I personally stepped back from the incredibly divisive and unhelpful theories of social identity because I am both invested in old and probably outdated arguments around difference, essentialism (and a Marxist analysis) while feeling utterly lost in po-mo theories which I find difficult to understand (hence feeling a bit thick). Wandering off from thread to eat toast.
Feminism - where are the threads?
- Thread starter JudithB
- Start date
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
So I listened to all of this while doing the cleaning.
There are some truths and half-truths in there, but there is so much cherry-picking that it becomes worthless. It's a shame because human sexual dimorphism, its origins and its consequences are a topic worth exploring. But not like this, and not by him. Some of it is laughably wrong, especially coming from the mouth of this person, whose job is to transfer privilege from one generation of men to another. The subtext of the whole thing is 'women are in charge really'. But that doesn't explain Eton.
I agree with the poster who said it is adolescent in its simplistic approach. It sounds like something a sixth-former at Eton might have put together, not a teacher. Some bits of it are frankly just weird. His obsession with gangsters and murderers as the acme of masculinity, for instance, says more about him than anything else.
Last edited:
I admit to listening to less than a minute tbh. But in truth, the context of this - a video used as teaching material at Eton sorta disqualified it in my mind (personal prejudices shining thru'). Which, in fainess, relegates anything I have to say as just personal fluff...
I am pleased to see a revival of feminists threads though.
I am pleased to see a revival of feminists threads though.
Poot
My wife thinks I work too hard
There's plenty around evolution that is very interesting. Like the constant desire for more calorific food, which is an evolutionary adaptation to encourage us not to starve to death. Now that we have access to Krispy Creme and Nandos we don't need that particular characteristic anymore and we fight against it for the good of our health. The same is true of needing men to protect us or needing to be the ones who change the nappies. If it really does exist on a biological level then it's no longer a desirable characteristic and should be challenged.
Also, in the 3 minutes of the video that I could stand to watch he didn't mention what men were protecting women from. Maybe if he sorted that out in his head he would understand why this is all bollocks.
Also, in the 3 minutes of the video that I could stand to watch he didn't mention what men were protecting women from. Maybe if he sorted that out in his head he would understand why this is all bollocks.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I think some people find the idea that our society and culture are written on a blank slate (that is somehow completely divorced from what we actually are) is comforting, because the alternative is frightening and riddled with uncertainty about the limits of our control.
Those limits, if they exist, are likely to lie somewhere very different to something laid out anything like in this video, though, imo - due to the kind of institution is has emerged from. The kinds of limits to human nature it is positing are rooted in the function of the institution it comes from (as a couple of people have basically said).
Last edited:
I haven't watched the video and I wasn't referring to it.
On second thoughts, i do. I generally try to ask for consent rather than forgiveness these days - I'm not a great fit for thelemic theory, going by my limited understanding of it.
SheilaNaGig
Break requested
I actively and specifically missed your presence when all the feminsist threads were bubbling away on the daily.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
It'd be more 'the word of sin is restriction'Oh
Right. Got you - I thought it was a reference to "do what thou wilt"
I am going to get reading up a bit more. I used to know someone (who I remember thinking was you years ago) who was a big crowley fan - I like learning about other cultures and things and could do with a distraction project...
<prepares to re-enter the perfect potential cult candidate vortex, having just escaped from the reputed extreme Terfery portal>>
Last edited:
I love you for doing that
Largely agree with your analysis that the way he presents it isn’t a sophisticated argument. (There was one bit where he showed a table of evidence of papers which made me laugh because of course anyone could do that). And I agree that it contained truths and half-truths.
For me, males and females have different underlying biology. Genetics- obviously; neuroendocrinology- obviously; physiology- height, strength, grip strength, throwing ability, plus an absolute myriad of prevalence of diseases- uncontroversial in medicine; and at least some propensity for behavioural traits such as aggression, risk taking, mortality, care giving towards young children as we see these are all cross cultural. These biological differences all just a fact. It’s not arguable.
Maybe it is a matter of so what. But maybe it matters because what we are wanting to change with feminism is wrong unless you accept this.
For example, the Nordic countries have been trying to make their societies as equal as possible, then seem to be counting the number of CEOs and company owners, then asking why their gender equality isn’t there.
The 'paradox' of working in the world's most equal countries
Even Europe's most egalitarian countries struggle to put women on an even footing at work. In the Nordics, why do women still lag behind men in pay, management and company ownership?
www.bbc.com
But maybe that’s the wrong end point? Maybe what we as women want is for ‘our’ work to be valued as men’s? Not to become CEOs. Turns out that even given the chance, a lot of women don’t want that, not at the expense of raising their kids. Most women want flexible but secure jobs and will trade this off against salary. Men, not so much.
We need to re-think what the goals are here, what the measuring stick is. Pay kinship carers, not plough millions into getting women into stem (I mean great, go for it, but why the fuck is this a feminist priority?!). All caring professions (nurses, OT, physios, HCAs, care home workers, carers, primary teachers, foster carers etc) should be paid more, not focussing on women owning companies (although great if you do).
purenarcotic
Conveniently Pocket Sized
Why can’t we have both? Why can’t men take on more of the ‘feminine’ roles? I’m not interested in CEOs either, but I don’t see why we have to stop at traditional ‘women’s work’ being better paid. That’s the absolute bare minimum.
I agree, but it’s about focus. How we measure success.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
The Nordic Paradox, as I think it has been called in some quarters , is an odd one and certainly runs counter to my expectations.
I haven’t heard any convincing refutations or explanations. Not to say there aren’t any.
The conservative line on this is that when you make people feel more free to go with whatever career they choose, their preferences tend to show a more rather than less marked gender difference. Guess you could speculate that some of these preferences/expectations get formed at a very early stage of developing an understanding of gender, though. There hasn’t been all that much time for things to feed through.
My experiences of working with women in STEM (I work in an area where there are lots) suggests it is nothing to do with capability, at least.
I haven’t heard any convincing refutations or explanations. Not to say there aren’t any.
The conservative line on this is that when you make people feel more free to go with whatever career they choose, their preferences tend to show a more rather than less marked gender difference. Guess you could speculate that some of these preferences/expectations get formed at a very early stage of developing an understanding of gender, though. There hasn’t been all that much time for things to feed through.
My experiences of working with women in STEM (I work in an area where there are lots) suggests it is nothing to do with capability, at least.
Last edited:
8ball
Decolonise colons!
How things end up getting paid what they do might be something to explore. Sometimes it is a case of an organisation wanting to pay the minimum possible (and they will use the degree of esteem afforded to particular roles as part of that), and sometimes remuneration is protected to a degree by professional associations. The decline in working class power over the last 40 years or so probably plays into it somewhere too.
Edie, I still don’t get why you think it is “feminism” (by which I assume you must mean those directing feminist academia, because if not, what else?) that is pushing an agenda of successful have-it-all consumerist power via being a top worker as the priority of feminism. This just isn’t the case. The creation of “girl as winner”, being the idea that in the modern world, women can outcompete by working hard enough, is the work of the same capitalist machinery whose interests are served by having more and more efficient workers. You’re punching at the wrong target.
Seriously, this is all addressed in the paper I posted just before you started this focus on the nonsense spewed by the Eton teacher. I would strongly suggest that if you are properly interested in the subject, you read that. It does a much better job of taking the subject step by step than I could ever hope to manage. Here it is again, to help;
From its abstract:
Seriously, this is all addressed in the paper I posted just before you started this focus on the nonsense spewed by the Eton teacher. I would strongly suggest that if you are properly interested in the subject, you read that. It does a much better job of taking the subject step by step than I could ever hope to manage. Here it is again, to help;
From its abstract:
I will read it, but that’s it’s abstract? Why is it so fucking hard to understand? Surely it’s abstract should summarise the main finding, or what it adds, in plain English.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I guess the journal has a style guide and just saying: the goals of feminism =/= 'girl power' would have been rejected for excessive brevity.
Well, it is true that it’s not always straightforward to read these things. But if I were to read a paper from your own academic field, would I not have expect to have to do some work in order to understand it? Academia doesn’t become trivial just because it’s a social science rather than a biological science. Sociological studies are built on years of analysis, theory, evidence gathering, analysis, theory, evidence gathering just as they are in your own area. But that’s precisely why it’s a bit frustrating when people tread old ground without at least being willing to consider that others have already been there, and with considerable rigour. Otherwise, it’s like insisting on one’s own views regarding the nervous system based only on one’s own observations and having watched a YouTube video about phrenology, if you see what I mean. It’s just a good thing to know something about the body of work already performed if you’re going to advance your own theories.
Of course, abstracts are never the easiest part of a paper to read anyway. They compress the whole thing into a few hundred words, so don’t have time to explain anything. Papers themselves are much easier to read than abstracts.
Now, this abstract: I’ll try to expand it based also on my understanding of what the paper itself discusses:
Here she’s saying that government strategies have encouraged and enabled certain education and employment practices. These practices are all about turning women into the right kind of worker. They’re certainly not created in the interests of women.
This is saying that part of those education and employment strategies created by governments is to create a cultural value system that does not question the political structure. Girls have been sold an individualist, meritocratic dream and sent out to attain it. By design, this value system does not question hegemonic masculinity, ie (amongst other things) the way the world is built around having power if you are within the working world that was traditionally a male preserve. As a result, the cultural beliefs that give men power, which were being challenged prior to the late 90s, have been restabilised.
This is saying that since girls have been sold the idea that they can now do and achieve anything, it becomes their own fault if they don’t manage it. They just need to work harder on perfecting themselves. Given the effort this takes, the last thing women then have time for is to challenge the status quo.
So in total, it’s raising similar concerns to yours, but it’s having an in-depth look at where the real blame belongs for the things you are concerned about. And the reason for me pushing this paper is that this is part of current feminism. When you say “feminism is saying X”, it doesn’t then seem fair to not actually read what feminism really is saying. I’m pointing out to you that what you are claiming about feminism is not right, and I’m giving you the respect of doing so by actually giving you the evidence for my statement.
kabbes I appreciate that. (I’m on a long day today but will reply when I can).
Psychology. This year (part time, so one-sixth of the total) is chiefly critical social psychology, i.e. the interface between the social and the self with a particular focus on power relations.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
if it went in plain english they'd see the academic emperor was scantily clad
Scantily clad, you say?
Quick! Cover them up..
Dangerous Coats
Someone clever once said
Women were not allowed pockets
In case they carried leaflets
To spread sedition
Which means unrest
To you & me
A grandiose word
For commonsense
Fairness
Kindness
Equality
So ladies, start sewing
Dangerous coats
Made of pockets & sedition
Sharon Owens
^ I know bugger all about the writer/intent. I just like pockets. And coats.
Quick! Cover them up..
Dangerous Coats
Someone clever once said
Women were not allowed pockets
In case they carried leaflets
To spread sedition
Which means unrest
To you & me
A grandiose word
For commonsense
Fairness
Kindness
Equality
So ladies, start sewing
Dangerous coats
Made of pockets & sedition
Sharon Owens
^ I know bugger all about the writer/intent. I just like pockets. And coats.
Similar threads
