Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Feminism - where are the threads?

Fozzie Bear said:
But wouldn’t it be dangerous to pay men to stay at home with their children if they are not genetically predisposed to be caring or nurturing.
Click to expand...
It’s an interesting thought, given the much higher levels of assault by men, what’s your opinion?
 
kabbes said:
1) Steal underpants
2) ???
3) Profit

Or, to be more specific, 3 is your claim that”sex-influenced behaviours” includes being caring.

Even the concept of “caring” is massively complex, being highly culturally embedded. The claim that such culturally-specific, environmental, social behaviour is in turn determined through some unknown mechanism straight out of a couple of gametes is preposterous, let alone unproven by just stating it.


Have a read of that Top Girls paper I posted a few pages ago. There was indeed a subversion of feminism to serve the needs of capitalism, but I don’t know why you think it was feminists that did the subverting.
Click to expand...
The idea that animal behaviour is influenced by gamete size is not preposterous, it’s pretty well established in evolutionary biology. The extent it influences complex human social behaviour is absolutely debatable though. I’m thinking about your interesting other post and will reply.
 
kabbes said:
I think I need to expand on that top point.

Human behaviour is highly unusual in the animal world. Our key evolutionary strategy has been plasticity, the ability to adapt — the very opposite of mastering an environmental niche. We have lived in jungle and tundra, primitive camps and modern cities. You can’t have innate responses to master all those environments. So instead, we have a unique defining characteristic, which is culture. We pattern our behaviours, thoughts, beliefs using cultural tools (such as language), cultural scripts (such as what to do when we reach a traffic light) and cultural values (such as the idea that individual attainment is the best measure of success). Culture provides us with a toolkit to navigate without even needing to think about it in a world that would be otherwise utterly overwhelming in its complexity. Nobody could rely on evolved responses to tell us how to behave in a work meeting, as would be evident if you’d ever seen Kevin eating in one. Even just trying to cross a road would be impossible, let alone being able to operate within a social network.

What you are calling “caring behaviour” is similarly a pattern of highly complex cultural scripts, cultural behaviours, cultural values and so on. It varies from culture to culture, demonstrating just how cultural it is. And in the full sense of what you would mean by “caring behaviour” (such as worrying if others are okay, having empathy for somebody’s concerns and so on), it doesn’t exist at all in the animal kingdom (notwithstanding that animals follow much simpler behaviours that direct their protection of their offspring until it is viable).

If you’re going to suggest that such highly complex, culturally-mediated behaviour is not only directly derived from genes but specifically derived from one particular source (i.e. sexual dimorphism) you really need to do a lot more than just claim it is obvious.
Click to expand...
Great post. I do agree human behaviour is unusual, and I agree plasticity has been a crucial part of our evolutionary success, and I’m interested in what you call culture. I think you’re absolutely right when you say that there isn’t determinism over complex behaviour such as how to behave in meetings.

I guess where we might begin to disagree is the extent that male and female behaviour is strikingly similar between cultures. As you say, we have adapted to environments from the tundra to the jungle, yet aspects of human life remain the same.

Men fight, men make up the vast numbers in armed forces, they die in vast numbers during war. They have- the world over- much higher levels of violent crime. This is because of testosterone, because their bodies are bigger and stronger, and they are more likely to be aggressive. It’s not chance, it’s not plasticity, it’s underlying genetics, hormonal, and physiological influences on behaviour. If you are going to argue that this is a coincidence between all cultures, that they coincidentally have constructed gender in this way, then you are going to have to persuade me.

Similarly, I don’t think it is a cultural gender construction that women care for the young and old. I do not think it has arisen purely by chance across human cultures and time. I think it’s rooted in biology. Reproduction is costly for females. And it makes us vulnerable and in need of male protection especially when our children are young. You cannot easily work when you are heavily pregnant or breastfeeding or have toddlers at your ankles. I’m aware women have, and do, and will continue to do so. But you and your young are more vulnerable.

So in answer to weepiper I don’t think women are “genetically predisposed” to be better at wiping arses, but I do think there are underlying biological reasons why women tend to end up in this role more. But I agree (and so consider myself a feminist) that women should not be considered lesser people for it.

The reason that feminism claiming that there are no biological differences between men and women worries me Winot (ie the reason I find the gender is complete construct argument a problem) is that I think it is dangerous for women. The strongest women cannot compete against the average man. Women do need and deserve protection from males, especially when our kids are little. Women’s caring role needs to be recognised and compensated by society, especially now so many women are raising kids on their own. Like weltweit says, how insane the State will pay a stranger to mind your infant but not you.

I think there are all kinds of risks for women in assuming gender is completely culturally constructed, but I also just believe it to be fundamentally untrue and not consistent with the evidence. But I appreciate that is a conservative viewpoint, and the ‘progressive’ view is there are no biological differences it is all gender construct that if we can somehow change will eliminate sexism. Fantasy.
 
Fozzie Bear said:
Well I think if men were genetically programmed for violence there would be a lot more of it.

So perhaps they are not and other factors are at play.
Click to expand...
Of course other factors are in play, but it doesn’t follow that testosterone doesn’t play a role in male aggression. There’s plenty of evidence it does I’m afraid.
 
purenarcotic said:
Where do lesbians fit into this? No man will be providing for me when I have a kid. 😕

I appreciate you are making broad brush strokes, but fuck me.
Click to expand...
I'm not a lesbian and still no man provided for or protected me and my child. This is also the case for many many of my peers.
I think that its great if women or men as primary carers have someone who can provide and protect them but ime these have been women as well as men.
So based on that I personally do not relate to your black and white theory Edie and feel that your view comes across as quite limited and exclusive as if there is only one way, one model, the nuclear model.
 
purenarcotic said:
No, not at all. Not that thin skinned! Just think your view is centred around the idea that it is men and women who have babies. It isn’t.
Click to expand...
To state the obvious, you did need a man and a woman to make a baby until incredibly recently. I’m aware there are exceptions to this now, and I have no problem with that. What is your point?
 
kalidarkone said:
I'm not a lesbian and still no man provided for or protected me and my child. This is also the case for many many of my peers.
I think that its great if women or men as primary carers have someone who can provide and protect them but ime these have been women as well as men.
So based on that I personally do not relate to your black and white theory Edie and feel that your view comes across as quite limited and exclusive as if there is only one way, one model, the nuclear model.
Click to expand...
I’m aware there are a lot of ‘families of different shapes’ and I have nothing against them, I am one. That isn’t the point I am making.
 
I’m sorry, Edie . I’m having to write too much about this subject at the moment in my degree. I don’t have the energy to also engage in a discussion about it on here beyond what I’ve already tried to explain.
 
Made it as far as the lion comparison. Won't go much further than that. Male lions do protect the females and cubs but in only a very narrow sense. What they are really protecting is their position as the pride's males from rival males. The females can cope perfectly well without males except for when they need to get pregnant.

It's a poor choice of comparison. A better comparison would have been with gorillas because the big silverback will defend his family from all threats. He is a genuine protector.

But why cherry pick like that? Gorillas are not monogamous. Monogamous gibbons share their duties far more equally.

And if we're limiting ourselves to mammals with a similar level of sexual dimorphism to humans and that also live in mixed sex family groups, where do bonobos fit in? Or orca? Not a huge amount is known about orca reproduction but female orca are thought to prefer large males as mates. Doesn't stop their societies from being female-led, with the larger males deferring to their mothers.

You cannot find answers in nature in the way this speaker thinks you can. That's not to say sexual dimorphism is irrelevant. But it isn't deterministic the way he thinks it is.
 
I don't have much to say because I am feeling decidedly dim-witted these days but...personally, my introduction to feminism was predicated firmly on reproductive biology. Having children, particularly the long gestation and even longer road to adulthood, totally defined a large portion of my life. The role of parent, with it's joys and discontents was my political entry (although I had been induced into the class struggle at a much earlier age). Even now, how we, as a society, negotiate the role of parenting is still a fundamental question, with biology only slightly shifted from its primary perch.
 
Edie said:
I’m aware there are a lot of ‘families of different shapes’ and I have nothing against them, I am one. That isn’t the point I am making.
Click to expand...
So you and your children haven't been provided for or protected by a man? Yet you seem to be asserting that this is inevitable based on biology?

This is what I'm getting from what you are saying. Is this what you are saying?
 
Edie said:
You’re not discussing. You’re just saying you find it outdated. Well so what? I don’t. So what? I’m not being rude, it’s just not an argument.
Click to expand...
purenarcotic is making an argument, as I was...no one, feminists or other are failing to acknowledge that there are real, biological differences between men and women and that those in different contexts do influence roles and responsibilities that we commonly take on...there are obvious practical reasons for this.

Context though for me is key...we are not just influenced by biological drives...we are influenced by culture. It stands to reason that depending on the environment and our survival needs, that culture and a shift in understanding of what it means to be male/female and why will and does change. Our lives are far more complex now, our survival doesn't for the most part depend solely on having someone to provide for and protect us.

Also, 'so what'? That isn't an argument. That isn't discussion either.
 
Last edited:
Edie said:
The reason that feminism claiming that there are no biological differences between men and women worries me Winot (ie the reason I find the gender is complete construct argument a problem) is that I think it is dangerous for women. The strongest women cannot compete against the average man. Women do need and deserve protection from males, especially when our kids are little. Women’s caring role needs to be recognised and compensated by society, especially now so many women are raising kids on their own. Like weltweit says, how insane the State will pay a stranger to mind your infant but not you.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that there are no biological differences between men and women - I just don't believe (to the extent that you seem to) that the differences automatically result in inherent and inescapable behavioural traits. Perhaps I should have used the term 'gender identity' instead of 'gender' as the latter is open to misinterpretation.

I think it's useful in these discussions to ask what the consequences are if a particular viewpoint is 'true'. So what are the consequences if it is true that women are inherently predisposed to childcare compared to men? I see only problematic consequences - that women who don't wish to take on a childcare role are forced into it and that men who wish to are denied it. Similarly, what are the consequences if it is true that men are biologically predisposed to fight (because testosterone)? The danger is that violent men get a free pass, and that women who wish to serve in the armed forces are denied that opportunity (or are discriminated against).

By contrast, if it is accepted that men can care and women can fight, that doesn't prevent the adoption and enforcement of laws which prevent discrimination and inequality. Indeed, it might allow men and women to escape traditional constraints of gender identity and ultimately be happier and more fulfilled.
 
It's fair to say that the feminism of the 1970s (my era) had a very different set of demands (for change) than the feminism my 37 year old daughter and 9 year old grand-daughter encounter. Some aspects (such as parity, respect, opportunity) have been consistent. Whilst I have never fallen into the culturally defined dominant position of unpaid caretaker, requiring some masculine counterpart to bring home the bacon, it is also bloody true that there was no getting away from the many months of pregnancy and years of childcare...and the incredibly difficult balancing acts to gain a life not solely determined by parenthood. I found a lot of later feminist discourse, especially the have-it-all pressures of the 90s, to be disingenous and a furiously unfair dismissal of biological difference tbh. So, while I am OK with accepting the imperatives of cultural changes, I have never been completely comfortable with the entire social construction of gender theories which came to dominate the discourse. And, of course, this very dichotomy has been one of the more difficult issues which has come to prominence in current questions of 'what is a woman' and where do we situate the many complex and contradictory questions around trans rights.
 
Social constructionism doesn’t deny material reality or the consequence of that material reality for power relations. Quite the opposite, in fact!
 
campanula said:
I don't have much to say because I am feeling decidedly dim-witted these days but...personally, my introduction to feminism was predicated firmly on reproductive biology. Having children, particularly the long gestation and even longer road to adulthood, totally defined a large portion of my life. The role of parent, with it's joys and discontents was my political entry (although I had been induced into the class struggle at a much earlier age). Even now, how we, as a society, negotiate the role of parenting is still a fundamental question, with biology only slightly shifted from its primary perch.
Click to expand...
Same
 
Fozzie Bear said:
Well I think if men were genetically programmed for violence there would be a lot more of it.
Click to expand...

How much more and how do you know? Also, which sounds more likely: an evolved capacity for aggression in certain circumstances, or a trait which is indiscriminate and always switched on?
 
kabbes said:
Social constructionism doesn’t deny material reality or the consequence of that material reality for power relations. Quite the opposite, in fact!
Click to expand...
I certainly realise that...but find it interesting how gender-critical feminists morphed into latter day villains in the nascent movements for trans rights...and feel we are at a difficult point in separating just how power relations operate when discussing the lack of justice and equality for groups of people who, although coming from different positions, are still culturally oppressed.
 
kabbes said:
Social constructionism doesn’t deny material reality or the consequence of that material reality for power relations. Quite the opposite, in fact!
Click to expand...
I certainly realise that...but find it interesting how gender-critical feminists morphed into latter day villains in the nascent movements for trans rights...and feel we are at a difficult point in separating just how power relations operate when discussing the lack of justice and equality for groups of people who, although coming from different positions, are still culturally oppressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

danny la rouge
What are the underlying causes of hate crime?
2
Replies
53
Views
1K
pug
pug
Cloo
Why are more young men than older seeing feminism as a bad thing?
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
287
Views
15K
mango5
mango5
frogwoman
What are the international implications if Israel gets kicked out of the UN?
2
Replies
35
Views
870
tim
tim
Cloo
Where to start with bell hooks?
Replies
6
Views
387
GarveyLives
G
zedr
French Revolutionary Calendar - what are you?
2
Replies
33
Views
888
Fozzie Bear
Fozzie Bear
Back
Top Bottom