torso.
If our culture, today, here and NOW started favouring short men with bald spots and slightly bent penises, it would take thousands of years, but it would become a biological process in which women are universaly attracted to short bald men with ect.... Just the same as our biology AND thus our culture today favour women with wide hips(child bearing), soft skin(healthy) and supple breasts(child rearing).

It creates a corsality loop, wherein small chunks of cultural time invent a larger biological evolution. In essence, we are what our ancestors invented, this does not imply that this process can or ever will be a concious one, but it does imply that we have a choice of how to live our lives and should take a strong interest in the world around us. It is because of this that I argue for equality rights, and against dangerous anti-male twits.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: WindDreamer ]

quote:

---

If our culture, today, here and NOW started favouring short men with bald spots and slightly bent penises, it would take thousands of years, but it would become a biological process in which woman are universally attracted to short bald men with ect.... Just the same as our biology AND thus our culture favour women with wide hips(child bearing), soft skin(healthy) and supple breasts(child feeding).

It creates a corsality loop, wherein small chunks of culture invent a larger biological evolution. If you still don't kind of understand, I'll draw an image.

---

I can see that being a factor in tribal societies of long ago where someone who was strong and healthy would make a better mate.

However now fashion is more likely to be a fleeting and trivial thing having little to do with survival. For instance if all men were to decide that they could only mate with supermodels they would be limited to 8% of the population.

quote:

---

I can honestly say that I've never taken the length of a girl's hair in to consideration as a sexual signal. I've never even considered it as
something related at all to mating.

---

Attraction being a very primal instinct, perhaps you just never noticed yourself noticing.

For those who have been in long term relationships, have you ever been looking at your sweetie and find that some aspect that you never really took notice of before, all of a sudden becomes something that you find yourself very interested in?

It happens to my wife and I often enough. Just since the start of fall I have noticed her face and how beautiful it is to me. I mean I always thought she was a looker, but now I catch myself just staring at her. Man am I hooked.

quote:

---

I've never heard of a "corsality loop".

---

That's another fashion thing, like earthmother said. They were in style in the 19th century, again in the 50s, and I've heard vaguely that they're coming back. Push-up bras, maybe, are another version of the same thing.

quote:

---

I can honestly say that I've never taken the length of a girl's hair in to consideration as a sexual signal. I've never even considered it as something related at all to mating.

---

quote:

---

I ain't into long hair. Shoulder-length is about as long as I'll allow. I am all powerful.

---

He still thinks I'm a little scary.... But in a good way.

quote:

---

Well, Milhouse says I shouldn't bother with silly females anyways, so I guess it's all good.

---

quote:

---

Mostly walking - that is, they all can; some do it most of the time; some are still on all fours most of the time. I predict that boys comprise the majority of crawlers, because they are more goal-oriented and the tested method is the shortest route between A and B.

---

As far as talking goes - few beat my first born son! This little vietnamise girl at daycare used my 2½ year old son to learn english. Everytime she hit him he would give her a long speach as to why she shouldn't hit him. One day I walked into daycare to pick my son up and the little girl looked straight into my eyes and started mumbling my son's speach.

As far as size, my baby brother had to stay in the hospital when he was born because he fell under 5 pounds soon after birth. I was the same age as him when I was born and I never went that tiny. Now look at him! Until male puberty sets in, girls, if anything, tend to be a bit taller.

[ January 14, 2002: Message edited by: vaudree ]

quote:

---

In the 1700s and 1800s (if memory serves) it was trendy for women to marry fat men. Why? Because they tended to be well-fed, and well-fed people were rich.

---

There are also some societies (or at least there used to be) where fat women were revered - or at least moderately plump women - for the same reason. It would show that their husbands were rich enough to feed them well.

I've heard that Marilyn Monroe was a size 14 by today's standards, btw. Looking at a website the other day of pictures of her, I was thinking, she would NOT be considered a bombshell if she came on the scene now. She'd probably be getting Rosie O'Donnell parts in movies.

(edited to say, holy guacamole, didn't mean to tick anyone off by linking to their images! )

I mean, the woman is gorgeous, but her agent today would be on her case to get rid of the tiny pot on her belly, the little bit of padding on the hips, etc.

I don't think that much can change over a generation or two from a biological point of view. This is strictly cultural.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Aimed at women, the tag line was something like "Afraid to be seen wearing a bathing costume? Well, our product can help!"

You'd think, from that, that it was a weight-loss product. It wasn't. It was for women concerned that they were too thin to be seen in a bathing suit, and wanted to plump up a little.

Now are there such characteristics that are stable? nonesuch mentioned some, I think. But lets take a sexist characteristic that has remained relatively stable--height preferences. Lots of cultures value tall women...but have you ever heard of a patriarchal culture that values women who are taller than men? I would be surprised if any culture that systematically prefers women taller than men existed. Or where women are on average taller than men. They may exist. In abundance, though?

The aristrocratic families (of Europe) may have preferred certain traits (dainty women; tall, slim types in both sexes) and they could get away with it, because 1. they didn't have to do any physical labour; if the women died of TB or child-birth, the men who were not killed off in war at an early age simply married a new, youger one; 2. they had regular infusions of foreign genes and 3. they were replaced from time to time, en masse, by a conquering family.

Whatever is the fashion in the upper class is imitated, less convincingly, by the ambitious merchant class, and eventually trickles down through the economic layers. With each descent, it becomes a less attainable ideal: the vast majority of the population merely gaze upon the princess - they don't actually produce many princess type offspring.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]