NationStates Jolt Archive

It is troubling to me how naive some so-called radical feminists can be. Particularly the ones that I know personally.

Let me first issue this caveat. It is not me intent to critique the concept of feminism. Instead, it is my intent to critique certain ideas that have gained recognition as being "feminist."

Some well educated, intelligent "radical" feminists that I know of personally have been expounding their beliefs lately. Their belief is that that only way to abolish patriarchy is to have an equal number of men and women in every hierarchy of society. They applaud themselves as being "revolutionary" for proposing that half of the military hierarchy being women, half of the state bureaucracy be women, and half of the corporate bureaucracy. They assure me that this will abolish patriarchy once and for all, and then we can live happily in Femitopia. They assure me that the infusion of female values into corrupt and oppressive hierarchies, they won't be so corrupt or oppressive any more.

Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry to commit the "radical" feminist heresy, but to me, some things like hierarchy, domination and oppression are gender neutral. The corrupt state, which is diametrically opposed to holistic social freedom, can't be made tame by an infusion of "feminine values." An abusive corporation won't stop dominating its workers or destroying the environment just because a woman is at the control.

Hierarchy has its own set of values, values that it impresses on all who are touched by it. Hierarchies innately value domination and control. Whenever one person has power over another, whether they are a man or a woman, the rule remains the same. Power is a self-legitimizing corruption, the holding and use of power becomes its own legitimacy.

“authority” as noted psychologist and socialist humanist Erich Fromm defines it, is “a broad term with two entirely different meanings: it can be either 'rational' or 'irrational' authority. Rational authority is based on competence, and it helps the person who leans on it to grow. Irrational authority is based on power and serves to exploit the person subjected to it.”

The distinction becomes one of “legitimate authority” versus “illegitimate authority.” Thus to be an “authority” on something is not the same as being an authority figure. The former is recognition of expertise in an area whereas the latter is a social relationship based upon status and power.

We must now understand what authority as a social relationship does to both individuals and the group. It has long been understood in the fields of anthropology and psychology that human social relationships have a tremendous impact on individuals involved, both in growth and teaching as well as in our everyday lives. It is a fundamental truism that “the exercise of power by some disempowers others" and so through a “combination of physical intimidation, economic domination and dependency, and psychological limitations, social institutions and practices affect the way everyone sees the world and her or his place in it,” as Anarcha-Feminist Martha A. Ackelsberg observed.

Any system based on authoritarian social relationships, be it the modern state-capitalist combine, state socialism, feudalism etc., divides people into two fundamental groups: the controllers and the controlled. The system gives the power to govern and control to the controller group, and denies it to the controlled. Those in positions of authority and hierarchy have power over other individuals, and the means to force obedience. The problem with this is best expressed in Lord Acton’s famous aphorism that “power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Psychologist Erich Fromm dedicated his entire career to analyzing relations of power and authority and what effects they had on people. Unsurprisingly, he found that “[t]hose who have these symbols of authority and those who benefit from them must dull their subject people's realistic, i.e. critical, thinking and make them believe the fiction [that irrational authority is rational and necessary],… [so] the mind is lulled into submission by clichés…[and] people are made dumb because they become dependent and lose their capacity to trust their eyes and judgement.” Authority becomes the end itself, rather than a means to an end, so continues to justify its existence through repression and propaganda.

Colin Ward argued that as a direct result of authoritarian social relationships, people “do go from womb to tomb without realising their human potential, precisely because the power to initiate, to participate in innovating, choosing, judging, and deciding is reserved for the top men.” Indeed, it must be noted that it is mostly men who hold positions of authority in society, reflecting another insidious problem of authority. The very nature of hierarchical social relationships creates other curious problems. Each and every human being in the entire world has been conditioned from birth to be just another brick in the massive wall of hierarchy. Everything we say and do is determined partially by our hierarchical social paradigm. We follow, rather than go our own way. So, like the sheep that we have been made, we follow the clanging of the leader’s bell, even off the precipice to our doom.

The very nature of society’s hierarchical institutions makes them self-perpetuating. Martha Ackselberg rather poignantly came to the conclusion that hierarchical institutions “foster alienated and exploitative relationships among those who participate in them, disempowering people and distancing them from their own reality. Hierarchies make some people dependent on others, blame the dependent for their dependency, and then use that dependency as a justification for further exercise of authority....Those in positions of relative dominance tend to define the very characteristics of those subordinate to them...”

This very self-perpetuation leads to a number of distressing ethical and social problems. “… to be always in a position of being acted upon and never to be allowed to act is to be doomed to a state of dependence and resignation. Those who are constantly ordered about and prevented from thinking for themselves soon come to doubt their own capacities…[and have] difficulty acting on [their] sense of self in opposition to societal norms, standards and expectations.”

A system of hierarchy can and will be used to justify the worst crimes imaginable. As Murray Bookchin notes, “A hierarchical mentality fosters the renunciation of the pleasures of life. It justifies toil, guilt, and sacrifice by the ‘inferiors,’ and pleasure and the indulgent gratification of virtually every caprice by their ‘superiors.’ The objective history of the social structure becomes internalized as a subjective history of the psychic structure.” Even the most dispossessed in society are controlled by this mentality. While the poor individual might lament his/her station in life, few will go so far as to criticize the fact that a wealthy individual will live in opulent splendor while many thousands of others live in squalor.

Under this perverse mentality of hierarchy, the inner State of the poor person will convince him/her that the wealthy individual deserves the splendor. No active injunction by the State is needed to protect the wealthy man’s property, years of subtle indoctrination have produced a more servile effect than the most massive uses of violence could ever hope to achieve. “Hierarchy, class, and ultimately the State,” as Bookchin stresses, “penetrate the very integument of the human psyche and establish within it unreflective internal powers of coercion and constraint . . . By using guilt and self-blame, the inner State can control behavior long before fear of the coercive powers of the State have to be invoked.”

No matter what values a hierarchy claims to operate on, the fact still remains the same. Whether our hierarchy makes pretenses to feminism, or not, the domination of humans by other humans continues. The domination of women by men is rightly opposed by all who call themselves feminists. An opposition to patriarchy is an important first step. But, at the same time, we must realize that the opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy or any kind of -archy, but rather it is an absence of rule and domination. Ethically, if we are to commit ourselves to the end of patriarchy, we must also oppose any other form of rule or domination for the very same reasons we oppose patriarchy: because rule and domination are inherently illegitimate, no matter who exercises it.

It is troubling to me how naive... can be...

Pot! Meet kettle!

So your "gripe" with people who find it inherently suspect that men dominate positions of power is that they... what? Don't agree with every last tenet of your personal political ideology?

So your "gripe" with people who find it inherently suspect that men dominate positions of power is that they... what? Don't agree with every last tenet of your personal political ideology?

I believe it's that they characterize "hierarchy, domination and oppression" as essentially male. That's what I got out of the post, anyway.

I believe it's that they characterize "hierarchy, domination and oppression" as essentially male. That's what I got out of the post, anyway.Really? Because what I got was this:

"Patriarchy is just ONE form of domination. Therefore, the feminist movement should just shut up and become communists."

Really? Because what I got was this:

"Patriarchy is just ONE form of domination. Therefore, the feminist movement should just shut up and become communists."

Huh. I don't really read that post as making a statement about all feminists, just the ones that think everything will be fine when we get rid of that male bias in positions of authority.

But he could probably tell you what he meant better than I could.

Feminists still subsribe to this silliness? Horrible. It's funny how being twenty times more likely to die on the job makes the male race the "oppressors" of our civilization. Africa doesn't have a problem with "child soldiers", it has a problem with "boy soldiers". When you read in the paper that "half of this village has been wiped out!", do you want to entertain a guess as to which half it was?

Huh. I don't really read that post as making a statement about all feminists, just the ones that think everything will be fine when we get rid of that male bias in positions of authority.

Then in what sense are these the "radical" feminists? Anyone I've ever known whom one could reasonably consider a "radical" feminist has been willing to criticize everything from our pronouns to our national holidays to the names we give our pets.

Stopping short at closing the gender gap in authority positions is hardly "radical."

Then in what sense are these the "radical" feminists? Anyone I've ever known whom one could reasonably consider a "radical" feminist has been willing to criticize everything from our pronouns to our national holidays to the names we give our pets.

Stopping short at closing the gender gap in authority positions is hardly "radical."

And how many would that be, one? :rolleyes:

I don't like why it is called feminism, instead of equal-rights-no-matter-what-gender-ism.

Quotas of how many spots should be occupied by women are a bad idea in my opinion, people should be picked for jobs and stuff based on skill rather than just becoming another statistic.

anyone ever see the 'Yes Minister' episode about feminism? i think thats a great watch to understand the situation well :)

Any thread that begins with a statement like this:Some well educated, intelligent "radical" feminists that I know of personally have been expounding their beliefs lately. is made of fail. It's the attack on the dreaded straw-feminist, folks, and nothing more.

I don't like why it is called feminism, instead of equal-rights-no-matter-what-gender-ism.

Quotas of how many spots should be occupied by women are a bad idea in my opinion, people should be picked for jobs and stuff based on skill rather than just becoming another statistic.

One of the better fifth posts I've seen.

*...*
The domination of women by men is rightly opposed by all who call themselves feminists. An opposition to patriarchy is an important first step. But, at the same time, we must realize that the opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy or any kind of -archy, but rather it is an absence of rule and domination. Ethically, if we are to commit ourselves to the end of patriarchy, we must also oppose any other form of rule or domination for the very same reasons we oppose patriarchy: because rule and domination are inherently illegitimate, no matter who exercises it.

Firstly, I'd like to say that the above is not a "small gripe." It is a short essay.

You have a point. But I believe that society already shows signs of reform from the participation of women: political correctness, sexual tolerance, career flexibility and employer accoutability among them. Yes, there's a lot of room for change yet.

Women have acted in the public sphere within the rules layed down by patriarchy, because that's the only way to get any power. The only way to change public life is by participation, and the only way to participate is to follow the rules you find when you arrive. Women and men are so interdependent that neither is in a position to dictate terms to the other.

So how has your approach, opposing all illegitimate authority, made the world a better place? The women, albeit acting from ego or participating in the heirachy, have made a change already and you anarchists have done squat. So back off.

You have a point. But I believe that society already shows signs of reform from the participation of women: political correctness, sexual tolerance, career flexibility and employer accoutability among them. Yes, there's a lot of room for change yet.
Yep.

I'd say that pretty much nearly every problem in modern society can be linked in some way to what is traditionally defined as masculinity.

Feminists still subsribe to this silliness? Horrible. It's funny how being twenty times more likely to die on the job makes the male race the "oppressors" of our civilization. Africa doesn't have a problem with "child soldiers", it has a problem with "boy soldiers". When you read in the paper that "half of this village has been wiped out!", do you want to entertain a guess as to which half it was?

Those would be good points IF:

Women were predominantly the bosses and regulators in those workplaces.
Women were the adult soldiers who recruit children (yes, they were often boy soldiers themselves)
Women were the commanders and soldiers who committed atrocities.


As it is, you have simply pointed to the OP's original point, that a power heirarchy is a self-perpetuating thing, not an evil conspiracy by men directed at subjugating women.

Personally, I think men have an inclination towards taking physical risks which will manifest in higher numbers of deaths in the workplace regardless of the gender balance. Particularly young men.

Yep.

I'd say that pretty much nearly every problem in modern society can be linked in some way to what is traditionally defined as masculinity.

Whereas I see some merit in the OP's position. It is always difficult to see our own society (from within it!) but a glance around at other animals shows both structures: heirarchies based on physical violence and competition for limited resources and patriarchy. Not in every case, but enough to suggest that neither is a human social construct.

I don't accept the thesis completely. But consider: if power is removed from some and arrogated to others as the first cause, it could just be that men are better at it? That inherent conditions in being human (instincts for instance) create a heirarchy first, and patriarchy as a consequence?

EDIT: Yeah, I'll get around to picking a side soon ... or not.

I was thinking about it today. And I realized that if you're not sexist, you're a feminist. When you think about it, feminism just says woman should be equal to men (Except for the crazy ones, who say woman should always be in power no matter what and that would fix every problem in the world. I cannot STAND people like that.)...And if you think woman shouldn't be equal to men, that means you're sexist. So really, "feminist" is just a fancy term for "not sexist".

Why can't we just call the sexists sexists and not come up with a label for ourselves? Do we really need a name? I mean, what is this, one of the most important movements of the 20th century, or a tree fort club? Let the sexists get their own damn bumper stickers. We can leave our bumpers clean, and those types can go put bumper stickers that say "Sexist". Why should we have to put stickers on there?

Yeah...I've been reading George Carlin all day...Might be affecting my posting style slightly.

I think men and women, considered as "types of people" are different, ie not equal. Therefore I am a sexist.

I also think men and women should have equal rights and power should be shared equally between the two "types of people." Therefore I am a feminist.

Ergo, Zarakon is full of it. :D

Huh. I don't really read that post as making a statement about all feminists, just the ones that think everything will be fine when we get rid of that male bias in positions of authority.

But he could probably tell you what he meant better than I could.

That's exactly what I mean. This is gripe with those who think that patriarchy is bad but think that sex neutral domination is a-OK.

Stopping short at closing the gender gap in authority positions is hardly "radical."

Which is exactly my point. They consider themselves "radical" but are not advocating anything close to being radical.

Any thread that begins with a statement like this: is made of fail. It's the attack on the dreaded straw-feminist, folks, and nothing more.

Did you read the rest of the post? The reason I did not name anyone is because the people who inspired this thread are personal friends of mine who do not post on NSG. It is not an attack on concept of feminism, it is a critique of those who argue that "radical feminism" is defined as merely wanting half of all people in positions of power be women.

If this is what stands for "radical feminism", then I shudder to think how radical of a feminist I would be considered. The "feminism" that I talk about in the OP offers no new critique of power relations, which were always at the core of feminism. This new, tranquilized and de-radicalized feminism is considered radical, but merely reproduces the same hierarchies that the first feminists opposed.

Did you read the rest of the post?

No, of course not, because you're obviously a filthy sexist male pig who thinks woman should "stay in their place".

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. People who assume they know what the person's talking about without reallying paying attention irritate me. It's like all the people who crawl out of the woodwork in threads about political correctness to attack people who don't like political correctness as racists, sexists, and tons of other ad hominems.

It's like a variation of Godwin's Law. "The more likely your real viewpoint is to be ignored and replaced with a shoehorn, the more likely you'll be accused of something ending in -ist."

I got the impression that the OP is saying, people who think introducing an equal ratio of "types" into any heirarchy or society will dramatically reduce oppression of minorities, are wrong.

Well we won't know till we try!

Which is exactly my point. They consider themselves "radical" but are not advocating anything close to being radical.Well, then they are just stupid and wrong.

These are people you know? Because I've never met anyone like them.

Generally speaking, feminists who want to stop at closing the gender-authority gap are terribly afraid of the word "radical." For that matter, they tend to be afraid of the word "feminist."

Did you read the rest of the post? The reason I did not name anyone is because the people who inspired this thread are personal friends of mine who do not post on NSG. It is not an attack on concept of feminism, it is a critique of those who argue that "radical feminism" is defined as merely wanting half of all people in positions of power be women.

If this is what stands for "radical feminism", then I shudder to think how radical of a feminist I would be considered. The "feminism" that I talk about in the OP offers no new critique of power relations, which were always at the core of feminism. This new, tranquilized and de-radicalized feminism is considered radical, but merely reproduces the same hierarchies that the first feminists opposed.
I did, not that it mattered. When you use the equivalent of Fox News's "Some people say" as a basis for beginning your discussion, you toss all intellectual integrity out the window. Want to have a discussion on feminism or power structures as they concern gender? Fine. But don't couch it in this bullshit "radical feminists I know" frame.

I did, not that it mattered. When you use the equivalent of Fox News's "Some people say" as a basis for beginning your discussion, you toss all intellectual integrity out the window. Want to have a discussion on feminism or power structures as they concern gender? Fine. But don't couch it in this bullshit "radical feminists I know" frame.

Excuse me for listing the reason I began my rant. When you become this defensive and critical for how I begin my argument, regardless of its content, and call it "bullshit", don't expect me to be civil.

Well, then they are just stupid and wrong.

These are people you know? Because I've never met anyone like them.

Generally speaking, feminists who want to stop at closing the gender-authority gap are terribly afraid of the word "radical." For that matter, they tend to be afraid of the word "feminist."

What stands for "radical" in Montana is quite different than in other places. God, I hate living in Montana!

It is not an attack on concept of feminism, it is a critique of those who argue that "radical feminism" is defined as merely wanting half of all people in positions of power be women.I must be living under a rock. I've never heard any feminist groups with that goal called or self-identify as radical. But then again, I tend to hang out with the anarchist chicks.

Whatever. Even if the idea was nice in theory, it's a practical nightmare. It prevents people from participating in a political and economic system that's all but closed already. It also utterly fails to recognise the sad fact that far more men have the skill and inclination to fill those roles.

It's pretty funny really, because both political parties, state institutions and at least a couple of private businesses that I know of, have already tried and failed to adopt such a practice. Discrimination just doesn't work if there's no women to take advantage of it.

Finally, I'm in complete agreement that it's a loathsome idea in principle. Why the fuck fight injustice with more injustice? Even if they somehow made it work, it'd just mean that instead of injured party Y bitching, there would be injured party X. That's real progress that.

Generally speaking, feminists who want to stop at closing the gender-authority gap

Is there any other kind of feminist? I thought that was the whole point of feminism.

Excuse me for listing the reason I began my rant. When you become this defensive and critical for how I begin my argument, regardless of its content, and call it "bullshit", don't expect me to be civil.
If I were worried about civility, I wouldn't be here.

[QUOTE=Similization;12852439]It prevents people from participating in a political and economic system that's all but closed already. It also utterly fails to recognise the sad fact that far more men have the skill and inclination to fill those roles.]


Yikes! "More men have the skill and inclination to fill those roles"? I really disagree. I think girls are more conditioned to abandon their desires for leadership in favor of serving others and/or making others feel important. I think that the struggle to gain positions of leadership has been really hard for most women, and that the smaller number of women in certain positions of power reflect the resistance to women filling those roles.

Yikes! "More men have the skill and inclination to fill those roles"? I really disagree.Then open your eyes or crawl back under the bridge.

It's not a secret that far too few women are interested in leader positions. It's not an assumption that hasn't been challenged repeatedly in several countries, across pretty much every sector. And I'm not saying this to imply women are senseless little twats who need to get the fuck back in the kitchen. I'm saying it because it is how things are on the planet we live on. If you don't like it, do something about it. Disbelief changes nothing.

You even offered the most plausible explanation for why this discrepancy exists; we're raised to take charge. Women are raise to have kids and fill service jobs. If gender roles didn't work, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It isn't my fault. It's not something I'm happy about. Blaming me, disbelieving me, or disbelieving reality, is pointless. Now, if you want my advice instead, then here it is: go seek out some of the actual radical feminists. Help them organise. Let them help you organise. If you want to change cultural values, you need fuckloads of people. And the radicals are always the ones who work the hardest.

Then open your eyes or crawl back under the bridge.

Calling a brand new poster a troll, for a post in which the strongest term was "I really disagree" ... well, it's just really unfriendly.

Sure, he/she replied to your post, so you can be a bit rough. Not bloody rude.

It's not a secret that far too few women are interested in leader positions. It's not an assumption that hasn't been challenged repeatedly in several countries, across pretty much every sector.

Communist countries may have tried equal representation of the sexes in positions of power, for a few decades at most, but I can't think of many other examples of "been challenged repeatedly in several countries."

Perhaps you could explain where this has been tried, how it has been tried, and why it didn't work? Yes, I read both your posts to this thread. The only thing you suggest is a lack of qualified or willing women to take leadership jobs ... which I find rather hard to believe giving the remuneration those jobs offer.

You even offered the most plausible explanation for why this discrepancy exists; we're raised to take charge. Women are raise to have kids and fill service jobs. If gender roles didn't work, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It would follow that it is futile to try to improve ANY aspect of society. "It's that way because it works" assumes that the way "it works" now is the best possible way.

Isn't that "social darwinism" or something ... :rolleyes:

It isn't my fault. It's not something I'm happy about. Blaming me, disbelieving me, or disbelieving reality, is pointless. Now, if you want my advice instead, then here it is: go seek out some of the actual radical feminists. Help them organise. Let them help you organise. If you want to change cultural values, you need fuckloads of people. And the radicals are always the ones who work the hardest.

And now you're giving personal advice, on the basis of two posts at most.

Is this the thing called "taking charge"?

EDIT: This post hasn't been responded to (EDIT(2): Except to suggest I go buy a $60 tome), and it's OK by me if it stays that way. I wasn't firing on all cylinders and I still am not. Responding to personal attacks with personal attacks just leads to trouble.

Then open your eyes or crawl back under the bridge.

It's not a secret that far too few women are interested in leader positions. It's not an assumption that hasn't been challenged repeatedly in several countries, across pretty much every sector. And I'm not saying this to imply women are senseless little twats who need to get the fuck back in the kitchen. I'm saying it because it is how things are on the planet we live on. If you don't like it, do something about it. Disbelief changes nothing.
I think you're confusing "haven't been interested in" with "haven't had a realistic opportunity." Let's put aside that women have been actively discouraged from taking part in political leadership and still are in many parts of both the world as a whole and the US in particular. Women have had the vote in the US for less than a century, and as recently as 2000, fewer than half of Americans polled felt they could vote for a female for president. That has only recently changed so that a majority feels they can. So let's put aside this idea that this is simply the way the world is.


You even offered the most plausible explanation for why this discrepancy exists; we're raised to take charge. Women are raise to have kids and fill service jobs. If gender roles didn't work, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It's because gender roles don't work that we're having this discussion. If they worked, there wouldn't be dissension and agitation, which there has been, at increasingly louder volumes, for the last hundred years.

And by the way, the long term prospects for traditional gender roles are pretty crappy. More women in college than men right now in the US. Think those women are going to be satisfied with taking orders from their less-educated male counterparts? What we've seen in the recent SCOTUS opinions is the last vestiges of a dying system. Women will keep shaking the foundations of established power, just like they have been, and they will remake the world in the process.

Although I share Nazz's concern about the "some 'radical' feminists I know" origins to the post, I would say that Trotskylvania's critique is correct so far as it goes. But I'd also add there's a much simpler critique to be made: establishing quotas in a system is hardly the method of choice to reach feminism's stated aim: to eliminate gender as a source of discrimination for entry into the system. In point of fact, given the explicit use of gender as criterion for entry into the system, it's antithetical.

The critique I just made obliquely references my main beef with radical feminism: its failure to clearly articulate exactly what it means. Radical feminists love to critique our language, our literature, our workplace, our politics, but they have great difficulty defining the mechanisms by which the language, the literature, the workplace, and the politics of a society all reflect the dominant wishes of a single patriarchal class. Indeed, I (and I will grant you, feminism is not my strongest philosophical discipline) have trouble understanding from their use of terms what such amorphous concepts as "patriarchy", "system", and "culture" really are. I myself think that this is an inherent problem in any system that used or was influenced by post-modernism and or Gramscian ideological hegemony, of which radical feminism was influenced by both.

I don't like why it is called feminism, instead of equal-rights-no-matter-what-gender-ism.

Quotas of how many spots should be occupied by women are a bad idea in my opinion, people should be picked for jobs and stuff based on skill rather than just becoming another statistic.

anyone ever see the 'Yes Minister' episode about feminism? i think thats a great watch to understand the situation well :)

See that's what I think, forcing equality like that just isn't a good idea. Is that happening, probably not. Is forcing another bad system a good thing, no.

It's because gender roles don't work that we're having this discussion. If they worked, there wouldn't be dissension and agitation, which there has been, at increasingly louder volumes, for the last hundred years. Apparently my posts have been too open to interpretation. I'll try to remedy that. I do not think the lack of gender equality is a good thing. I do not think gender roles is a justifiable concept, or can ever serve any purpose other than oppressing the fuck out of people.

But I do not deny they exist, or that they work. It does not mean I think they're a good thing. I don't. It doesn't mean they're static and immutable. We all know they're not. And as my previous suggestion might have shown you, I do think we should do everything we can to hasten their demise.Think those women are going to be satisfied with taking orders from their less-educated male counterparts?The sad fact right now is that they are. I think it's very damn dangerous to pretend it isn't the case, because by pretending it's not, we indirectly reinforce this idiotic situation.I can't think of many other examples of "been challenged repeatedly in several countries."Check out Has Liberalism Failed Women? report by Jyette Klausen and Charles S. Maier. It's a thorough examination of this, and compiled by people who actually know what they're talking about (unlike me, and, by all appearances, you and The Nazz). It is much better that you read the actual data than request I select a couple of examples.Sure, he/she replied to your post, so you can be a bit rough. Not bloody rude.I'm always bloody rude. We're alike in that respect, I guess.

I do not think the lack of gender equality is a good thing. I do not think gender roles is a justifiable concept, or can ever serve any purpose other than oppressing the fuck out of people.

But I do not deny they exist, or that they work. It does not mean I think they're a good thing.Then why do you keep stressing it as if it is some sort of argument against the feminist point?

You seem to be saying, "I know gender inequity sucks, and in an ideal world it would be remedied, but that's just not going to happen. Thus, actively opposing gender inequity is a) foolishly pointless; b) in some way counterproductive; or c) destructive of other equally important social values."

The sad fact right now is that they are. I think it's very damn dangerous to pretend it isn't the case, because by pretending it's not, we indirectly reinforce this idiotic situation.Again, you want us to believe this is a feminist point; perhaps you want yourself to believe that too. But when you say things like "the sad fact right now," and "it's very damn dangerous to pretend," I can only imagine that your practical advice is something along the lines of "feminism has gone far enough right now, and women should stop dreaming that we [sexist society] are going to budge any further for some time."

I'm always bloody rude.See, this quote proves my point. For all your talk of how beautiful an ideal gender equality is, you take the status quo as some kind of justification for itself. You seem to believe that because it "is," that gives it some sort of claim to "should be."

Thus, you think that because you are always rude, it's okay that you're rude.

Trouble is, it doesn't matter how long you've been doing it or how well it "works" for you. It's still bad manners.

:sniper: How did Feminism stray so far from equal rights and self sufficiency, into the subjugation of the rights of men anyhow?

Apparently my posts have been too open to interpretation. I'll try to remedy that. I do not think the lack of gender equality is a good thing. I do not think gender roles is a justifiable concept, or can ever serve any purpose other than oppressing the fuck out of people.

But I do not deny they exist, or that they work. It does not mean I think they're a good thing.

No, I think Nazz hit the nail on the head. He challenged your opinion that gender roles in some way "work".

He was entirely right in pointing out the "agitation" in showing that women (and many men, as well) are not happy with the roles they have been placed in by way of their gender, and your point that some women can swallow up and make do with this tradition is not evidence of its success.

No, I think Nazz hit the nail on the head. He challenged your opinion that gender roles in some way "work".

He was entirely right in pointing out the "agitation" in showing that women (and many men, as well) are not happy with the roles they have been placed in by way of their gender, and your point that some women can swallow up and make do with this tradition is not evidence of its success.For fuck's sake...

Look, that gender roles work is not subject to opinion. They do generally work. And since people aren't happy with them (myself included, as I thought I'd already made clear, repeatedly), they need to go the way of the dinosaur.

Let me rephrase that; the simple fact that socially enforced gender roles actually work, is no justification for not killing them dead. It can be done. Social values of similar natures have been killed in the past. A great many times.

Now, are you lot done with the "Oh noez, he's admitting gender roles is a problem! Teh EBUL ANTI-FEMI!! Luzzums kill 'im!!1!"?

Man... Why bother putting bloody essays in my mouth? If that simple statement of fact confused you about my personal position on the issue of gender equality, why not just ask?Then why do you keep stressing it as if it is some sort of argument against the feminist point?I thought I was doing the EXACT opposite.I can only imagine that your practical advice is something along the lines of "feminism has gone far enough right now, and women should stop dreaming that we [sexist society] are going to budge any further for some time."Alright, points for imagination. But again, why not ask me instead? And the answer, of course, is that you couldn't be more wrong. If gender roles didn't work, we wouldn't need to destroy them. They do work though. Which is why we need to recognise them for what they are, so we can destroy them thoroughly.

Why do I say that? Because a major failing of the politics of gender equality in western democracies, is that we haven't recognised how important those fucking gender roles are. Affirmative action isn't enough to achieve equality on it's own, because it doesn't address the gender roles currently keeping an ass-load of women down. Opening up leader positions for women won't work when you're also teaching women not to want those positions.

It is in no way saying feminism has gone far enough. On the contrary. Ignoring parts of the problems causing the inequality, is far more likely to have the practical effect of stopping gender equality from becoming reality.See, this quote proves my point.Yeh, does that and more, don't it? Look.. I'm gonna assume it doesn't matter what I say at this point, but if the problem of gender inequality concerns you, read that report I mentioned. Or not. But you might find it interesting. And no, it isn't in any way opposed to gender equality. It simply tries to illuminate why gender equality hasn't been achieved yet.

Look, that gender roles work is not subject to opinion. They do generally work.

No they don't. That is what is being said.

Now, are you lot done with the "Oh noez, he's admitting gender roles is a problem! Teh EBUL ANTI-FEMI!! Luzzums kill 'im!!1!"?

Man... Why bother putting bloody essays in my mouth?

Hypocrite.

If gender roles didn't work, we wouldn't need to destroy them. They do work though.

What do you mean by "work"?

I guess you mean something similar to "enslave", "inflict lifelong psychological trauma", or maybe just "degrade".

For fuck's sake...

Look, that gender roles work is not subject to opinion.Yes, it is.

The question is for whom does it "work." A sexist system "works" for sexists, but it most certainly does NOT "work" for the rest of us. That system is BROKEN, and it cannot be fixed. It needs to be replaced.


They do generally work. And since people aren't happy with them (myself included, as I thought I'd already made clear, repeatedly), they need to go the way of the dinosaur.

Let me rephrase that; the simple fact that socially enforced gender roles actually work, is no justification for not killing them dead. It can be done. Social values of similar natures have been killed in the past. A great many times.Then what's your beef with the people who want to do just that?

It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it, too: You want to call yourself a "feminist," but at the same time you want "feminism" to recognize the validity of existing gender roles. But the first premise of feminism is that gender roles are WRONG. If they are wrong, they cannot "work" in any non-partisan sense of the word. They work for someone and not for everyone.

Now, are you lot done with the "Oh noez, he's admitting gender roles is a problem! Teh EBUL ANTI-FEMI!! Luzzums kill 'im!!1!"?My god. I think you've found something flimsier than straw out of which to build your little man. Is "gibberish" some sort of new building material?

Man... Why bother putting bloody essays in my mouth?Your posts demand interpretation and explication because you speak in contradictions. If you were being consistent, I wouldn't need to keep reading between the lines to figure out your real intentions.

If that simple statement of fact confused you about my personal position on the issue of gender equality, why not just ask?Because you just keep repeating the same things over and over again. It's not very productive.

I thought I was doing the EXACT opposite.It's hard to tell unless you can answer one question honestly: what do you think feminists should be doing? You've been speaking in roundabout abstractions. Please clarify: should we be in the streets protesting gender roles? should we encourage people to take up non-conventional roles? or do you think we should "bide our time" while we wait for society to change?

If you think we should "wait," then you can hardly call yourself a feminist. At best, you could say that you are "not sexist" in the sense that you, personally, bear no prejudice about sex. But being a feminist means more than NOT being a sexist: it means actively advocating the permanent end to unfair gendered systems.

So which is it? Do you want to MAKE society change, or WAIT for it to change? If you want to MAKE it happen, can you tell us what you would actually do to make it happen, or are you content to throw about the words "I support feminism" and "I'm a feminist" without actually meaning anything by them?

If gender roles didn't work, we wouldn't need to destroy them.No, if they worked we wouldn't need to destroy them. You just aren't thinking clearly about what it means to "work" for society in general--not just to work for some of us.

They do work though. Which is why we need to recognise them for what they are, so we can destroy them thoroughly.Why is it that you assume we cannot "recognize them for what they are" if we conclude that they represent a system that DOES NOT WORK. Why, if you believe that gender roles are so terrible, do you want to insist that this system "works"?

"Work" in this sense is a normative term: it expresses an evaluation of something. Take my vacuum cleaner: It takes several passes to really clean an area of carpet, and half the time it doesn't quite hold what it picks up. I don't replace it, however, because it "works" for me: I have a small room and I don't mind taking some extra time to clean. Yet whenever my roommate wants to clean his room, he orders a loaner from the apartment complex. My vacuum cleaner, to him, "doesn't work."

Which of us is right? There are no objective answers, only normative ones: in this case, normative ideas about what constitutes a working vacuum cleaner; in the more important case, normative ideas about what constitutes a working society.

You obviously conclude that a society "works" if it does not quickly collapse into total disorder. Feminists set a higher standard: a society only "works" when it works for everyone.

Opening up leader positions for women won't work when you're also teaching women not to want those positions.Right... So, tell me again why we should keep insisting that those "teachings" actually "work"? Why should we keep stressing how "important" they are? Wouldn't it be a lot better to just start teaching gender equality???

No they don't. That is what is being said.Read that report I mentioned. Or Google. They overwhelmingly do work.What do you mean by "work"?I mean they work as advertised. For example by making leading positions unattractive to the female half of the species.

That something works doesn't mean it's good or should be allowed to go on. Slavery worked very, very well. It was also a fucking abomination, and fortunately we've mostly eliminated it in the west. In principle gender roles are no different.

The UN has had reports written on this shit. Gender roles do work. But in my opinion, do nothing but harm. Thus, in my opinion, we need to understand them, so we can do away with them. Ignoring them, or worse, concluding 'women just have some natural disinclination' towards equal participation in society (yes, it's been done), won't bring about gender equality.

This isn't a case of 'if it ain't broken, don't fix it'. On the contrary, we need to do away with the shit because it works. The result of gender roles is a problem, not the lack of one. And of course it's neither a simple nor the only problem. Institutionalized discrimination on the job market is a major problem, but it is not a self-contained one. It doesn't exist in a vacuum - which is the point I tried to make in my first post.

The question is for whom does it "work." A sexist system "works" for sexists, but it most certainly does NOT "work" for the rest of us. That system is BROKEN, and it cannot be fixed. It needs to be replaced.

you are misreading sim. the claim is merely that gender roles bring about something, they have effects in the world. this is trivially true.

Who is "ignoring" gender roles? What feminist, at any rate? "We need to understand them in order to destroy them." What has feminist scholarship been doing for the last forty years, twiddling its thumbs?

That "report" you mentioned wasn't a report, it was a volume of edited essays, and on the whole they don't add much that feminists haven't been discussing for years. Ironically, "As a whole, the collected essays present a highly restrained endorsement of parity as means for realizing gender equality" (review (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/nwsa_journal/v015/15.2cole.html)).

Now, a "highly restrained endorsement" is not a glowing recommendation, but it does mean that the authors cautiously approve of gender parity as a means for realizing gender equality.

What is gender parity? It's a form of affirmative action, used primarily in Europe, that sets quotas based solely on an untheoretical, biological conception of "sex." That means that it essentially ignores the significance of sex roles as such, focusing instead on setting requirements for hiring, promotion, etc.

Thus, while they remind us that we should be continue to examine the significance and functioning of gender roles in our societies, we can cautiously go ahead with ignoring them.

the claim is merely that gender roles bring about something, they have effects in the world. this is trivially true.I know. That's why it's highly suspicious that he insists so adamantly that feminism "ignores" this fact.

We all know that gender roles "have effects in the world." It is, as you say, trivially so.

Yet Similization is obviously convinced that we are all missing something. Therefore, either he really believes that none of us understand that gender roles "do something" (which seems absurd), or he believes that we are missing something else.

I want to know what the something else is.

Why even say that they work?

That something works doesn't mean it's good or should be allowed to go on.No. You define "works" as "does what it is supposed to do." But, you see, "supposed to do" is normative.

When you ask if something "works," you are making a comparison between what it does and what it is supposed to do. Your judgment depends on both of these. When your opinion of what something is supposed to do diverges from what it does because you have raised your estimation of what society should accomplish, you can no longer honestly say that it "works."

Slavery worked very, very well.Yes, so long as you asked the slave-owners. If you asked the slaves you would have gotten a very different answer. Slaves didn't run away or poison their masters because slavery "worked."

Saying that slavery "worked" because as an institution it did what the owners wanted it to do is like calling a family "functional" because Daddy means to beat his children... and that's exactly what he does.

you are misreading sim. the claim is merely that gender roles bring about something, they have effects in the world. this is trivially true.Thank you!

I know. That's why it's highly suspicious that he insists so adamantly that feminism "ignores" this fact.So that's what this shit is about?! Mate, I never said feminism ignores this. I pointed out that affirmative action in itself doesn't work, because it ignores that fact. I'm not the first to point that out. Thousands of feminists have done so before me.

I in no way meant to imply anything about feminism in general terms.

Other than that, yes, I think activism is one of the answers. I have and do participate in a lot of it. The weapon against gender roles is awareness and continual debate. And no, I don't agree that gender roles benefit anyone. Not us males either.

Why even say that they work?What should I have said? That they function?

If advocating an equal share in the world's power structures is "radical" ..well..

*is a radical feminist, and proud*

bite me.

I pointed out that affirmative action in itself doesn't work, because it ignores that fact.Perhaps I was confused by the fact that you cited a series of essays in your support which actually concluded, however cautiously, that affirmative action does work?

And no, I don't agree that gender roles benefit anyone. Not us males either.Oh, now that's just nonsense. Yes, men pay psychological and social costs to maintain gender stereotypes. Yes, some men (namely those whose appearance, personality, or preferences diverge most radically from the gendered norm) pay higher costs than others. But it is ridiculous to claim that men don't "benefit" from traditional gender stereotypes.

What should I have said? That they function?How about separating the FACT that they exert a powerful influence on human psychology and sociology from the JUDGMENT that they "work" or "function"?

This is an ideological position, though you don't recognize it, that serves the status quo because it concedes that existing gender roles are one "workable" option among many that may "work." When you decide on the criteria you will use to make your judgment, you unwittingly choose your allies: when you admit that existing gender roles "work" because they are effective, you concede something to conservatives and reactionaries. When you refuse to acknowledge that ANY system can "work" or "function" when it does not work for EVERYONE, then you score a point for feminism.

Think about it: would you really call a family "functional" in which one partner abuses the other? Or would you say that such a family is dysfunctional because it does not measure up to what a family is supposed to be?

Do you really want to call a society "functional" in which one half of the human race is subject to the oppression of the other? If you do, it's like admitting that spousal abuse is "normal."

It may be all too common, but that doesn't make it "normal." Victims may find it difficult to escape, but that doesn't mean it "works."

Let me put it this way:

As you suggest, a conservative or reactionary might argue regarding gender roles, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." While you may not agree with this argument, when you agree that existing gender roles "work," you at least concede their premise: it's not broken.

But again, that's a normative judgment. As a feminist, I believe that it is broken. It is broken very badly, and it needs fixing.

What should I have said? That they function?

No, you should have said that they didn't work

By your definition there is no real difference between work and didn't work, functional and dysfunctional.

I must be living under a rock. I've never heard any feminist groups with that goal called or self-identify as radical. But then again, I tend to hang out with the anarchist chicks.

Whatever. Even if the idea was nice in theory, it's a practical nightmare. It prevents people from participating in a political and economic system that's all but closed already. It also utterly fails to recognise the sad fact that far more men have the skill and inclination to fill those roles.

It's pretty funny really, because both political parties, state institutions and at least a couple of private businesses that I know of, have already tried and failed to adopt such a practice. Discrimination just doesn't work if there's no women to take advantage of it.

Finally, I'm in complete agreement that it's a loathsome idea in principle. Why the fuck fight injustice with more injustice? Even if they somehow made it work, it'd just mean that instead of injured party Y bitching, there would be injured party X. That's real progress that.Have you thought of why there are no women to take advantage of these efforts? has it crossed your mind to wonder why far more men have the "skill and inclination" for various powerfull jobs?

I submit to you that in a power structure created by males, for males, (often for the purpose of maintaining their own monopoly on power) the workplace and hierarchy is structurally unfriendly to women. Specifically women who have families and a partner that does not stay home and take care of things. Part of the feminist argument is that women need to "bust" into these structures and change them. Change them so that women are not systematically discriminated against through the very structure of the job.
This, of course, isn't to claim that women should comprise half of loggers or construction workers (and other jobs where physical strength corresponds to productivity). It is to argue that government, business, law, and other powerful professions need to fundamentally change their workplace cultures in so that women who refuse to pretend to be men can be powerful, respected leaders. Where femininity isn't a liability. Where you're respected for your work, not disrespected for the number of children you have.

Similization undermines his own argument. This is why he seems so contradictory.

1) First he says that we need to understand gender roles in order to overcome them. Fair enough.

2) But then he argues that we need to recognize that gender roles "work" because they do what they are "supposed" to do. But by "what they are supposed to do" he means, "what sexists want them to do." Now, this would be all well-and-good if we could regard gender roles as something imposed by sexists onto women and marginalized men. But this is an incorrect view of gender roles. In this view, gender roles are analogous to machine guns used to mow down helpless victims: we are correct in saying that the guns "work" because they do what their users intend them to do. But the fact that feminism has learned is that we all participate in gender roles, even us conscientious feminists. "Understanding" gender roles means precisely this: to understand how we manage to create and reinforce them even when we intend not to.

3) But then, if we actually understand what feminism has to teach us about gender roles, there is no "user," no "oppressor" who creates them and maintains them over against the efforts of the oppressed. And for this reason, there can be no privileged position from which to decide "what works."

Since we all participate in them, they only "work" when they work for all of us. Gender roles are not reducible to a means, a sexist "tool." They are a social mode, a way of being for all of us. As such, they are all too clearly broken.

Similization undermines his own argument. This is why he seems so contradictory.

1) First he says that we need to understand gender roles in order to overcome them. Fair enough.

2) But then he argues that we need to recognize that gender roles "work" because they do what they are "supposed" to do. But by "what they are supposed to do" he means, "what sexists want them to do." Now, this would be all well-and-good if we could regard gender roles as something imposed by sexists onto women and marginalized men. But this is an incorrect view of gender roles. In this view, gender roles are analogous to machine guns used to mow down helpless victims: we are correct in saying that the guns "work" because they do what their users intend them to do. But the fact that feminism has learned is that we all participate in gender roles, even us conscientious feminists. "Understanding" gender roles means precisely this: to understand how we manage to create and reinforce them even when we intend not to.

3) But then, if we actually understand what feminism has to teach us about gender roles, there is no "user," no "oppressor" who creates them and maintains them over against the efforts of the oppressed. And for this reason, there can be no privileged position from which to decide "what works."

I just want to say two things:

Similization doesn't undermine his own argument as you introduce the concept of gender roles a systematic thing, without an "oppressor".

I also don't think we can deny that, for many, sexism has its perks, and those individuals would like nothing more than to see gender roles extended into perpetuity.

Sexism is both conscious and unconscious.

Sexism is both conscious and unconscious.Right. My point is not that no one prefers the sexist hierarchy. My point is that because it is a social system rather than a tool, there is no objective perspective from which to evaluate its performance as "functional" or "dysfunctional." This inevitably begs the question: who gets to decide?

From the perspective of sexists, and sexist men in particular, existing gender roles "work."

But why should we agree to their perspective in the first place? We are all a part of this society, we all participate in creating and maintaining its ideals.

We all get a say as to what counts as "functioning" society.

And I think we both agree that existing society is highly dysfunctional.

Right. My point is not that no one prefers the sexist hierarchy. My point is that because it is a social system rather than a tool, there is no objective perspective from which to evaluate its performance as "functional" or "dysfunctional." This inevitably begs the question: who gets to decide?

From the perspective of sexists, and sexist men in particular, existing gender roles "work."

But why should we agree to their perspective in the first place? We are all a part of this society, we all participate in creating and maintaining its ideals.

We all get a say as to what counts as "functioning" society.

And I think we both agree that existing society is highly dysfunctional.

This argument for subjective interpretation is hardly a constructive one. It certainly puts to rest the argument that gender roles "work", but it also lays to rest the argument that they don't work.

EDIT: And like I said sexism is both a tool and systematic, but that doesn't seem to matter to me. Why would a "tool" allow for objective evaluation?

This argument for subjective interpretation is hardly a constructive one. It certainly puts to rest the argument that gender roles "work", but it also lays to rest the argument that they don't work.No, it refocuses the issue on the normative question of what our criteria should be. It denies that any one group has privileged access to what "should be" or what "works" based on who they are or what position they hold in society.

I would make a more objective moral argument that our criteria should be rooted in basic principles of democracy and mutual respect.

Why would a "tool" allow for objective evaluation?Because it is reasonable to claim that the user/designer of a tool occupies a privileged position to judge what it is "supposed" to do--that is, what it was designed to do.

In the context of a complex social system, however, feminists have learned that it is impossible to distinguish between users and non-users or designers and non-designers, even if we can distinguish meaningfully between the beneficiaries and the victims. Neither of these roles (beneficiary and victim) could be construed reasonably to entail a privileged position vis-a-vis determining function, because these roles are defined based on consequences rather than purposes.

No, it refocuses the issue on the normative question of what our criteria should be. It denies that any one group has privileged access to what "should be" or what "works" based on who they are or what position they hold in society.

I would make a more objective moral argument that our criteria should be rooted in basic principles of democracy and mutual respect.

When we considered whether something "worked" we considered whether it did what it was "supposed to do".

Now if we have a process and we observe it, and we document all of the causes and effects and say "this caused this, as a result we have this" we are making a positive statement. We say that the system worked as it was supposed to do.

This is not entirely analogous, though, as when you introduced the idea of segmental judgments, you also introduced judgments as to what people wish it to do. You have introduced a should into the equation.

So when you ask, "by who's opinion should we adhere," you bridge the gap between normative and positive statement. All can make a positive statement on the causes and effects of sexism, but when we ask them whether it works or not, they are making normative statements.

By your own argument then, the moral idea of mutual respect has no more merit than the idea that women should be servile to men by decree of God.

When we considered whether something "worked" we considered whether it did what it was "supposed to do." Yes. The normative question is, "what is it supposed to do?"

Now if we have a process and we observe it, and we document all of the causes and effects and say "this caused this, as a result we have this" we are making a positive statement. We say that the system worked as it was supposed to do.No, we don't. Where in that description did we decide what it was supposed to do? Who decided?

"Gravity caused water to fall downhill, as a result we have a waterfall." Does that mean gravity is "supposed" to make waterfalls? Of course not: gravity is not "supposed" to do anything, unless you happen to believe in a "god" who could attribute ends to gravity. Gravity just does stuff. It doesn't "try" to do anything, and it's not "supposed" to do anything. Gravity is not, in and of itself, a tool.

We can say, however, "So-and-so chiseled this rock into a knife. He/she says that he/she chiseled this rock into a knife so that it would cut things. It is reasonable to say that it is supposed to cut things. It does in fact cut things. Therefore it does what it is supposed to do."

But in the case of deeply embedded gender roles that form a part of social behavior, we cannot say, "So-and-so creates and maintains gender roles," unless by "so-and-so" we mean "all of us." But then we have, "All of us say that we maintain gender roles to _____," and we get radical disagreements. In fact, we disagree about whether we want to keep maintaining gender roles at all.

It's as if the knife-chiseler has multiple personalities, and they all disagree about what the purpose (or wisdom) of chiseling is. Why should we believe one personality over another?

This is not entirely analogous, though, as when you introduced the idea of segmental judgments, you also introduced judgments as to what people wish it to do. You have introduced a should into the equation."Supposed to do" is inherently a should. I am merely making judgments about what kinds of "should" are actually defensible.

So when you ask, "by who's opinion should we adhere," you bridge the gap between normative and positive statement.But we were already there. As soon as we defined "work" as "do what it is supposed to do," we bridged the gap between normative and positive statements. A positive statement is, "It does x." A normative statement is, "It ought to do x." We can't decide if something "works" unless we consider whether these converge.

All can make a positive statement on the causes and effects of sexism, but when we ask them whether it works or not, they are making normative statements.That's exactly right.

By your own argument then, the moral idea of mutual respect has no more merit than the idea that women should be servile to men by decree of God.Totally non sequitur. I'm not even sure where you're getting that.

I haven't really made the argument for mutual respect, I've merely pointed in that direction. How can you adjudge that the ideal of mutual respect has as much normative merit as the ideal of female servitude without actually comparing them on normative grounds?

Have you thought of why there are no women to take advantage of these efforts? has it crossed your mind to wonder why far more men have the "skill and inclination" for various powerful jobs?

I submit to you that in a power structure created by males, for males, (often for the purpose of maintaining their own monopoly on power) the workplace and hierarchy is structurally unfriendly to women. Specifically women who have families and a partner that does stay home and take care of things.

That actually does happen now, a welcome sign. Men make perfectly good 'homemakers' or even single parents. Perhaps because of low fertility rates, parenting is finally being recognized as important work which deserves a decent wage. At least, I see it that way.

Part of the feminist argument is that women need to "bust" into these structures and change them. Change them so that women are not systematically discriminated against through the very structure of the job.
This, of course, isn't to claim that women should comprise half of loggers or construction workers (and other jobs where physical strength corresponds to productivity).

That too can change. Health and safety regulations make physical strength less important by the year, and a good thing too. Years on an unregulated construction site or an oil rig leave a body badly damaged or even incapable of physical work. If not dead.

It is to argue that government, business, law, and other powerful professions need to fundamentally change their workplace cultures so that women who refuse to pretend to be men can be powerful, respected leaders. Where femininity isn't a liability. Where you're respected for your work, not disrespected for the number of children you have.

And one way that can go: women "bust into" male-dominated professions by playing by the existing rules. They have to be better qualified, more determined, and work harder for lower wages to overcome the perceptions of existing workers, mostly men. Not fair, is it? But women do that, and here's the rub: not all women can. (Assume that men and women have equal capacity for a job. If the women need to be better at it than men, there will be less women in that job even after decades.)
Once inside the heirarchy, women do exactly what you said men do, above. They change the rules to suit themselves. And I say this is happening! Maternity leave (a real assymetry in which it is fair to treat women and men differently.) The professionalization of even low-skilled work (I can explain). Multiple careers in one working life. "Political correctness" -- the incursion of politics into the workplace among other places. All these are signs of progress.

And I think we should resist the urge to lead with legislation. Change must happen across the whole heirarchy, social (including religion) and economic and governmental. Most of the power (almost all of it in the workplace) lies with business, so it's in the workplace that change is most important. If government tries to force change on business, without feminists working from inside it, government will break even worse than it's broken now.

*snip*

I think I skipped a step here and had misunderstood what you were said.

A page ago I replied to Similization, saying:

"No, you should have said that they didn't work

By your definition there is no real difference between work and didn't work, functional and dysfunctional."

Your post is exactly what I was trying to say. By saying that sexism worked, but that they needed to be changed, he was giving "work" a definition that is entirely pointless for our discussion, namely a normative one.

Totally non sequitur. I'm not even sure where you're getting that.

I haven't really made the argument for mutual respect, I've merely pointed in that direction. How can you adjudge that the ideal of mutual respect has as much normative merit as the ideal of female servitude without actually comparing them on normative grounds?

When reading your first post when you asked "who gets to decide", I assumed you were taking a morally subjective stance, rather than just precluding some socially distinct group as a simple decider of what works. After that I think I read what I thought you were saying into your words.

Although I question the notion of normative comparison, I don't know if this is the place for it.

I think I skipped a step here and have misunderstood what you were saying.That seems to be going around. ;)

A page ago I replied to Similization, saying:

"No, you should have said that they didn't work

By your definition there is no real difference between work and didn't work, functional and dysfunctional."As I recall, he was using a different definition of "work" at that time: he at first tried to defend a definition such that something "works" precisely when it is effective; that is, when it has some effect or other. But this is trivially true of anything worth talking about, so it hardly makes a good definition for what it means "to work."

After we made that clear, he shifted ground somewhat to the position that gender roles "work" not only because they have some effect, but precisely because they have the effect they are "supposed to" according to the sexists who, as Similization assumes, are solely responsible for imposing gender roles on everyone else.

I then argued that this definition would be reasonable enough if we could meaningfully distinguish between "doer" and "done to" when it comes to gender roles. But this we cannot do.

By saying that sexism worked, but that they needed to be changed, he was giving "work" a definition that is entirely pointless for our discussion, namely a normative one.Actually, the only way to reconcile his statements is to assume that he perceives his definition of "work" as a positive one. If he thought he had a normative definition of "work," then it would clearly conflict with his normative statement that gender roles need to change.

In normative terms, gender roles either work or they don't work. They cannot both work and not work.

Similization thinks that he has avoided the contradiction by asserting that gender roles work in a positive sense, but they do not work in a normative sense, though he has obscured even this resolution by evading this simple construction of his position.

My claim at this point is that this does not resolve anything because the question of "what works" in a social system is inherently normative, so that what he takes as a positive definition is actually a normative definition in disguise. So he is really saying, "According to this (normative) definition, gender roles work... but they obviously need to change, because normatively they don't work." Contradiction.

When reading your first post when you asked "who gets to decide", I assumed you were taking a morally subjective stance, rather than just precluding some socially distinct group as a simple decider of what works.Exactly. I am taking the position that the question of "what works" is inherently normative, not that it is inherently subjective.

Although I question the notion of normative comparison, I don't know if this is the place for it.Normative comparison is just the practice of deciding whether one thing (whether it is a means or an end or both) is superior to another. You don't question normative comparison (unless you never think to yourself, "x is better than y")... you question the possibility of objective or perhaps even intersubjective normative comparison--that is, you question whether we can ever establish criteria on which to make a judgment upon which we can all agree.

This is, of course, a much more difficult problem; but I do not think it is intractable. But it probably is a discussion better left for another time.

:)

My claim at this point is that this does not resolve anything because the question of "what works" in a social system is inherently normative, so that what he takes as a positive definition is actually a normative definition in disguise. So he is really saying, "According to this (normative) definition, gender roles work... but they obviously need to change, because normatively they don't work." Contradiction.

according to normative definition 1, they do work. normative definition 1 fucking sucks though. not a contradiction at all.

according to normative definition 1, they do work. normative definition 1 fucking sucks though.Right.

not a contradiction at all.It's not a contradiction to say they work according to the normative definition that they "do something," though that definition is trivial. It is a contradiction to maintain that they "work" normatively, but they don't actually work normatively--or why should we want to change them?

The contradiction is that he is trying to use two sets of normative criteria at once, disguising this fact only in that he refuses to recognize the first of them as normative.

He uses one set of normative criteria to argue that they "work." Then he uses a completely different set of normative criteria to argue that they should be changed.

He needs to pick one and make his views consistent with that one. If he wants to save the feminist set of criteria, then he has to admit that according to this set of criteria gender roles most certainly do NOT "work." If he wants to save his trivial normative criteria (i.e. that things "work" if they "do something"), then he needs to explain how he can use this set of criteria to justify his ostensibly feminist beliefs.

Large papier-mâché puppets are probably the answer.

Large papier-mâché puppets are probably the answer.*gasp!!*

HOW DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT OUR SECRET WEAPON?!!!

ALL IS LOST!!!

*gasp!!*

HOW DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT OUR SECRET WEAPON?!!!

ALL IS LOST!!!

Aw, c'mon.

You all couldn't have a secret weapon if you tried.

That actually does happen now, a welcome sign. Men make perfectly good 'homemakers' or even single parents. Perhaps because of low fertility rates, parenting is finally being recognized as important work which deserves a decent wage. At least, I see it that way. Yes, it is happening to some extent. Men certainly make good parents and care-givers when they feel so inclined. With time, I think more men will realize what a rewarding and interesting occupation raising kids is. In the meantime though, women still take on most of the care-giving and housework load, even when they do work and have outside help. that's why affordable childcare in the early years is so very important - without it, young women are hte ones sacrificing their pursuits and dreams to have a family much more than men are.
Once inside the heirarchy, women do exactly what you said men do, above. They change the rules to suit themselves. Indeed. This is a positive thing. There's a huge variety in workplaces - some have taken steps to accomodate women - not just in initial hiring, but also in keeping them. Other, more 'conservative' professions maintain a culture that is incredibly hard for women to contend with year after relentless year. I highly reccomend a documentary the CBC did on the subject of women in Law. They interviewed partners in law firms (ie. very driven, carrer women 100% committed to achievement) who after year and years decided to leave at the peak of their careers. It can be found here (http://www.cbc.ca/podcasting/pastpodcasts.html?25#ref25) and it's well worth listening to. Click on the June 17th Sunday edition podcast - it's the second documentary. It's disturbing to me that THE most succesful, intelligent, driven women still are not finding their place in these environments. Perhaps it will take a more agressive approach to change culture: women establishing hteir own law firms, etc.
And I think we should resist the urge to lead with legislation. Change must happen across the whole heirarchy, social (including religion) and economic and governmental. Most of the power (almost all of it in the workplace) lies with business, so it's in the workplace that change is most important. If government tries to force change on business, without feminists working from inside it, government will break even worse than it's broken now.I agree that legislation isn't necessarily the most important. (and equality has existed in the books for a while now, here in canada). What's more important is that women themselves permeate and subvert the structures that produce inequality.

There are some arguments that in some spheres (teaching, specifically) the female influence has been too one-sided, resulting in a school system that favours girls over boys. Certainly, the activities that most stimulate and interest young boys (generally) have been under attack. I'm not sure if there's substantial evidence behind this theory, except the success rates of girls and women in education, which is higher than that of boys in highschool - and the participation rates, which are higher in uni.

Aw, c'mon.

You all couldn't have a secret weapon if you tried.Maybe that's what we want you to think. ;)

They assure me that this will abolish patriarchy once and for all, and then we can live happily in Femitopia. They assure me that the infusion of female values into corrupt and oppressive hierarchies, they won't be so corrupt or oppressive any more.Isn't the idea that there is such a thing as "female values" in and of itself anti-feminist?

Either way, gender roles are for sissies.

And I think we should resist the urge to lead with legislation. Change must happen across the whole heirarchy, social (including religion) and economic and governmental. Most of the power (almost all of it in the workplace) lies with business, so it's in the workplace that change is most important. If government tries to force change on business, without feminists working from inside it, government will break even worse than it's broken now.Couldn't agree more. Though women have a more difficult time in getting into positions of power than men, it is alot easier than it was 30 years ago. Given time, it will become even more equalized. If we try to force equality onto a system that is not ready for it, we could compromise the progress that has already been made. Since males are still very much in power, trying to legislate around the problem might just cause a backlash from these males that prefer to be in power. I believe changing the work culture slowly will be more beneficial in the long run. Legislating around it will just cause men to teach their boys about how the evil feminists are taking their jobs, if the changes happen slowly, people won't notice it as much, and won't be as opposed. We have had a male hierarchy since the first humans appeared, so the change can't just happen overnight.

Another problem with legislation is that it might force employers to hire people that aren't as qualified for a job just to fill quotas. The higher the IQ needed(I know it's not the only factor, but it is a large factor in the jobs that women are lamenting about.) for a job is, the smaller the amount of women that occupy that job will need to be if we're going for gender equality, since men have a larger variance in IQ. (meaning that more men have high IQ levels and low IQ levels.) Equality should not be across the gender, but on a person by person basis. If a man is more qualified than a woman, he gets the job, if the woman is more qualified, she gets the job. If you argue for anything else, then you're just as bad as people that want no change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

There are some arguments that in some spheres (teaching, specifically) the female influence has been too one-sided, resulting in a school system that favours girls over boys. Certainly, the activities that most stimulate and interest young boys (generally) have been under attack. I'm not sure if there's substantial evidence behind this theory, except the success rates of girls and women in education, which is higher than that of boys in highschool - and the participation rates, which are higher in uni.As far as I recall, boys are about 2 years behind girls in maturity untill both are fully developed, which means that females will have it easier during this time. This might account for some of the differences between men and women in higher education. Though people might be against it, gender segregation might be helpful for boys since they're not at the same maturity level as girls of the same age. On the other hand, the more mature behavior of the girls might just make the boys behave a little more mature. An alternative would be to make it so that the boys in a class are around 2 years older than girls, then they will be around the same mental age.

Found a study that shows that boys learn more from men, and girls from women, which is rather alarming since 80% of teachers in the US are female. The same study shows that boys are more likely to be seen as disruptive by female teachers, while girls are more likely to feel the subject isn't useful to them when a man is the teacher. Though it's anecdotal evidence, I think alot of men can remember female teachers being harsher on boys than girls, and this study does support that evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700273.html

Interessting fact: Mens brains are not fully developed until around the age of 25, and will not be able to recognice a dangerous situation as well as a womans. This combined with testosterone explains the large amount of young men that are involved in accidents compaired to women.

*...*
here (http://www.cbc.ca/podcasting/pastpodcasts.html?25#ref25)
*...*

I'll listen to that, thanks. Just now my eyes are hurting and I should be in bed.

EDIT: That discussion starts half way through, at 30 minutes. The "second documentary."

As I recall, he was using a different definition of "work" at that time: he at first tried to defend a definition such that something "works" precisely when it is effective; that is, when it has some effect or other. But this is trivially true of anything worth talking about, so it hardly makes a good definition for what it means "to work."

After we made that clear, he shifted ground somewhat to the position that gender roles "work" not only because they have some effect, but precisely because they have the effect they are "supposed to" according to the sexists who, as Similization assumes, are solely responsible for imposing gender roles on everyone else.

Actually, when I asked him what he meant by "work", he replied (before Free Soviets offered his interpretation) "I mean they work as advertised."

That I took to meant that they did what they should do, or more clearly, were expected to do, which is a normative statement. His obvious use of the word "work" as a normative term is confirmed with the very next sentence: "That something works doesn't mean it's good or should be allowed to go on."

Since then I have not seen him change his position or say that some participants impose gender roles on the rest, only where you have said that he is saying that.

I then argued that this definition would be reasonable enough if we could meaningfully distinguish between "doer" and "done to" when it comes to gender roles. But this we cannot do.

Actually, the only way to reconcile his statements is to assume that he perceives his definition of "work" as a positive one. If he thought he had a normative definition of "work," then it would clearly conflict with his normative statement that gender roles need to change.

In normative terms, gender roles either work or they don't work. They cannot both work and not work.

Similization thinks that he has avoided the contradiction by asserting that gender roles work in a positive sense, but they do not work in a normative sense, though he has obscured even this resolution by evading this simple construction of his position.

My claim at this point is that this does not resolve anything because the question of "what works" in a social system is inherently normative, so that what he takes as a positive definition is actually a normative definition in disguise. So he is really saying, "According to this (normative) definition, gender roles work... but they obviously need to change, because normatively they don't work." Contradiction.

I cannot help but take a completely opposite view. From the reply he made to me earlier:

I mean they work as advertised. For example by making leading positions unattractive to the female half of the species.

That something works doesn't mean it's good or should be allowed to go on.

It is obvious that he is trying to say that they work in a normative sense, but that they should be changed from a positive perspective.

Normative comparison is just the practice of deciding whether one thing (whether it is a means or an end or both) is superior to another. You don't question normative comparison (unless you never think to yourself, "x is better than y")... you question the possibility of objective or perhaps even intersubjective normative comparison--that is, you question whether we can ever establish criteria on which to make a judgment upon which we can all agree.

Yes, and when you refer to judging a social system, you are referring to objective or intersubjective normative comparison. I believe that discussion can go a long ways towards that, I think it is ultimately a losing battle.

Couldn't agree more. Though women have a more difficult time in getting into positions of power than men, it is alot easier than it was 30 years ago. Given time, it will become even more equalized.Now, unless you'd like to demonstrate your psychic powers, I'm going to assume that this is an empirical prediction based on empirical facts.

True, there has been a general trend of increased gender equality--which isn't to say there haven't been some setbacks. But then, we've also been in the midst of a society in which many people are actively fighting for that goal, including through legislative means. We have been in the midst of a society at least partially committed to goals of affirmative action, and we have been in the midst of a society willing to call public officials and even business leaders out on their sexist views and practices. We have legislated anti-discrimation policies (though the Supreme Court recently tore them a new one) and we have legislated anti-harassment policies. They have been highly effective.

So I would hope your prediction is based on the continued success of these empirical realities rather than some sort of wishful thinking that things just get better on their own. They don't. If history has proven anything, that's it right there.

If we try to force equality onto a system that is not ready for it, we could compromise the progress that has already been made.Whoa! Listen, the "progress that has already been made" has been made precisely by forcing equality into a system that wasn't ready for it, isn't ready for it, and won't be ready for it for some time. The problem is that sexism and racism don't just magically disappear if you wait long enough. You need to start forcing, and you can't wait for sexist society to say, "Okay, now we're ready."

How exactly do you think continuing to push feminist goals is going to "compromise" existing progress? This is a favorite tune of reactionaries, but it really stinks of a threat: keep at it, and sooner or later we'll respond drastically. Really? And the persistent discouragement and legal battles of the last forty years have been... what? The welcoming committee? The sickeningly reactionary depiction of women (and especially anyone daring enough to call themselves "feminist") in the media?

What then? Next are you going to whip out the old firehoses and attack dogs? Because that's the worst kind of "backlash" I can remember, and the movement for equality managed to push through that. So what is it, exactly?

Since males are still very much in power, trying to legislate around the problem might just cause a backlash from these males that prefer to be in power.It already has. It will continue to do so. That is the nature of social struggle.

As you know, there are fewer men in power today, and those men are increasingly constrained in the stances they can make by the overall success of the feminist movement. So now you think is the time to stop pushing? Now you think we should fear a backlash? We've been there. We've done that. We've survived the worst that sexism could throw at us, and we're still coming back for more. We're not going to slow down or stop because you fear (threaten?) some kind of "backlash." We expect it by now.

I believe changing the work culture slowly will be more beneficial in the long run.Oh sure, it's going to take a long time. But you know what helps? The ability to prosecute assholes who sexually harass and discriminate against women, civilly and sometimes criminally. It helps a whole lot to encourage employers to pro-actively seek diversity and to educate their employees about diversity. You know what doesn't help? Waiting for it to happen on its own.

Legislating around it will just cause men to teach their boys about how the evil feminists are taking their jobs,The kind of men who teach that shit are doing it already. In fact, they did it a long time before "feminism" properly speaking came around. Do you know what they'd charge before it was "affirmative action stole my job"? It used to be, "well, I guess I know who slept with the boss." If you're prejudiced against women or minorities, you'll always come up with some reason to believe they weren't really as qualified as you.

Of course, it's going to be a lot harder for men to convince their "boys" that feminism is evil when young men actually have more and more positive feminist role-models. In all probability, that man is going to have to talk about the "evil feminists taking their jobs" even as they have a mother who goes to work, perhaps a mother who has a career.

It strikes me as particularly odd that you should suggest feminism should "slow down" just when we're actually winning. This strikes me very suspiciously as the work of a reactionary wanting to disguise his motives, or at least a very very conflicted young man.

if the changes happen slowly, people won't notice it as much, and won't be as opposed.The only way people aren't going to "notice" it is if there is no feminist movement, because movements in a democracy are inherently public and vocal.

We have had a male hierarchy since the first humans appeared, so the change can't just happen overnight.Why not? We've come rather far in some countries just in the last thirty to forty years, not to mention the more incremental advances over about a hundred years or so. That seems "overnight" in comparison to when "the first humans appeared," doesn't it? Maybe we can make just as much progress in the next "night," eh?

But probably not if we quit now.

Oh, one more thing: you radically underestimate the egalitarian nature of early human existence in the gatherer-hunter mode. Anthropologists have uncovered strong evidence of both social and sexual equality, which resonates well with the biological fact that human beings have the most subtle sexual dimorphism of any species of ape.

Another problem with legislation is that it might force employers to hire people that aren't as qualified for a job just to fill quotas.This demonstrates a very poor understanding of how affirmative action actually works.

The higher the IQ needed(I know it's not the only factor, but it is a large factor in the jobs that women are lamenting about.) for a job is, the smaller the amount of women that occupy that job will need to be if we're going for gender equality, since men have a larger variance in IQ. (meaning that more men have high IQ levels and low IQ levels.)And this demonstrates an even worse understanding of the actual variance among male and female IQs, and how it is likely to affect the distribution of qualified workers for intellectual jobs. Let's put it this way: I can't think of a single job EVER that actually requires an IQ of 160. Men and women equally fill out the qualified pools for any job you can name. Men just have a few more extreme cases.

Now you're really soundingly like someone who wants to subtly justify sexism.

Equality should not be across the gender, but on a person by person basis. If a man is more qualified than a woman, he gets the job, if the woman is more qualified, she gets the job. If you argue for anything else, then you're just as bad as people that want no change.Wow, there are a lot of problems here... should I even point out the false dilemma?

The first thing you need to understand is that even when we have a reasonable definition for what "qualified" actually means, the "most qualified candidate" is not, has never been, and certainly never will be guaranteed a position in academe or in the workplace. Why? Because employers and educators have had and always will have interests and goals besides grabbing up every one of the "most qualified" candidates.

What if the guy with the superior IQ, test scores, grades and experience... is a total asshole who makes the workplace miserable for everyone else? What if he refuses to relocate, so that he cannot be easily reachable in emergency situations? What if he doesn't play softball, and you consider the company softball league important for company morale? What if the "next best" person on paper is friendly, gracious, willing to move into the city and an ace pitcher?

Who would you choose?

This is nothing new, of course. Schools don't want to cram their classrooms with intolerable nerds (they want some athletes and poets and journalists, too), and employers don't want to hire only the "most qualified" candidates if this means they are going to compromise other workplace goals. Some of those goals are directly related to diversity: it turns out that having people from diverse backgrounds, experiences, ethnicities, cultures, geographical locations, what-have-you... makes the learning/working environment better for everyone. It produces more discussion, which often leads to novel problem solutions that would not have occurred otherwise, and it promotes tolerance and understanding that will be useful in a modern marketplace as employers have little choice but to embrace a diverse clientele.

Conclusion: diversity in the workplace is better for the workplace than just stacking it with the "best" employees.

As far as I recall, boys are about 2 years behind girls in maturity untill both are fully developed, which means that females will have it easier during this time.Okay, we need to discuss what you mean by "maturity" and what you mean by "have it easier."

If you're talking about physical maturity, then I don't see how you can possibly think girls have it easier: while boys' biggest concern remains who can become king of the garbage pile, girls have to start dealing with their own fluctuating hormones and bodily processes. Meanwhile, "maturing" young girls have to deal with the stares and taunts of little boys, as well as the sick ogling, comments, and often propositions they receive from men much, much older than they are.

If you're talking about emotional maturity, then I would suggest our own culture has a lot to do with allowing boys "to be boys" while we demand more of young women. It's because we tolerate male immaturity that men never learn to grow the fuck up... not by fifteen, and half the time not by thirty. Male immaturity is a disease, not a fact of life.

This might account for some of the differences between men and women in higher education. Though people might be against it, gender segregation might be helpful for boys since they're not at the same maturity level as girls of the same age. On the other hand, the more mature behavior of the girls might just make the boys behave a little more mature. An alternative would be to make it so that the boys in a class are around 2 years older than girls, then they will be around the same mental age.A moment ago you were suggesting that "legislation" is a bad idea, and now you want to propose an impossible to enforce, idiotic system, all as a concession to male "immaturity" that would be better met with the serious message that we won't put up with their behavior?

I have known very mature young men at the ages appropriate to college, and I can tell you that every one learned to be mature, polite, and respectful of other people. It didn't happen by "magic." On the other hand, I have known many immature, impolite, disrespectful and downright bigoted men in their forties... and that has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with nurture, you can be quite sure.

Found a study that shows that boys learn more from men, and girls from women, which is rather alarming since 80% of teachers in the US are female.Actually, it's not at all alarming, because you misread the study.

It does NOT say that when children have a female teacher, girls learn more than boys.

It DOES say that there is an existing gender gap in primary education, and that gap closes significantly when children have a woman as a teacher.

In other words, boys generally do better than girls in primary education. But that gap is narrower when a woman teaches them. Now, some people seem to be concerned that the improvement for girls is "purchased" at the cost of some loss to boys. But why shouldn't this be the case? If boys are performing much better and girls much worse under men, might it not be because men are more likely to tolerate the boys' immature behavior and because the men are more likely to identify with and relate to boys while shutting down and ignoring girls? So boys are getting the "special rewards" of male privilege, and we should expect them to excel, to live up to the "masterful" role expected of them.

Take away male privilege, and of course boys will settle back towards the mean. It is foolish to think that we can take the male experience under sexism and somehow make that the model for what everyone should achieve! It would be like saying, "Hmm, we took these privileged kids who got all the attention in the world from their teachers, and in the name of equality we mixed them in with other children who have never been so privileged. It turns out that the underprivileged to better in this circumstance--and the privileged still do somewhat better, but not as much better as when they got all the attention."

Um, duh.

The same study shows that boys are more likely to be seen as disruptive by female teachers, while girls are more likely to feel the subject isn't useful to them when a man is the teacher.That's right. And who do you think is making them feel that way?

Ever consider the possibility that boys ARE disruptive? Because that seems to reflect my experience. I guess a woman is just more willing to be honest about it.

Though it's anecdotal evidence, I think alot of men can remember female teachers being harsher on boys than girls, and this study does support that evidence.NO. This study does NOT say that women are harder on boys than on girls. It shows that women are harder on boys than men are. That's a VERY different result.

To quote from the article: "The study found switching up teachers actually could narrow achievement gaps between boys and girls, but one gender would gain at the expense of the other." Again, that means boys are still doing better (there is an achievement gap), but one gender gains at the expense of the other. This doesn't surprise me at all, since I should expect that boys less privileged by sex should not do as well as boys immediately privileged by sex.

Interessting fact: Mens brains are not fully developed until around the age of 25, and will not be able to recognice a dangerous situation as well as a womans.Sounds like a good argument for keeping men away from alcohol until 25, which is something I've favored for some time. Of course, I wouldn't let women have it either.

Actually, when I asked him what he meant by "work", he replied (before Free Soviets offered his interpretation) "I mean they work as advertised."Then I withdraw my assertion that he meant something different initially. I must have been confused by Free Soviets' interpretation. It's hardly important, since my real disagreement is with his "supposed to do" argument rather than his trivial "does something" definition.

His obvious use of the word "work" as a normative term is confirmed with the very next sentence: "That something works doesn't mean it's good or should be allowed to go on."I read that the exact opposite way. He is attempting to obscure his use of the word "work" in a normative sense by stressing that it is politically and ethically neutral: just because it "works" doesn't mean it's "good," he says. He is explicitly denying a normative definition.

Since then I have not seen him change his position or say that some participants impose gender roles on the rest, only where you have said that he is saying that.He has implied that what gender roles are "supposed" to do is to enforce a sexist system according to the reasons and motivations of sexists. He has drawn an analogy to the system of slavery, which he argues "worked" perfectly well because it did what the slave-owners intended it to do.

It is obvious that he is trying to say that they work in a normative sense, but that they should be changed from a positive perspective.That doesn't make any sense. You don't change things for positive reasons. "The sky is blue" is not a reason for anything. Even "people are abused" is not a reason for anything. "People should not be abused" is a reason for change in the positive context of "people are abused."

There is no such thing as a "positive motivation" except in the sense that you describe someone's actual motivations. But "feminists want equality" is not a reason to support equality any more than "sexists want inequality" is a reason to support inequality. Reasons for change are inherently normative.

Yes, and when you refer to judging a social system, you are referring to objective or intersubjective normative comparison. I believe that discussion can go a long ways towards that, I think it is ultimately a losing battle.Again, a discussion for another place.

But for the record, I think you are committed to the subjective relativist attack on morals because its "cool" rather than because it holds much water. There is a rather solid consensus among philosophers that, even if we can't agree on which ethical system really is right, the moral relativism is about as significant as empirical skepticism: it's fun to think about, and it can often provide a useful critique of fossilized ethical views, but ultimately it doesn't get us anywhere.

But then again, this may be because anyone who would actually bother to engage in normative debates (such as those over feminism) inevitably believes that it is possible (however unlikely) to influence a person purely through argument.

If you really, honestly believe that you cannot change someone's mind by giving them good reasons, or reasons better than what they already have, then you are truly a relativist.

But considering your behavior and the level of debate to which you hold yourself, I find that extremely difficult to believe. ;)

I read that the exact opposite way. He is attempting to obscure his use of the word "work" in a normative sense by stressing that it is politically and ethically neutral: just because it "works" doesn't mean it's "good," he says. He is explicitly denying a normative definition.

Would you believe that I crossed up my use of normative and positive throughout my entire post? That's bad.

He has implied that what gender roles are "supposed" to do is to enforce a sexist system according to the reasons and motivations of sexists. He has drawn an analogy to the system of slavery, which he argues "worked" perfectly well because it did what the slave-owners intended it to do.

Yes, that is what I was actually trying to say.

That doesn't make any sense. You don't change things for positive reasons. "The sky is blue" is not a reason for anything. Even "people are abused" is not a reason for anything. "People should not be abused" is a reason for change in the positive context of "people are abused."

There is no such thing as a "positive motivation" except in the sense that you describe someone's actual motivations. But "feminists want equality" is not a reason to support equality any more than "sexists want inequality" is a reason to support inequality. Reasons for change are inherently normative.

You probably realize why I was babbling nonsense.

Again, a discussion for another place.

But for the record, I think you are committed to the subjective relativist attack on morals because its "cool" rather than because it holds much water. There is a rather solid consensus among philosophers that, even if we can't agree on which ethical system really is right, the moral relativism is about as significant as empirical skepticism: it's fun to think about, and it can often provide a useful critique of fossilized ethical views, but ultimately it doesn't get us anywhere.

But then again, this may be because anyone who would actually bother to engage in normative debates (such as those over feminism) inevitably believes that it is possible (however unlikely) to influence a person purely through argument.

If you really, honestly believe that you cannot change someone's mind by giving them good reasons, or reasons better than what they already have, then you are truly a relativist.

But considering your behavior and the level of debate to which you hold yourself, I find that extremely difficult to believe. ;)

Why restrain ourselves at this point?

I do hold the opinion that there is no objective moral truth, whether it be by reason or divinity or whatever. I believe that people have a set of core values that really cannot be broken down by reason and that have no linking to any truth whatsoever.

I do believe that many of these values are held by way of being human and are nearly universally shared. Because of this, I would say that rational discussion does have its place, as these basic values can be appealed to and brought to greater expression.

So discourse has its role, but it breaks down as one cuts deeper.

Would you believe that I crossed up my use of normative and positive throughout my entire post? That's bad.Aha!

Why restrain ourselves at this point?For my part, because I know it won't be brief... and I start teaching on Tuesday.

I believe that people have a set of core values that really cannot be broken down by reason and that have no linking to any truth whatsoever.Even if that's the best we have, it would still allow for at least intersubjective agreement, and we can follow Habermas with his confusing muddle of neo-Kantian happiness...

Of course, I do believe that there is a legitimate rational basis for adhering to particular categorical imperatives, though I would hesitate to use the term "objective" to describe it. The subjective/objective dichotomy represents precisely the alienated perspective that fails to appreciate the grounding for moral reason and how closely related it is to the grounding for reason as such.

Hmmm... maybe I'll figure out some way to make my students post on Nationstates. We're studying legal philosophy, so it wouldn't be completely off-base...

Ugh...you two! Could you tone down the intellectual wanking please?

Even if that's the best we have, it would still allow for at least intersubjective agreement, and we can follow Habermas with his confusing muddle of neo-Kantian happiness...

Of course, I do believe that there is a legitimate rational basis for adhering to particular categorical imperatives, though I would hesitate to use the term "objective" to describe it. The subjective/objective dichotomy represents precisely the alienated perspective that fails to appreciate the grounding for moral reason and how closely related it is to the grounding for reason as such.

I know nothing of Habermas, and I don't understand what you mean when you refer to "the grounding for moral reason".

Hmmm... maybe I'll figure out some way to make my students post on Nationstates. We're studying legal philosophy, so it wouldn't be completely off-base...

We could use some new brains in here (or perhaps I could use a new forum).

Ugh...you two! Could you tone down the intellectual wanking please?

I prefer it so much to the typical wanking that goes on within this forum.

We could use some new brains in here (or perhaps I could use a new forum).Stick around...the forum always goes a bit 'stupid' over the summer. I'm taking a break from it.

I prefer it so much to the typical wanking that goes on within this forum. *considers*
It's still wanking.

*considers*
It's still wanking.

We all need our own way of wanking.

We all need our own way of wanking.

I prefer the kind with orgasms :P

I prefer the kind with orgasms :P

I prefer to think that people aren't coming to NSG for that kind of wanking, but I have seen some threads that made me wonder.

I prefer to think that people aren't coming to NSG for that kind of wanking, but I have seen some threads that made me wonder.

Na, we stopped coming here for that a while back.

:(

Ugh...you two! Could you tone down the intellectual wanking please?I don't know if wanking is the right metaphor... After all, there is an undeniable sadistic streak in the urge to best someone in argument, friendly or no.

I prefer the kind with orgasms :PHow dare you assume that I've never made Vittos climax!

I'm offended.

;)

I don't know if wanking is the right metaphor... After all, there is an undeniable sadistic streak in the urge to best someone in argument, friendly or no.

You would see it that way.

So how does a submissive argue?

So how does a submissive argue?Good question!

Honestly, I think the true submissives are the trolls who like to get everybody agitated but never come back to defend themselves. You just know they're sitting at a desk, quietly watching, thinking, "Yeah, hit me with the equivocation fallacy. Oooh, I like how you handle that straw man! Burn it! Harder! HARDER!"

Good question!

Honestly, I think the true submissives are the trolls who like to get everybody agitated but never come back to defend themselves. You just know they're sitting at a desk, quietly watching, thinking, "Yeah, hit me with the equivocation fallacy. Oooh, I like how you handle that straw man! Burn it! Harder! HARDER!"
HAHAHAHAHAHAAA....

Fantastic:D

Edit: Ha! That would be an awesome thread killer! And btw, TG Anarch.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAA....

Fantastic:DYeah, but I fear they don't get much pleasure out of me... I'm off about a false dilemma and they're still paging through their dictionaries to figure out what "viz." means.

It's kind of like when you pull out the branding irons with some noob who was just looking for a little rug burn.

No one goes home happy.

EDIT: SOMEHOW I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY FUNNY IF VITTOS' NEXT POST (BELOW) IS THE LAST POST IN THIS THREAD. :D

I get so turned on every time AnarchyeL talks about Kant.

You would see it that way.

So how does a submissive argue?

Passive aggression.

Not to interrupt this genuinely enjoyable discussion, but AnarchyeL, you need to downsize your signature. It's broken through the glass ceiling, which is 8 lines last I checked.

Thanks.

NationStates Patriarchal Oppressor
HotRodia

Wow, a Mod Bump. Yay!

Yes, it is happening to some extent. Men certainly make good parents and care-givers when they feel so inclined. With time, I think more men will realize what a rewarding and interesting occupation raising kids is.

But clearly something has to change to make men "realize" that. It's not like raising kids is some new fad.
And something has changed. When women are not just full-time mothers, the real value of childcare becomes a bit clearer. It costs money (whoever pays) and a standard of childcare comparable to parenthood costs even more -- the wages of a nannie (or mannie!) This went unaccounted when women were expected to raise children as a "duty" or a "natural role."

In the meantime though, women still take on most of the care-giving and housework load, even when they do work and have outside help. that's why affordable childcare in the early years is so very important - without it, young women are hte ones sacrificing their pursuits and dreams to have a family much more than men are.

Childcare. Oh dear. I'd rather see a system where every worker is guaranteed enough discretionary time to be a parent and do their share of housework. Or read books or go clay-pigeon shooting, if that's their preference. Basically a cap on overtime, which levels the playing-field in more ways than just "affordable childcare" would.

A cap on overtime, and a 30-hour working week, would also be a cap on productivity. It would cost businesses money, it would limit the earning power of ambitious individuals. It would force businesses to employ another (possibly less competent) person to do what would otherwise be their star employee's overtime.
In the face of that, I'm for it, because it has these benefits: it prevents 'burnout' (a huge waste of talent and training.) It lessens the exploitation of low-paid workers (like an enforced minimum wage, but measured by the working week instead of by the hour.) Above all, it guarantees the employee time to pursue some other value in life beyond their job, most particularly the opportunity to personally parent their children.
Yes to affordable (ie subsidized) childcare ... as a stopgap. Not as a parenting option which is endorsed and financially rewarded. And above all, not as a good way to raise children.

Does it seem contradictory to say that parenting should be recognized as useful work for all society which should be financially rewarded, yet to turn around and decry businesses parenting children for money (childcare) as good parenting? Perhaps so, and I invite all posters to examine this contradiction.

Indeed. This is a positive thing. There's a huge variety in workplaces - some have taken steps to accomodate women - not just in initial hiring, but also in keeping them. Other, more 'conservative' professions maintain a culture that is incredibly hard for women to contend with year after relentless year. I highly reccomend a documentary the CBC did on the subject of women in Law. They interviewed partners in law firms (ie. very driven, carrer women 100% committed to achievement) who after year and years decided to leave at the peak of their careers. It can be found here (http://www.cbc.ca/podcasting/pastpodcasts.html?25#ref25) and it's well worth listening to. Click on the June 17th Sunday edition podcast - it's the second documentary. It's disturbing to me that THE most succesful, intelligent, driven women still are not finding their place in these environments.

OK. I listened right through. I don't think you can describe a woman as "100% committed to achievement" if she chooses in the midst of that career to have a child, unless you also concede that she is 0% committed to parenthood. Sorry, but I think you have drawn the wrong conclusions from what the witnesses on the docu said. They were prepared to give up some of their by-the-minute wages (eg working weekends) for parenthood. The message I got from their testimony was that they were discriminated against beyond that. By not giving their every waking hour to the firm, they became second-rate employees ... they weren't given the most important cases, hence couldn't express their talents fully. They were victims, if you will, of the derivative (in a mathematical sense) of their reduced work effort.

And yes, I saw a second derivative there. The law firms were passing further judgement on the female employees: "not only are you not giving your all, but now you can't get to the top, we expect you will make even less effort by they hour. You will give up."

Yes, that's shitsome. It's not patriarchy, it's modern management exploitation.

So I say: cap overtime. If a person studies or prepares for work in their own time, fine. There's no way to stop that, anyway. But judging the committment or value of an employee by how much overtime they put in, and promoting or holding them back on the basis of that is just exploitative, whether they be a janitor or an attorney, whether they be a man or a woman.

The Opposition leader at the last australian Federal election, one Mark Latham, cited "wanting to spend more time with his growing family" as the SOLE reason for standing down (after losing, admittedly.) Only a tiny minority of australians still respect Latham, but I am one because throughout the campaign he exhibited a great reluctance to win. He seemed to be motivated by duty to his party rather than personal ambition. He had a self-destructive streak throughout the campaign, a sort of humbleness which I am quite satisfied now was a reluctance to give up his role as a father for the highest office in the land. Divided loyalties.

And really, some jobs are just too hard. No matter the resentment the disempowered feel from being at the mercy of the over-empowered, it isn't so sweet for the powerful either. Lord Acton could probably tell us all about it. There is some 'sweet-spot' where a powerbroker has just enough excess power to feel quite secure, and secures for themselves a nice house and a pension or a portfolio, but beyond that they are exploited by the system as well. They won't admit that the game they are winning at is meaningless, but they do have a tendency to take risks in their private lives which the responsibility of power prevents them from taking in their public role. They yearn for an end to the stress, without admitting defeat.

The top end of the law game would have to be similar.

Perhaps it will take a more agressive approach to change culture: women establishing hteir own law firms, etc.

Those law firms would have to contend in court with other law firms, whose star player has put in the overtime. They would be at a disadvantage, given the focus on individuals in a courtroom. But yes, it could work. For instance: to contend with one dedicated prosecutor, they could put not two but three time-sharing (job-sharing) defence lawyers. I say 3, because having the whole case in one head is a huge advantage, and timesharing involves a lot of communication between the parties sharing the job.

Yes, I realize that most legal work never sees a courtroom. But the adversarial "what I said v's what she said" process is the bottom line. And it is still a huge advantage to have the whole case in one head.

I agree that legislation isn't necessarily the most important. (and equality has existed in the books for a while now, here in canada). What's more important is that women themselves permeate and subvert the structures that produce inequality.

I would say "perpetuate inequality." But since you agree, obviously I agree.

There are some arguments that in some spheres (teaching, specifically) the female influence has been too one-sided, resulting in a school system that favours girls over boys. Certainly, the activities that most stimulate and interest young boys (generally) have been under attack. I'm not sure if there's substantial evidence behind this theory, except the success rates of girls and women in education, which is higher than that of boys in highschool - and the participation rates, which are higher in uni.

I'll have none of that. Teaching is a "labour of love." Starting teachers overwhelming have high ideals, as do starting lawyers and doctors and any other professionals who have had to study for more than three years to enter their profession. I
f the boys are finding it hard in school, I say good. If they think it's all a wank, and can't wait to get out into the workforce where they'll get a few breaks, I say good. Go. Get a dead-end job with your uncle, forget about competing on an equal footing with the girls. Work hard at an unqualified job and think you're the king of the world because you drive a hot car.

I know I've made a rant of this (and I invite anyone to pick one part and debate that in isolation) but I'd like to add an opinion on professionalism. On the growing need to have academic qualifications for just about any good job.

Feminism comes from learning. From books, from study and from debate. It is not based in worldy power, but on moral principles and reason. It appropriates principles from other doctrines which it does not endorse, but it also contributes usefully to philosophy by questioning the subject (the human mind.) Feminism is the Philosophy with the most world consequence in any of our lifetimes.

Qualifications, training in a trade or profession, might seem remote from Philosophy, but it is not. They are alike, they are both practice in the kind of thinking which is the root of success in the world, in the tradition-bound, unfair, refractive real world. I mean real success, which is measured in changing those traditions, righting that unfairness, and changing what is real in the world..

Qualifications are a leveller, an equalizer. When a persons worthiness for a job is measured by their learning, by their ability to write an essay or tick the right multiple-choice boxes, we are far closer to a fair hiring environment than "they impressed me with their confidence in the interview." And when promotion depends on learning, on written, assessable learning, we are far closer to having the most talented people advanced.

I say there should be a minimum and a maximum level of "commitment." Within that, the most talented should get the job and be promoted. Rewarding effort shoudl be secondary to rewarding talent ... or else people waste their lives competing when they could be expressing their talents.

It is troubling to me how naive some so-called radical feminists can be. Particularly the ones that I know personally.

Let me first issue this caveat. It is not me intent to critique the concept of feminism. Instead, it is my intent to critique certain ideas that have gained recognition as being "feminist."

Some well educated, intelligent "radical" feminists that I know of personally have been expounding their beliefs lately.


Yep I agree, the old adage about power and corruption is undoubtly true, ther words for ya: Maggie fuckin' Thatcher.

Whilst I'm on it, exactly how does have an equal number of both sexes holding possitions at work etc.. make for sexual eqaulity?

Yep I agree, the old adage about power and corruption is undoubtly true, ther words for ya: Maggie fuckin' Thatcher.

Whilst I'm on it, exactly how does have an equal number of both sexes holding possitions at work etc.. make for sexual eqaulity?

Since reading the thread is apparently too hard for you:

The rules in the workplace are established by the participants in the workplace: employers, employees, and (controversially) the law.

Participants make rules to favour themselves. Women participating equally as employers will make rules favouring themselves ... and all other women.

I argue that such reform will benefit everybody, since the modern workplace is pretty fucked and just about anything would make it better. But that doesn't answer what you asked, and it probably isn't the consensus view.

You want a link, don't you? So you can attack the sources rather than the content? Nup, sorry. Maybe if you put in more effort :p

Since reading the thread is apparently too hard for you:

The rules in the workplace are established by the participants in the workplace: employers, employees, and (controversially) the law.

Participants make rules to favour themselves. Women participating equally as employers will make rules favouring themselves ... and all other women.

I argue that such reform will benefit everybody, since the modern workplace is pretty fucked and just about anything would make it better. But that doesn't answer what you asked, and it probably isn't the consensus view.

You want a link, don't you? So you can attack the sources rather than the content? Nup, sorry. Maybe if you put in more effort :p

Women and men are not two separate hiveminds.

Women and men have other motivations to implement or advocate certain policies in the workplace - motivations other than their gender roles or their biological needs.

There are women who vote against a lot of pro-feminist reforms, and men who vote FOR pro-feminist reforms. Just because you can check between their legs and say, "Ah! This one's a female!" doesn't mean a whole lot.

Since reading the thread is apparently too hard for you:

The rules in the workplace are established by the participants in the workplace: employers, employees, and (controversially) the law.

Participants make rules to favour themselves. Women participating equally as employers will make rules favouring themselves ... and all other women.

I argue that such reform will benefit everybody, since the modern workplace is pretty fucked and just about anything would make it better. But that doesn't answer what you asked, and it probably isn't the consensus view.

You want a link, don't you? So you can attack the sources rather than the content? Nup, sorry. Maybe if you put in more effort :p

Naaa no link required, ya know as I was too lazy to read the entire thread, I'd be too lazy to read any link.

So then the more women in the workplace = rules fair to women?

That actualy don't make a bit of sense. Your normal Joe or Jo in the workplace has little, to no control over the 'rules' of the workplace.

More woman in positions of power may well make rules that benifit women, it is more likely though that the OP is correct and once the enevitable corruption sets in, these women will probably be no better than their male counterparts.

Sorry but I think you are not onto a winner with this one.

Ohh and I see you decied to not reply to my 'three words'?

Women and men are not two separate hiveminds.

Agreed. Each individual acts differently in the same environment.
I'm a sexist: I believe that a woman and a man behave differently in the same environment. I concede that this is mostly socialization, but (sexist alert!!) that there are inherent differences in how they behave, beyond gender roles.

Women and men have other motivations to implement or advocate certain policies in the workplace - motivations other than their gender roles or their biological needs.

Again, agreed. They have other (individual, eg ambition, personal morality, personal priorities, interpersonal or political) motivations.

They also have distinctly different motivations which can be distinguished by sex. Like I said, I'm a sexist.

There are women who vote against a lot of pro-feminist reforms, and men who vote FOR pro-feminist reforms. Just because you can check between their legs and say, "Ah! This one's a female!" doesn't mean a whole lot.

Making employment and promotion blind, objective, based entirely on performance under equal conditions (limited overtime, a working week which allows for proper parenthood) and on qualifications ... means a lot.

If you look at my long post above, I see parenthood as gender-neutral. I'm really only interested in protecting the value of parenthood. I'm definitely not advocating quotas, if that's what you're trying to imply.

Making employment and promotion blind, objective, based entirely on performance under equal conditions (limited overtime, a working week which allows for proper parenthood) and on qualifications ... means a lot.

A lot of companies supposedly have these policies in place.

Yet I don't think that the majority follow them. And, I don't think it's because men want to promote men.

I think that people promote their friends first - after that, they promote people who do their work for them, then people who kiss their ass.

A lot of companies supposedly have these policies in place.

Yet I don't think that the majority follow them. And, I don't think it's because men want to promote men.

I think that people promote their friends first - after that, they promote people who do their work for them, then people who kiss their ass.

I find nothing to disagree with in this post.

Naaa no link required, ya know as I was too lazy to read the entire thread, I'd be too lazy to read any link.

So then the more women in the workplace = rules fair to women?

That is the thread antithesis. I am making that case, though I realize it is as ridiculous as the thread thesis. I haven't the learning nor the experience to fully refute it, but I thought I'd have a go, since it was piss-weak. :p

That actualy don't make a bit of sense. Your normal Joe or Jo in the workplace has little, to no control over the 'rules' of the workplace.

Which is precisely why the debate in this thread is about ALL LEVELS of the workplace. The workplace is not just a little prison for workers (tho I admit it seems that way to the worker) it is a thing that bosses and owners and legislators participate in too.
Perhaps I need a better word than "workplace." That word implies an unchangable, take-it-or-leave-it environment for workers. Really, I mean the entire structure of business, from manipulators to owners to bosses to middle-managers to workers. The entire capitalist machine.

And the law to follow. To do what law does best, enforce a supermajority of public expectation. Tyranny of the majority, and of the past. The longer the past, the more overwhelming the majority: the more effective the law.

More woman in positions of power may well make rules that benifit women, it is more likely though that the OP is correct and once the enevitable corruption sets in, these women will probably be no better than their male counterparts.

Such charming cynicism does not justify a position of status quo.
Or in other words: "we will see. You might be pleasantly surprised."

Sorry but I think you are not onto a winner with this one.

Well, I'll be sober in about ten hours. We will see :)

Ohh and I see you decied to not reply to my 'three words'?

What, "Margaret Hilda Thatcher"?

No. Why should I reply to a single case which you think somehow discredits a century of historical change?

That is the thread antithesis. I am making that case, though I realize it is as ridiculous as the thread thesis. I haven't the learning nor the experience to fully refute it, but I thought I'd have a go, since it was piss-weak. :p

Ohh gawd(or wotever) bless ya for trying though

Yeah me man, me can't read long passages of text. That sorta gets me onto another topic, but is it just me who is put off by more that a screens worth of text? Or is it just another part of our modern times?



Which is precisely why the debate in this thread is about ALL LEVELS of the workplace. The workplace is not just a little prison for workers (tho I admit it seems that way to the worker) it is a thing that bosses and owners and legislators participate in too.
Perhaps I need a better word than "workplace." That word implies an unchangable, take-it-or-leave-it environment for workers. Really, I mean the entire structure of business, from manipulators to owners to bosses to middle-managers to workers. The entire capitalist machine.

Ahhhh the capitalist machine. I agree then, we should have more women in amongst the gogs and gears of that particular monster, although my first fears about corruption and it's lack of discrimination or sexual bias in the choosing of it's victims, is still very much relavent I think.



And the law to follow. To do what law does best, enforce a supermajority of public expectation. Tyranny of the majority, and of the past. The longer the past, the more overwhelming the majority: the more effective the law.

Again I agree with you here, although have been taken into a war that our country(UK) overwhelmingly said no to, I'm not sure. Umm whats that smell, if I'm not mistaken it... smells.. like......yep. Revolution!:)



Such charming cynicism does not justify a position of status quo.
Or in other words: "we will see. You might be pleasantly surprised."

Heh well I'll take that charming bit as a complement, and I'll have you know I am always pleasently supprised by women, and I hope so in this case also.


What, "Margaret Hilda Thatcher"?

No. Why should I reply to a single case which you think somehow discredits a century of historical change?

No I don't think that at all. But she is a good example of the corrupting beast that I speak of, not dining soley on male flesh.

She pulled all of the normal tricks you would expect from politicans, and PM's and her gender did not seem to effect any of this.

I think that perhaps the overall human attitude will have to change before we get true eqality for all.

I'd like a better definition of 'radical feminist'.

Or any definition, really.

I'd like a better definition of 'radical feminist'.

Or any definition, really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

*snip*Well, I finally got a real lenghty reply to one of my posts, that's something atleast. :p

Think atleast some of our difference in opinion stems from 2 facts:

- You're a woman, and I'm a young (confused?:p) man.
- You're from the US, and I'm from Denmark

The workculture in the US seems to be alot more competetive than it is in Denmark, and quite a bit more hostile to women. In Denmark men are actively encouraged to take maternity leave as well as the women, which makes the disadvantage(From an employers perspective) of hiring a women less pronounced. On top of that we have plans in place that strive for equality between the sexes(Not just for women), and even a minister of equality. We're making progress, though it isn't perfect for neither men nor women. From a danish perspective, just continuing as we're doing at the moment actually doesn't seem that stupid, though transfering a bit more cash that way from that stupid bridge they've decided to build would be a great idea. It might be a totally different case in the US though, I can't say since everything I know about the US is what I read in the news and from the internet. And just to get the record straight, I wasn't saying that anyone should stop working for equality, just that if we keep up what we're doing we will get there. Just need to start a cycle where more and more women get into top positions, then it will even out eventually. You could always try to copy the danish equality politics, though that would be far to centralized for any american to support.;)


I hope you can see that I don't think everything is fine, it's just that we have had 2 totally different experiences regarding gender policies. Have to say though, as sexist I might seem, you seem to think that every man is trying to keep you down and seeing ghosts where there are none. Your post seemed rather aggresive compared to mine, and quite frankly, a bit sexist. You claim that male teachers are more leniant towards boys, and that female teachers are totally fair when they punish boys, since boys are always making trouble anyway. You might not have written it, but to me, you come of sounding like you really hate men, and by extension, boys. The danish public schools are full of female teachers that used to do the whole bra burning thing or wish that they had been a part of it, and you can really tell it when you've got one of them. It's actually pretty similar to male bosses keeping the females of a company down, here it's just female teachers keeping boys down. Doubt we're gonna reach an agreement on this, since we're both on opposite ends of the spectrum with experiences of preferential treatment of the opposite sex by authorities.


http://www.ambottawa.um.dk/en/menu/AboutUs/TheEmbassy/SpeechesAndPublications/WOMEN+IN+DANISH+POLITICS.htm

Just a quick question, what do you believe is the reason that men have become the dominant gender in atleast western culture? I've got my own opinion, but I would like to her yours, or any others if people want to have their say.

You're a woman, and I'm a young (confused?:p) man.What makes you think I'm a woman?
You're from the US, and I'm from Denmark.That can surely cause some misunderstandings.

And just to get the record straight, I wasn't saying that anyone should stop working for equality, just that if we keep up what we're doing we will get there.That may be true in Denmark. I doubt that if we just "coast" in the United States it will do much good. Contrary to what some people have suggested here, it is at precisely those moments when progressive moments take a breather in the United States that the reactionaries step in to give us the backlash.

Have to say though, as sexist I might seem, you seem to think that every man is trying to keep you down and seeing ghosts where there are none.Being a man, that would be strange of me indeed.

Your post seemed rather aggresive compared to mine, and quite frankly, a bit sexist.Oh, really? You claim that male teachers are more leniant towards boys, and that female teachers are totally fair when they punish boys, since boys are always making trouble anyway.No, I said that male teachers are more lenient towards boys, which is true. As it happens, statistically female teachers are also more lenient toward boys than girls; female teachers, like male teachers, call on male students more often, allow male students to talk for longer stretches of time, and are more likely to reward male students with encouraging remarks than they are to compliment a female student's comment.

This is all empirical fact. It's just that women tend to be less biased than men in favor of boys. They still tend to be biased in favor of boys, because that's how our sexist culture works.

You might not have written it, but to me, you come of sounding like you really hate men, and by extension, boys.Wow, I guess I do have problems... I never realized how much I hate myself. :rolleyes:

The danish public schools are full of female teachers that used to do the whole bra burning thing or wish that they had been a part of it, and you can really tell it when you've got one of them. It's actually pretty similar to male bosses keeping the females of a company down, here it's just female teachers keeping boys down.I sincerely doubt that. I suspect that they just don't treat you as nicely as the male teachers do, and by comparison you wind up resenting them.

If you can show me data that says that female teachers in Denmark treat boys worse than they treat girls, then you'll have a point. So far it just looks like, as in America, they don't treat boys as well as men treat boys--and, of course, they treat girls better than men treat girls.

Just a quick question, what do you believe is the reason that men have become the dominant gender in atleast western culture?I don't think it's as simple as "the" reason. For starters, while it seems likely that human beings had been evolving in a gender-egalitarian direction for some time before we even had "culture" (see sexual dimorphism, among other things), we probably evolved from primates whose behavior patterns favored some kind of male dominance. Still, early human society was remarkably egalitarian, and the shift to male dominance in actual human cultures appears to have occurred in conjunction with the shift to an agrarian lifestyle from a gatherer-hunter lifestyle. While it is not entirely clear why this should happen, basic agrarian societies suddenly have a great demand for child labor: children are ideally suited to chores like weeding as well as harvesting certain kinds of popular low-lying crops. There is some evidence that women were, at this point, pressed into a state of near continual childbirth to supply this need.

And as I'm fond of pointing out, in my culture, 'traditional gender roles' means equity between the sexes. And really...we are the first Westerners :P

And as I'm fond of pointing out, in my culture, 'traditional gender roles' means equity between the sexes. And really...we are the first Westerners :PIndeed! As I've been saying, gatherer-hunters were notable for egalitarian relations between the sexes!

- You're a woman, and I'm a young (confused?:p) man.

What a timely goof!

What a timely goof!Ha! Confused indeed!

It's really funny how someone can be completely convinced that he is a feminist, and (whatever the condition of society) he certainly doesn't have any issues with gendered prejudice... and then he assumes I'm a woman based on the radical tone of my feminism.

Which only goes to show (and I stress this in part so that he doesn't think I'm taking shots at him personally) exactly how deep the roots of sexism go. Even the best of us, the most strongly committed to feminism, can only think of ourselves as "not sexist" in a qualified sense. In point of fact, I sometimes use the term "recovering sexist" to express the kind of vigilant self-awareness required to avoid (as best one can) attitudes and behaviors subconsciously influenced by the long history of sexism.

In a significant sense individuals will only be able to say they are completely free of sexism when, in fact, they are completely free of sexism. That is, there can be no "non-sexists" (without qualification) until sexism itself is dead.

And as I'm fond of pointing out, in my culture, 'traditional gender roles' means equity between the sexes. And really...we are the first Westerners :P

Despite what you may think, we learned that Columbus met the Indians in school. :p

Ha! Confused indeed!Doh! Well, I did say I might be confused, so I guess I was right.:p This really shows how big a difference there is between the US and Denmark, I've never seen any male being as feministic as you seem to be. You're actually way more feministic than any of the women I know. Ok, there's one that's as feministic as you, but she is 45 year old nutcase(Not saying that feminists are nutcases, just this one). This says alot about how different the environments we experience are. As for me being a feminist, I don't know, never considered my self to be one. I have always supported gender equality, but that goes both ways. Feminism has always seemed to support female equality where men have it better at the moment, but not supporting male equality in female dominated areas.

And I found a study that says that boys are hurt by the large amount of female teachers in schools.

The middle grades have predominantly female teachers which seems to assist the girls. In fact, 80% of middle school reading teachers are female. Dee summarizes that boys are being handicapped by this imbalance.

Dee stated in a recent paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research that because of the female reading teachers, boys lag 1.5 years behind girls in reading by high school. He thinks this is hurting the boys chances of going to a university and doing well if they decide to try college.

http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/female_vs_male_teachers

Overall, the data suggest that, "a large fraction of boys' dramatic underperformance in reading reflects the classroom dynamics associated with the fact that their reading teachers are overwhelmingly female."

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/boys-girls-and-teachers.html

Feminists still subsribe to this silliness? Horrible.
Hint: Everybody and his brother has a theory about what "feminists" believe. They're all wrong.

If you actually want to know about feminism, try talking to a feminist. I'd be happy to answer your questions.

I'd like a better definition of 'radical feminist'.

Or any definition, really.
Feminism (n): The radical belief that women are people.

And I found a study that says that boys are hurt by the large amount of female teachers in schools.One study won't get you very far, especially when your source doesn't even include the name of the study so we can find out what the rest of the scientific community thinks. It also doesn't help that every other study listed on that page confirms my argument: female teachers close the achievement gap between boys and girls.

More importantly, this doesn't answer the question about behavior: do female teachers treat boys worse than girls? This study explains that boys do worse than girls in reading when they have a female teacher, but it doesn't tell us why boys do worse with female teachers.

Is it because female teachers treat them worse than the girls? Or is it because boys have trouble mustering interest in a subject they identify with women, and therefore with femininity? (i.e. do boys come to regard reading as "girly" and therefore unworthy or uninteresting?) If so, is this some hardwired psychological gender identification, or is sexist society responsible?

That's the real question, isn't it? Your assertion all along has been that female teachers TREAT boys worse than girls, and this study says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that tends to answer that question.

Feminism (n): The radical belief that women are people.Alternate definition: The radical belief that a penis is... just a penis.

To quote my mentor and favorite feminist, Drucilla Cornell: "The difference between the penis and the phallus is this: a penis is what a man has; a phallus is what a man thinks he has."

;)

Feminism (n): The radical belief that women are people.

Wow, that's extreme.

Is it because female teachers treat them worse than the girls? Or is it because boys have trouble mustering interest in a subject they identify with women, and therefore with femininity? (i.e. do boys come to regard reading as "girly" and therefore unworthy or uninteresting?) If so, is this some hardwired psychological gender identification, or is sexist society responsible?

That's the real question, isn't it? Your assertion all along has been that female teachers TREAT boys worse than girls, and this study says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that tends to answer that question.

Reading associated with femininty? Nope I don't think so. I would say that it is more to do with the males sexual urges at that age and not being able to focus properly with a female teaching them.

Heh at least that sounds more reasonable than what you suggest, and it also does not paint all boys in the light of female haters too.

Reading associated with femininty? Nope I don't think so.

Where I grew up, absolutely. Reading was girl stuff. Sitting quietly with a book, reading stories, was for sissies. Boys who were quiet and studious were "fags" and "sissy girls."

Indeed, that's pretty much the only reason I was ever glad to be a girl. I loved to learn and to read, and since I was a girl it was "okay" for me to do those things. Meanwhile, my male friends were picked on and insulted--even by some adults--for having similar interests.


I would say that it is more to do with the males sexual urges at that age and not being able to focus properly with a female teaching them.

I'd say it's got far more to do with attitudes about how girls and boys are supposed to behave. Boys are supposed to be loud and rambunctious. The "boys will be boys" mentality encourages boys to be aggressive and mischievous. Girls, meanwhile, are encouraged to be sweet and quiet and obedient. Small wonder that girls do better in school, where children need to be quiet and respectful and follow instructions.

That's the real question, isn't it? Your assertion all along has been that female teachers TREAT boys worse than girls, and this study says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that tends to answer that question.Quick question: Do male bosses treat female employes worse than male employes? Since boys do worse in school, it must be because they're not mature enough for school, but when women are not at succesful out in the real world it's because of the men trying to keep them down.

We have established that there's a difference in how well males do in school compaired to females. Females generally do better in school than males.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm

We have also established that there's a diffrence in how well males do after school compaired to females. Males generally do better after school than females.(They make more money atleast)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States


I would like you to show that women are being discriminated against, them getting paid less isn't proof. If them getting paid less was proof, then boys lagging behind 1,5 years in reading is proof of discrimination aswell. I want a study that says that men discriminate against women. Might not have found the best link to a study that supports my idea that the school environment is detrimental to male education, but atleast I've got one.

Err... "idiots on radical ends of a political movement shocker".

Try a bit harder...

Reading associated with femininty? Nope I don't think so. I would say that it is more to do with the males sexual urges at that age and not being able to focus properly with a female teaching them.On that theory, wouldn't it depend on the woman? Unless you actually believe that boys are so their hormones at that age that any woman whatsoever sends them head-over-heels... and having grown up as a young man I find that hard to believe.

Heh at least that sounds more reasonable than what you suggest, and it also does not paint all boys in the light of female haters too.Who said anything about "female-haters"? It is well known that, at least under our sexist gendered system, boys identify strongly with men in such a way that, both consciously and unconsciously, they want to avoid identification with things associated with women. Indeed, many boys and men in our society are still terribly frightened of coming across as "feminine," "girly," or "gay" (which in many men's minds means pretty much the same thing).

Hell, men are so bent out of shape about it that they repress basic human emotions when those emotions seem feminine. You think there's no way it might affect their devotion to reading?

Where I grew up, absolutely. Reading was girl stuff. Sitting quietly with a book, reading stories, was for sissies. Boys who were quiet and studious were "fags" and "sissy girls."

Funny, I was quiet and studious and read more than almost any other student.

No one ever called me "fag" or "sissy girl".

I had a small circle of friends who were equally studious. No one called them "fag" either.

This was the 1960s and 1970s. When someone was called "fag" it was because they were one.

At least where I grew up...

Quick question: Do male bosses treat female employes worse than male employes?Often, yes they do.

Since boys do worse in school, it must be because they're not mature enough for school,Whoa... where did this "must" come from, and who said it had anything to do with boys' maturity? You're the one who keeps insisting that because boys "mature later" (stated as if a biological fact rather than a social fact subject to question) they should be given special treatment in schools.

More importantly, the "must" of your reconstruction suggests that I leap to the conclusion, unwarranted, that if boys perform worse with female teachers than male teachers, it "must" be something about the boys because it couldn't possibly be something about the teachers--as if I am prejudiced to think that female teachers couldn't possibly be doing anything wrong.

But that's not the case. I am basing my conclusions off of years of research that shows that BOTH male and female teachers pay more attention to boys than to girls. BOTH male and female teachers let boys get away with more "rambunctious" activity--because, after all, that's what society "expects" of boys... and we shouldn't just expect them to "mature" right? That's beyond their control. We shouldn't ask them to "behave," because... well, "boys will be boys," right?

How can we say that boys "can't" mature earlier if we're not willing to treat them as if they can? If we just acquiesce in their behavior as if it were perfectly natural?

But again, I don't know whether it is the boys level of maturity, or their hormones, or their failure to identify with women. I am offering those as alternative hypotheses because, on the basis of the evidence, I have to reject the one you offer: that boys do worse because female teachers treat them worse. The overwhelming evidence is that female teachers treat boys better than they do girls, if with a less pronounced difference than under male teachers. Even the ONE study you produced finding that boys perform worse under women DOES NOT CONTRADICT THIS WIDELY ACCEPTED FINDING. It says boys do worse in reading when they have a woman for a teacher. It does NOT say that this is because women treat them worse than girls.

but when women are not at succesful out in the real world it's because of the men trying to keep them down.Isn't it?

Obviously I wouldn't prejudge any individual cases: women, like men, fail for many reasons, most of them inherently personal. But why is it that women consistently fall behind? Could it have something to do with the well-documented fact that society discriminates against them?

That seems likely.

We have established that there's a difference in how well males do in school compaired to females. Females generally do better in school than males.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htmWhy, thank you for posting an article that proves my point: "Girls are way more likely to just pay attention" during advising sessions, she says. "It's almost less cool" for boys to show interest in college.

This is about the attitudes of the youngsters, not the behavior of their instructors.

I would like you to show that women are being discriminated against, them getting paid less isn't proof.No, it's not. Years and years of research are "proof."

If them getting paid less was proof, then boys lagging behind 1,5 years in reading is proof of discrimination aswell.That's a logically valid claim, but it's also completely useless because no one really believes that the wage gap is "proof" of discrimination.

I want a study that says that men discriminate against women. Might not have found the best link to a study that supports my idea that the school environment is detrimental to male education, but atleast I've got one.Yes, you have ONE. I have the consensus opinion of several fields of social science research. Where would you like to begin?

Try this (http://www.stetson.edu/~kkaivola/discrim.html). It's a fair summary of the kind of findings I'm talking about, with citations. It also develops an appropriate way to model discrimination in the Post-Civil Rights era.

I'd just like to quote a few lines:
Tellingly, studies have shown that the same resume or c.v. is evaluated differently, and more favorably—by both men and women—if it has a male name attached to it rather than a female name. Other studies have shown that women leaders are less likely to obtain the automatic deference that marks of leadership confer upon men (127), and that both men and women respond negatively to assertive women (129).when a woman’s qualifications are identical to a man’s, she is still accorded lesser status. In one such study fictitious resumes were sent to department chairs, who were asked to indicate the rank at which a faculty applicant should be hired. The resumes contained information about productivity, teaching, administrative work, and sociability. The names attached to the resumes were rotated so that sometimes the same document had a female name attached to it and sometimes it had a male name. Those with male names were assigned to the rank of associate professor, while those with female names were assigned to the rank of assistant professor. (Valian, 128)

Obviously I wouldn't prejudge any individual cases: women, like men, fail for many reasons, most of them inherently personal. But why is it that women consistently fall behind? Could it have something to do with the well-documented fact that men discriminate against them?

That seems likely.And boys consistently fall behind in the school system. Either boys are less able, or something in the way they're educated is keeping them from reaching their full potential. Women are subconsciously discriminated against in the workplace, but isn't it possible that the way teachers teach is subconsciously discriminating against boys aswell?
I will concede to the fact that female teachers generally won't consciously discriminate against boys, though I believe some still do. The same is of course try in the work place as well, people discriminate subconsciously against women, but some will do it consciously.

Boys don't pay attention because the schools are being tuned to the female mind. Boys want a goal and want to reach it quickly, while girls prefer taking their time in completing assignments. The competetive mind of a boy wants to complete a task and get on with the next, and with the current trend of workshop environments and proces oriented work, boys are being discriminated against. Proces oriented work kills male productivety, and are unfortunatly a favoured method of education amongst female teachers, since the female brain is tuned around the proces in doing something, not so much the end result.

Boys want to complete tasks and get on with the next one, where girls er more likely to enjoy working with a project over an extended period of time. Guess where that's from, my guess is the hunter-gatherer society. Finding prey and killing it is a clear cut task that the man had to focus on completely, tending to the children and making sure everything is in order is a constant proces that have caused the women to be better able to multitask.

or their failure to identify with women.I think you're on to something here. Not so much that boys can't identify with women, but more that their brains are incompatible. The male brain is tuned completely differently than the female brain, which means that the way a subject is taught by a female teacher is unwittingly discriminating against boys, since their brains are not tuned for the way that the subject is taught. You have the same problem with girls taught by males, where the girls feel that the subject is not useful to them. The problem here is that the number of male teachers are steadely dropping, which means that alot of boys will never get taught by a brain that is in-tune with theirs. We need to put some masculine values back into schools. Not talking about PE or stuff like that, but goal oriented work. The best would probably be to give different assignments to boys and girls, atleast some of the time, though I doubt any teachers have the time to do that.

/end rant

I do agree that woman are treated unfairly, and since I'm unable to produce a study that directly says the same about boys in the school system I'm gonna have to say that you win this argument. I might get back to this with a new post when someone finally makes a study of the unfashionable subject of the influence of women upon the education of boys though.;)

Will of course read your response and reply to it if need be. :)

And boys consistently fall behind in the school system. Either boys are less able, or something in the way they're educated is keeping them from reaching their full potential.That's a false dilemma. There are many other possible reasons that you refuse to consider. I've named one of them: boys are less interested in certain academic endeavors (reading, apparently) that they perceive (consciously or unconsciously) as feminine.

Women are subconsciously discriminated against in the workplace, but isn't it possible that the way teachers teach is subconsciously discriminating against boys aswell?It would be possible, if so much extensive research didn't find otherwise.

I will concede to the fact that female teachers generally won't consciously discriminate against boys, though I believe some still do.There are exceptions to everything. What should interest us is the overall trend. The same is of course try in the work place as well, people discriminate subconsciously against women, but some will do it consciously.So?

Boys don't pay attention because the schools are being tuned to the female mind.Umm... what?

Boys want a goal and want to reach it quickly, while girls prefer taking their time in completing assignments.Where'd you get that one, Sexist Stereotypes 101?

The competetive mind of a boy wants to complete a task and get on with the next, and with the current trend of workshop environments and proces oriented work, boys are being discriminated against.Maybe I'm overusing this, but... what?

You're either telling me that the "female mind" is too slow and boring for boys, or you're admitting that boys like to cut corners while the "female mind" takes its time.

Either way, I'm pretty sure you should stop pretending that you support any kind of program for gender equality. Sounds to me like you're pretty convinced that boys are faster and smarter than girls, if only our biased school systems would see it...

Proces oriented work kills male productivety, and are unfortunatly a favoured method of education amongst female teachers, since the female brain is tuned around the proces in doing something, not so much the end result.While there may be some core truths in the notion that men and women approach tasks differently, it's hard to pull them out when you seem convinced that only men are concerned with the "end result"--that is, with "getting the job done." Sounds pretty sexist to me.

Boys want to complete tasks and get on with the next one, where girls er more likely to enjoy working with a project over an extended period of time.Or, "boys have a short attention span and bore easily, while girls will stick with a task until it's done."

It would be better if we'd stick to the facts rather than playing the spin, don't you think? I'll agree if you will.

Guess where that's from, my guess is the hunter-gatherer society. Finding prey and killing it is a clear cut task that the man had to focus on completely, tending to the children and making sure everything is in order is a constant proces that have caused the women to be better able to multitask.You need to read up on modern understandings of gatherer-hunter (not "hunter-gatherer") society. Chores were generally handled according to gender-egalitarian contributions... and hunting, for the record, was a very small part of their diet: hence the switch to "gatherer-hunter" to emphasize the dominant food source.

In any case, I doubt it has anything to do with male/female work preferences, since most gatherer-hunter societies don't have anything resembling our concept of "work."

We need to put some masculine values back into schools. Not talking about PE or stuff like that, but goal oriented work.Again, "goal-oriented" work comes off as horribly sexist, as if women are not "tuned" to "getting the job done."

Oh, snap!

Here's how you solve the problem - Just start killing at random.

Oh, snap!

Here's how you solve the problem - Just start killing at random.

That does solve an awful lot of problems, but it tends to create ones that are far more severe. :D

That does solve an awful lot of problems, but it tends to create ones that are far more severe. :DObviously. That's why targeted "cleansing" has been so much more popular than random murderous acts.

There's at least two models of gender going on here. While both agree that gender is more than physical characteristics, the idea that these characteristics help shape different mentalities can be taken two ways. One says that the impact of biology on mentality is fixed (men are _always_ and inherrently more task-oriented) while the other states that these categories are radically different ways in different times and cultures. I'm a historian, and this is the model I'd go for - AnarchyeL's model, if I'm not mistaken. According to this model the suggestion that boys are more task oriented reflects one of the ways in which gender difference has been set up in our society, rather than an inherent biological difference.

I'd also like to say that I'm perfectly happy defining myself as a radical feminist if it means that I believe absolute legal, social and cultural equality would bring benefits for both sexes. Men would also gain from a society which encouraged them to spend time with their children and not to feel that their only value and status lay in their careers. Many men are now realising this. Women would benefit from not assuming that they had to do the childcare and housework, would have the option to pursue careers if that was where their talents lay and would recieve equal pay for equal work, allowing them to be the main wage-earners if that pattern suited them, their families and relationships.

It comes from valuing people as people, whatever name you give it!

And boys consistently fall behind in the school system. Either boys are less able, or something in the way they're educated is keeping them from reaching their full potential. Women are subconsciously discriminated against in the workplace, but isn't it possible that the way teachers teach is subconsciously discriminating against boys aswell?
I will concede to the fact that female teachers generally won't consciously discriminate against boys, though I believe some still do. The same is of course try in the work place as well, people discriminate subconsciously against women, but some will do it consciously.

Boys don't pay attention because the schools are being tuned to the female mind. Boys want a goal and want to reach it quickly, while girls prefer taking their time in completing assignments. The competetive mind of a boy wants to complete a task and get on with the next, and with the current trend of workshop environments and proces oriented work, boys are being discriminated against. Proces oriented work kills male productivety, and are unfortunatly a favoured method of education amongst female teachers, since the female brain is tuned around the proces in doing something, not so much the end result.

Boys want to complete tasks and get on with the next one, where girls er more likely to enjoy working with a project over an extended period of time. Guess where that's from, my guess is the hunter-gatherer society. Finding prey and killing it is a clear cut task that the man had to focus on completely, tending to the children and making sure everything is in order is a constant proces that have caused the women to be better able to multitask.

I think you're on to something here. Not so much that boys can't identify with women, but more that their brains are incompatible. The male brain is tuned completely differently than the female brain, which means that the way a subject is taught by a female teacher is unwittingly discriminating against boys, since their brains are not tuned for the way that the subject is taught. You have the same problem with girls taught by males, where the girls feel that the subject is not useful to them. The problem here is that the number of male teachers are steadely dropping, which means that alot of boys will never get taught by a brain that is in-tune with theirs. We need to put some masculine values back into schools. Not talking about PE or stuff like that, but goal oriented work. The best would probably be to give different assignments to boys and girls, atleast some of the time, though I doubt any teachers have the time to do that.

/end rant

I do agree that woman are treated unfairly, and since I'm unable to produce a study that directly says the same about boys in the school system I'm gonna have to say that you win this argument. I might get back to this with a new post when someone finally makes a study of the unfashionable subject of the influence of women upon the education of boys though.;)

Will of course read your response and reply to it if need be. :)

I think it would behoove you to read up on the concept of the Just-so Story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

That's the shortened version, but essentially you are trying to scientifically explain cognitive differences in men and women based on completely unscientific methods. How is "alot of boys will never get taught by a brain that is in-tune with theirs" a statement that can be confirmed or disconfirmed on the basis of empirical evidence? Unless we can get a quantifiable measure of what exactly this "tune" you are selecting for is, determine that it varies along gender, temporal, and educational paradigm independent variables, and tie that tune directly to some physical part of the brain or brain chemistry, all of which, mind you, we can't do, then what you've assembled is an unprovable statement based on the unprovable supposition that there was some kind of genetic advantage for variance in concentration at a young age in prehistoric humans.

This isn't to say that your statement is false or true; in point of fact, boy's brains do develop substantially differently from girl's minds, with slower development in the pre-frontal cortex, an area linked with inhibition. But let's not kid ourselves about exactly how speculative a lot of that stuff is; how exactly we know that high pre-frontal development corresponds with high rates of inhibition when we can't define what an inhibition is measurably eludes me. And let's certainly not jump to the conclusion that the American education system systematically biases itself against men (or women) as a consequence of those unprovables.

That's a false dilemma. There are many other possible reasons that you refuse to consider. I've named one of them: boys are less interested in certain academic endeavors (reading, apparently) that they perceive (consciously or unconsciously) as feminine.I didn't say that the thing that kept the boys down was an outside agenda, but since boys are doing worse in school than before, there must be somekind of reason, right? And if that reason is that school is seen as something girly that is unbecoming for a man to try to better himself at, then that's a problem too. That's why I said that there needs to be put some masculinity back into school.

And as for the thing about being goal oriented: Boys need to be focused on a single goal at a time, while females are able to work towards several goals at the same time (multitasking). A boy might be faster at completing a single specific goal, but girls are better at the larger picture. If you made a project where there where clear goals for the boys and an end result for girls with a less defined intermediate stage, it would look something like this :

Boy: goal complete - goal complete - goal complete - done
Girl: working - working - working - done

It's two different ways to reach the same target, not saying that one is better than the other, just that they both need to be represented in the school system for it to be fair.

I think it would behoove you to read up on the concept of the Just-so StoryWell, the theory about how male and female minds work differently that I'm using is based on what I've been taught in school and my own observations. If you can't recognize atleast some parts of it then the american school system is vastly different from the danish and alot less focused on projects with no real goals. Will admit it was wrong of me to just make a Just-so Post though, better stop posting before going to bed. :p

Kind of hard to argue against americans, since you can use studies from the US, danish studies are a bit harder to use since they're not really something you can just throw in a translator. Never been one to back down from a challenge though.

Found a study that supports my idea about gender differentiated projects, though I will admit it is slightly inconcluive, though it does say that if the teacher have the resources needed, gender differentiated projects can be useful in keeping the interrests of boys and girls alike.

Gonna have to trust me on the translation, but I'll of course quote the original danish as well, if another dane want's to give it a try.

Original danish:
Læringsstil baseret på intelligenser henvender sig til begge køn, da teorien bag forskellige intelligenser påpeger, at vi alle er i besiddelse af de forskellige intelligenser uanset køn. Latentheden af de enkelte kompetencer er dog meget forskellig hos det enkelte menneske. Derfor vil læringsstilen afhænge af den intelligenstype der lægges op til. Sensorisk modalitet er jf. teorien fra kapitel 2 især noget, som henvender sig til drenge, der har et stærkt behov for at bevæge sig og kort koncentration. Drengene skal føle og se problemer og løsninger, hvor piger er bedre til at tænke sig til dette. Informationsbehandling og perceptionsbaseret læringsstil, kan i højere grad tilgodese piger og deres bedre kommunikationsevner – verbale og non-verbale.

Translated:
Teaching style based on intelligences directs itself to both genders, since the theori behind different intelligences point out that we're all in posession of the different intelligences no matter the gender. The latency of the individual competences is very different in the individual human though. Therefore, the teaching style will depend on the type of intelligence it is targeted at. Sensory modality(See chapter 2) is something that especially targets boys, that have a strong need to move and lack concentration for longer periods of time. The boys need to feel and see problems and solutions, while girls are better finding them through thinking. Information processing and perceptionsbased learning style, can in a larger degree favour girls and their increased communication abilities - verbal or non-verbal.

Another study:
Most researchers into cognitive sex differences view them as a product of our long evolutionary history as hunter-gatherers, in which men’s and women’s roles and hence their problem-solving abilities, became quite distinctive and complementary [18, 25,26, 51, but see 58 for an alternative view]. Men were assumed to be responsible for long-and-short-distance hunting and scavenging, travelling farther from the home base than women. They were also responsible for defence. Women, in contrast, were indispensable for infant and child care, and were active in caring for the home. Their contribution to foraging was generally limited to gathering or gleaning near the home.

Until the brain is mature, there's a large difference in how the male and the female brain solves problems, since different parts of the brain develop at different speeds. On top of this, there is still some differences even when the brain has matured, though not as large as they are in the maturing brain.


http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:JyKiGLZTPYMJ:annette.fanoee.dietz.person.emu.dk/SBKraport.doc+%22projektarbejde%22+drenge+piger+problemer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a
http://www.sfu.ca/~dkimura/articles/NEL.htm

And let's certainly not jump to the conclusion that the American education system systematically biases itself against men (or women) as a consequence of those unprovables.
Particularly since the American education system was originally designed exclusively for males. How short our memories seem to have grown...my own grandmother was a rebel and a revolutionary for daring to attend college!

There's at least two models of gender going on here. While both agree that gender is more than physical characteristics, the idea that these characteristics help shape different mentalities can be taken two ways. One says that the impact of biology on mentality is fixed (men are _always_ and inherrently more task-oriented) while the other states that these categories are radically different ways in different times and cultures. I'm a historian, and this is the model I'd go for - AnarchyeL's model, if I'm not mistaken. According to this model the suggestion that boys are more task oriented reflects one of the ways in which gender difference has been set up in our society, rather than an inherent biological difference.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this model is the correct one. You don't have to be a historian to read history, and if you do you will find that every time period has a new twist on the supposedly-inherent differences between males and females...and they always twist existing data to support the current theory.

When I was little, the theory was that women are emotional and men are rational, so men take care of the poor emotional womenz, and that's just how it is. Now, the theory seems to be that men are unable to control their emotions, particularly rage and lust, while the calm womenfolks must take responsibility for their wild menz.

The only constant is that every theory is used to justify the status quo. If women are emotional, then that means they can't possibly be trusted with manly jobs outside the home. If men are the emotional ones, then men obviously can't be trusted to do things like clean the house or take care of the kids, so women need to be doing those things.


I'd also like to say that I'm perfectly happy defining myself as a radical feminist if it means that I believe absolute legal, social and cultural equality would bring benefits for both sexes. Men would also gain from a society which encouraged them to spend time with their children and not to feel that their only value and status lay in their careers. Many men are now realising this. Women would benefit from not assuming that they had to do the childcare and housework, would have the option to pursue careers if that was where their talents lay and would recieve equal pay for equal work, allowing them to be the main wage-earners if that pattern suited them, their families and relationships.

ABSOLUTELY. Patriarchy hurts men, too!


It comes from valuing people as people, whatever name you give it!
And from refusing to use goofy, over-simplified, and obviously false "theories" about human nature to prop up one's own lazy and unimaginative assumptions.

Finally.

Particularly since the American education system was originally designed exclusively for males. How short our memories seem to have grown...my own grandmother was a rebel and a revolutionary for daring to attend college!

And IIRC, taught BY men.

I think it is particularly interesting that everyone on this thread is framing their opinions of gender roles based on the abstraction "human nature." There are a number of problems with that.

First of all, what we call "human nature" is so broad a subject as to be effectively meaningless. Behavior in the same individuals is almost never static, and there are wide differences between the behavior of different individuals as well.

Human behavior is subtly affected by our genes, our past experiences, and the current external stimuli. 2 identical twins will often have vastly different values, personalities and quirks from each other. Simply stating that "gender roles" are natural because they have been the norm of human experience doesn't make them effective or ethically right. For thousands of years, superstitious people practiced trial by ordeal to determine guilt/innocence or trepanning rituals to ward of demons. Neither was effective or ethically right. Trial by ordeal burns at least as many innocent people as it does the guilty, and does not test the variable of guilt. Trepanning more often than not kills the patient it is supposed to save.

The same is true for gender roles. They not only sequester talent in places that it shouldn't be (for example, the brilliant woman engineering student forced to be a housewife by her husband) and denies individual choice. Taking one stock template and forcing it on half the human population solely by merit that they have 2 X chromosomes or an X and a Y chromosome is completely unethical and ultimately destructive. Indeed, male gender roles can be just as destructive as female gender roles. The male who is gentle is considered "effeminate" and derisively called "gay" or "queer" simply because he doesn't like what others think manliness is called.

And IIRC, taught BY men.
Of course.

When I was younger, not so long ago, girls were not testing as well as boys in many subject areas. That was used as "proof" that girls aren't cut out for school, for a variety of reasons. Girls aren't smart enough. Girls can't concentrate like boys can. Girls are too emotional and can't take criticism and instruction. Et cetera.

Then, during my time in public school, the balance tipped the other way. Girls had been improving in their scores for years, and finally it reached a point where girls were doing as well as boys. Even maybe edging out the boys in a couple of subject areas.

Strangely, nobody started talking about how boys weren't cut out for school. Instead, the fact that girls ever out-performed boys was "proof" that the schools were suddenly biased in favor of girls, and that boys were the unfair victims of discrimination and harsh treatment. Boys were scoring badly because, supposedly, the sit-down-and-listen structure of school (established back during the time when girls weren't even allowed to attend school) didn't appropriately cater to the male need for activity and violence. Boys were doing poorly in English because of all the girly books (despite the fact that "the classics" are overwhelmingly written by men). Boys didn't do well in math because too many of the story problems involved characters with female names (cooties! cooties!).

Seriously, the range of excuses was amazing.

All this served as an important lesson for me: people will use supposedly-innate "gender differences" to back up any and all preconceptions. People will find a way to interpret ANYTHING to support the gendered notions they've already decided to hold. They will have no problem being hypocritical, inconsistent, or otherwise goofy in the process.