being a mere woman
This isn’t slam. Just the reality of the situation – you can think of yourself as a human being – but that won’t change the material reality that you, and the class of people like you (women) – will not be treated as full human beings in society. (The Arbourist)
I think I’ve stumbled across a terrible chasm of awful nestling in the heart of some branches of feminist thinking. They seem to think that ‘society’ = ‘men’, which is kind of embarrassing if you think about it.
Fortunately for me, I know that society is comprised of all people round about me, including many mere women.
Unfortunately for all us, discrimination, lack of opportunity, and inequality that can make us feel less than “full human beings”, is readily available against everyone.
Although I’m a mere woman, my material reality is pretty peachy: unlike all the many homeless men I pass on my way to work; unlike the many men from certain areas of the city who by their clothes and accents are immediately profiled and dismissed; unlike all the immigrant men who have made their way here for various reasons, and are greeted with suspicion or outright hostility; unlike the men struggling under mountains of debt, living a life with trappings they think they need, giving most of their time to largely meaningless work that serves only to line the pockets of strangers; unlike all the men who can’t choose to bear and nurture their own children when they want; unlike many men who struggle to communicate and fit into the world around them.
So, to any feminist men who want to tell me that because of my biological sex I am not treated like a full human being, I want to say: open your eyes! Everyone is disadvantaged in some respect. My glass is brimming, and I live in a society that strives to recognise and address problems of inequality.
Feminist man, the only person telling me or treating me like I’m not a full human being, is you. I may not have every entitlement under the sun, but show me the person who does.
Excellent
LikeLike
Thank you
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are so welcome ♡
LikeLike
I hate to confuse things, but the Arbourist posted a picture which makes me think she’s a woman , not a man.
As for you, Violet, stop being cocky. Ever since Damian Lewis became a success in Homeland and that other Scottish ginger is on Grey’s Anatomy, you people think you own the world! 😛
LikeLike
You’re funny with your ‘investigations’. He and his wife post from the same blog, if that clears it up for you. If you go to the post I link to here you’ll find out how they both became radical feminists.
LikeLike
How do we know which one is writing?
LikeLike
@Mr.M
Well, the post written by me have ‘the arbourist’ as the author. The ones by TIO are by her?
Not really seeing the mystery there.
LikeLike
I mean in comments. Do you comment with the same gravatar?
LikeLike
@Mr.M
No? I have the tree, and TIO has the pink sandal icon.
LikeLike
Got it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BTW, it wasn’t an “investigation”, as you say. I was simply looking through his/her blog and found it odd that you said he but there was a picture of a her.
And as for my real “investigations”, they led to exposing Katy Faust’s identity and the racket she was running on her website with the fake comments. Once that was made public the comments stopped and so did her posts.
More recently my “investigations” led to making the C-Fam tax return public and questioning their president about it. 24 hours later he’d deleted his entire social media presence (and all the anti lgbt hate speech that went along with it.)
Investigating is a good thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The comments and posts have stopped over at the Bigot place because she has a bigger agenda now and can’t afford to have real discussions undermine that. You’ve only contributed to making her a bigger player in the anti-gay marriage scene, don’t you think?
The Abourist isn’t an equivalent voice. He’s part of the fringe radical feminist ideology who still discriminate against trans people. Their numbers will burn out simply because most people who are feminists are so from an equality point of view, and fringe ideologies aren’t quite as binding as religious tradition. Evidence and logic can win in this instance.
In terms of the other bloggers who are more outspoken and openly hateful, I think it would be even more counter-productive getting involved. Drawing attention to their nasty confirmation bias publications is last thing the trans community needs. Also, there is a truly vicious spiral of internet-base exposé and recrimination in this area – it’s ugly, and like I say, best left to burn out naturally. Ask Clare what she thinks, she’s looked into them all in more detail.
LikeLike
Actually it’s the other way around. I let the ball drop by not going after her and based on all the faux-activity on Faust’s blog she got a job at Canavox and as a speaker for the ADF.
She convinced them she had a HUGE audience and following. All fake. It was just them, the gruesome foursome. In fact I’m now collaborating with the SPLC on 2 other similar cases. People who say they’ve got support from 100’s of thousands but it’s actually just a handful of commenters.
Let’s see where @askthebigot is in another 3 months and you can tell me if it worked or not. Her trip to Australia was a flop, invitations have dried out and her blog is dead. Don’t tell me ur falling for her propaganda which says she’s much loved and followed?
LikeLike
I don’t know anything about her beyond she got a trip to Australia and some international media exposure. Definitely a step up from your parishioners commenting on your nasty little blog. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
The thing is, becoming a conservative christian celebrity was her plan all along. That’s why she started a website called Askthebigot.com
Before I revealed her identity she was already giving radio interviews and contacting all sorts of Christian bloggers.
You can’t possibly think she was doing all that just to fill free time in between homeschooling and caring for four children…
LikeLike
I think a lot of people see feminism as a movement that complains about small inequalities & blames men. Feminism is actually a belief that both sexes should be treated as equals and given equal opportunities. Feminists are one of the few groups who take male rape seriously. Maybe I’m rare, but I see all inequality as unjust. You made good points about not all men being privileged, particularly the poor and the immigrants who can barely speak English. They can often suffer the most. I see where you’re going with this & it was a good post!
I feel that a lot of men view women as full human beings, but there’s always going to be men who will try to devalue you based on how you dress or if you like to have sex. On the other hand, some women also dehumanize certain types of men. It can work both ways.
LikeLike
I’m glad it makes sense to someone else! I don’t in any way want to belittle feminism as a movement – women all over the world face horrific suffering at the hands of men in male-dominated societies. But, as you say, focusing on small inequalities when there are much bigger problems for bigger groups is a kind of blindness that stands in the way of improving society for everyone. I just think it’s easy to lose perspective when we get wrapped up in one battle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except those nasty nasty t*rfs. Much condemnation for those women and their feminism. :>
LikeLike
TERFs are nothing to do with feminism ‘as a movement’ – you are few and far between thankfully. You mean as much to feminism as a movement, as the feminists in the 1960s and 70s who campaigned to deny lesbians a voice. You’ll be embarrassing history before you know it. Do you have any kids? It would be interesting to hear you try and explain yourself to the next generation in 15 years’ time. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
@VW
Historical revisionism. How nice.
Radical feminism, or the second wave of feminism is responsible for much of the critical theory and gains for women. Whether you think radical feminism is a part of it or not, is a matter of opinion.
And you keep using a slur against an identified minority group, of course it is one you disagree with, so it is acceptable. Your dedication to “equality” is noted.
As one radical feminist notes on the use of term t*rf.
Wow, radical feminists are against lesbians too. Oh..the evil they bring to the table.
For centering femalesin feminism? I highly doubt that. 🙂
Radical feminist ideology is sound, its analysis of the structural forces that oppress women, and how to counter them is well documented in feminist literature.
Hopefully in 15 years I’ll be explaining how women survived the backlash from the ‘progressive left’ and the regressive right and managed to continue in its fight for the rights of women. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh yes, I’m sure in 15 years time you and your 20 T*RF mates will have relegated trans people to their rightful place … which is what, exactly? You seem to be artfully dodging that question like the plague of bigoted discrimination it is! 😀
And, excuse me, I hadn’t realised ‘TERF’ was a swear word. Remember I’m new here. I had assumed that it was a name your group gave yourselves. What’s offensive about it? You are a radical feminist and you want to exclude trans people – Trans Excluding Radical Feminist. Most radical feminists don’t want to exclude anyone, so obviously it’s sensible to have a qualifier. Why on earth would you want to find that offensive? What would you prefer your fringe to be called? I’m all about modifying my language when people find labels offensive.
LikeLike
You make a good point! It’s true. I live in a big city for example and walk past a lot of homeless men over 50. If they were younger women or even younger men, people would feel a lot worse for them. I give money when I can, but you do notice a lot of inequalities that people overlook. I’ll stop before I start a rant about how no one deserves to live on the street! :0
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ahhh, you’re getting closer, Violet.
LikeLike
Closer to what, Insanity? If it’s closer to your rabbit hole I’d better watch where I step. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nah, take the plunge Violet, there are great treasures to be found in rabbit holes. 😉
LikeLike
Well, you could be onto something. On a lurk earlier today it seemed that you have posted in agreement with John Zande and he has congratulated you on a fine post. Either I was dreaming (hope it’s not got to the stage where I’m blog dreaming) or I wasn’t reading very closely. Surely.
LikeLike
Sophie Jamieson commenting on RS, in what I found the most articulate response to Anna Lee:
And the preoccupations related to sex for young women are contraception, menstrual problems, abortion, rape and sexual assault. Not all women have children. Not all women can. But when you’re starting out you have to assume you’re fertile and the risk of pregnancy looms large. Young women live their lives being viewed as prey animals by a sizeable minority of the men around them. …Then there’s domestic violence, sexism, harassment by lecturers and tutors, and worries about security in college buildings, particularly late at night. These experiences are common female reality. For minority women, gender oppression may limit their freedom or academic hopes.
What do you think of that? There’s the problem of physical size difference and the double standard on sexual morality; men listening to men, and interrupting women; most women don’t think chucking trans women in the bin is a reasonable response to feminist concerns, for which I am truly thankful, but the concerns are there.
LikeLike
Yes, I’ve been keeping up vaguely with the comments there too. Sophie touches on a few things that seem relevant – that not all women have the same experiences, but that there are broad general experiences that given Anna’s background she cannot have had. Yet that kind of argument would still then exclude some biological women from standing too (larger young women who know they cannot get pregnant).
And, most importantly, these TERFs are free to argue that they, personally, wouldn’t vote for Anna. But the main thrust of their hostile arguments is that it’s ridiculous she’s standing and she shouldn’t be allowed to stand. The main structure of most of their arguments isn’t an appeal to hard facts (as in the section of the comment you pulled above) but sheer bigoted dislike/fear/hatred of any person born biologically male who tells us they are more comfortable being female. Look what Sophie goes on to say, following the pattern of derisive insults that all the TERFs seem to revel in:
“Anna Lee knows no more about the sex-related worries and concerns of female students than any other man. He has zero experience of life as a lesbian. However such is the fashion for all things trans that I’d be surprised if he didn’t get elected to represent all the women in the NUS. The funfems and social justice warriors love trans “lesbians”, they think they’re cool.”
LikeLike
I was not saying she is right to exclude Anna, but that she raises valid concerns. I rarely get letched over by unattractive men, but do not like it when I do. I am aware of physical intimidation and violence. What do you have to look forward to? One of the most wonderful women I know- intelligent, incisive, empathetic- appears like a little old lady and gets ignored. She was keen to get a pair of bright variegated trousers at the music festival, to try and be noticed.
Perhaps the “fully human” person is “The Arbourist”! I know women who don’t do too badly.
LikeLike
Like I say, everyone’s experience of being a woman is different. Maybe anyone who stands to represent women should complete a questionnaire evaluating their physical qualities, experiences of fertility and menstruation, and their sense of being ‘fully human’. They could knock up a fancy matrix to see how many women they can exclude from standing.
LikeLike
Perhaps it’s because I live in the south of the U.S. but I can see what Arb is saying on this particular matter. Let’s make a distinction here, though. Feminism and radical feminism are different. As the name suggests radical feminism is…well…radical. They are likely to have some ideas about men and feminism that the rest of us are going to find extreme.
It was related to me that radfem is bases on the ideas that society is set up with women at the bottom and men at the top and women are treated as detritus.
That has been true in the past, and is still true in certain parts of the world. I no longer feel that’s true of western civilization. Do we owe some of that to radfem? Probably. I just find it hard to live my life looking for every perceived slight and attributing it to men. Is that complacency? Perhaps.
LikeLike
Yes, it makes me wonder what life is like in Canada! There are clearly more problems for women in some parts of every country, and indeed in whole parts of some countries. Some women in Scotland would completely relate to what he’s saying as well. But then if you switch the “not fully human” attribute to a racial minority, I expect most people who aren’t white could relate to it too.
I get furious about sexism in my everyday life, but I’m not blind enough to drop perspective on the rest of human experience and imagine sexism is the only concern in terms of people being treated equally. And I would be seriously interested to know what person could be viewed as having every entitlement under the sun – the mythical “fully human” person he refers to (assuming it’s men – utterly sexist!).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perception is everything. There are some women who would argue that sexism doesn’t exist even though they experience it every day. If you believe that your role in life is somehow less than that of another or that your role is equal but different then you wouldn’t think anything of being treated as such.
I don’t think radfem denies that everyone has problems. I think it prioritizes women’s inequality above any other. Perhaps even to the exclusion of others.
LikeLike
Well, they actively promote discrimination. They’ve got a thoroughly cult-like *us vs. them* mentality. Any opposing opinion is immediately labeled sexism. And worse of all they talk about trans people as if being trans is some sort of easy “privileged” experience.
Speaking from the personal experiences I’ve had knowing trans people, it seems to me to be an incredibly difficult, stressful and delicate position to be in. It’s harder to get a job (not too long ago trans people had very few choices, and one of the main ones was prostitution.) It’s harder to rent an apartment. It’s harder to go grocery shopping without getting looks and comments. They live under constant scrutiny and judgement. The Arbourist’s wife wears high heels and tight jeans, that’s okay. Caitlyn Jenner does it and suddenly she’s reinforcing oppressive patriarchal ideology that oppresses women.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, I follow Arb but I don’t read all of his ir his wife’s posts.
I did go back and read the comments and OP at PurpleSage. I came away confounded. It is one thing to hold the opinion that Trans women shouldn’t stand in as an appointed women’s officer and to even hold the opinion that they aren’t qualified to be elected and quite another to say that they cannot or should not be allowed to stand for election. The constituents will decide their qualifications.
The thing that did bother me quite a bit were the personal attacks on appearance and attractiveness. I would have thought that wouldn’t have even come into it. Instead of a discussion about ideas, classes, and oppression it seemed to turn into individual degredation.
My comment about radfem prioritizing women’s issues/oppression stands. I don’t think they believe other groups aren’t oppressed or face discrimination. They seem to be of the opinion that no other oppression/discrimination equals that of women. There are other isms. They just either aren’t as bad as sexism/misogyny or they aren’t as important to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ruth
Shouldn’t feminism prioritize the needs of women, before other isms?
Women are more than half the population of the globe. In almost every society women exist in, they form the lowest class and position in society. Changing the conditions that cause this situation to exist seems like a good place to focus one’s attentions. 🙂
So, do other worthy, necessary causes exist? Absolutely. Should feminism prioritize these needs that are not directly working toward female liberation from capitalist patriarchy? I think there is room, but not at the top of the list.
LikeLike
“Shouldn’t feminism prioritize the needs of women, before other isms?”
So if black people are still being lynched in your community, but you’re being paid £1000 less than a male counterpart, you need to prioritise feminism over racism? Screw your logic head on here. Feminism does prioritise women (it’s a movement/ideology), but feminists can multitask (people with eyes and brains).
“Women are more than half the population of the globe. In almost every society women exist in, they form the lowest class and position in society. Changing the conditions that cause this situation to exist seems like a good place to focus one’s attentions.”
Good place to focus. Not the only bad thing in the world.
“I think there is room, but not at the top of the list.”
There’s no list. There are individual situations that need to be comprehensively assessed as and when they occur.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@VW
I agree. But feminism should centre women, their needs and their priorities.
An exclusive focus on the personal can cause one to overlook the larger system problems that face women. And again it isn’t a even a radical notion for feminism to be about females; otherwise why should we differentiate between feminism and egalitarianism? 🙂
LikeLike
I can agree that organized feminism, itself, should be focused on women. It is called feminism, after all.
However that does not men that women cannot or should not support the other isms. Activism means actually doing something. And it doesn’t just include feminism. Feminism doesn’t have a list. It is inherently about women’s issues. That doesn’t mean that individuals who see feminism as important cannot see all those other isms as equally important. Or sometimes even more important. That would make them activists and not exclusively feminists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ruth
I agree to a certain extent. I think where we differ is the theoretical focus of feminism where having the focus on women and issues that affect women is pretty important.
Agreed Ruth, we all do our feminism (and allyship) in different proportions. On the individual level I think we pretty close in terms of agreement. 🙂
LikeLike
@VW
That would be the straight white male.
His word is taken more seriously than yours, by default. His preferences dominate the media, art, and culture.
He can act, dress, and pretty much do what he wants to in society.
Thinking of the SWM as the default ‘normal’ isn’t a particularly radical thought to have. 🙂
LikeLike
“That would be the straight white male.”
Which one, Arb? You’re abhorring a concept that doesn’t match the individuals down here on the ground. Is it any of the straight white males I mention in the post above? The homeless guy, the guy who earns a lot but is trapped in a meaningless job for most of his life, the guy who can never grow a baby in his own body? I don’t see any straight, white guys dressing as they want – their wardrobes are exceedingly limited.
What are ‘his’ preferences anyway? You and your crew spend a lot of time suggesting that we’re all brainwashed by the patriarchy into gender roles and that gender is naturally neutral in some way. If that’s the case, what could ‘his’ preferences possibly be?
LikeLike
@VW
You mean down here on the ground where most CEO’s are male and captains of industry and scientists and doctors and members of parliament and lawyers and judges and police officers and…. shall I continue?
Well if your personal observation can be translated into a reasonable generalization about class, you’d be right. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. 🙂
And will continue to do so, as the sociological evidence, whether you happen to agree with it or not, says so. 🙂
I have no idea what you mean here, although if we find a another N word to add to your ‘naturally neutral’ sentence we’d have an awesome
alliteration. 🙂
LikeLike
Goodness. That’s a whole lot of pseudo-academic talk. I commented on Terf’s here and suddenly 4 Terf’s launched an orchestrated Twitter attack on me with over 250 comments. All by the same 4 people (I have on good authority are connected to PurpleSage.)
Neutral? Honest? Only bad if a man does it? Women get special dispensation? Fascinating.
LikeLike
@Mr.M
I don’t twitter (other than the automated blog thingie), but I’m guessing you’re used to it, given your style of discourse at times.
Being used to it though, doesn’t justify an attack. No one, deserves to be attacked personally, for their thoughts and opinions.
That applies to you and Roughseas. I’m sorry you had to go through that, if it was bad experience. 😦
LikeLike
I don’t particularly care. Yes, I’m used to it. As a promoter of gay rights and a gay man I get hate mail every single day. I have since 2004 when I publicly joined the FELGT campaign for gay marriage.
The 4 women in question can have at it. I can defend myself. I’m simply exposing their methods.
LikeLike
“You mean down here on the ground where most CEO’s are male and captains of industry and scientists and doctors and members of parliament and lawyers and judges and police officers and…. shall I continue?”
You can if you want. Are these people down on the ground for you? Even down on the ground in terms of doctors and lawyers, we’re pretty much at gender parity. Sure, the problem comes in the high paid, decision-making, managerial roles. Men appoint men, many women go part-time when they have children, or come to the conclusion that higher paid jobs with high levels of stress aren’t really that interesting. I think in terms of decision-making roles we do need to enforce gender parity, especially in areas of public interest – it should be representative of society. Part of the problem is, who wants those horrible jobs that suck up your whole life? I’m afraid I don’t, so I feel sorry for people whose lives get dominated by that worthwhile but ultimately (from my perspective) not enjoyable existence. Poor men who get lost in the endless search for more power and lose the chance to become full human beings.
“I have no idea what you mean here, although …(let me paraphrase) *if I distract you, you might not notice I avoid trying to explain such an embarrassing statement on my part.*
Let’s go back to that.
“That would be the straight white male. … His preferences dominate the media, art, and culture.”
What ‘preferences’ Arb? Is gender a construct and we are all naturally gender neutral? If that’s the case, the preferences of ‘men’ aren’t really preferences, just another social construct. You men can’t possibly know what your preferences are. Another reason you’re not full human beings. I see why you got into feminism.
LikeLike
@VW
That statement is backed up by? 🙂 Here are some facts and figures about Scotland –
Please see page 6 (of the .pdf) of The report entitled Gender Equality and Scotland’s Constitutional Futures.
In NorthernIreland –
Just to establish where women ‘are’ in two parts of the UK. (We can safely generalize these results to the western world – or not – choose a country and we’ll look at stats, if you’d like.) All this to prove that it is justifiable to focus on their needs of women and that centring women in feminism and social justice, just might be a good thing.
– page 40 (of the .pdf), from the Engender Report cited above.
So you can continue to go on about the ‘poor men’ all you’d like, it seems to be an unsubstantiated red herring at best. Because on the ground, as I have been asserting, and have now demonstrated that the class known as ‘women’ is where the focus should be, and not just ‘over there’ in the ‘third world’, but right here in the ‘first world’.
This is where the uneven playing field is manifested. Banging on about equality without addressing the societal structural features that created the imbalance – patriarchy- is neither an effective nor efficient solution.
LikeLike
Oh my goodness! Only a man would try to explain to a foreign woman what life is like for women AND in her country – AND after ignoring the points he made that I was responding too. Mansplain much? 😉
You claimed there are more male lawyers and doctors. While I conceded that in many areas of management and leadership women are still under-represented in those professions (and gave reasons not connected with the patriarchy that can account for at least some of it), I pointed out that there your attempt to stereotype jobs for men and women is out of date, in this country at least.
“The sheer dominance of females at the junior end of the profession is astonishing. Women outnumber men two to one on the LLB, diploma, and traineeship and have done for over two decades. Women have outnumbered men at point of admission for over 20 years in a row. If you look at the solicitor profession under the age of 45, you see that six out of every 10 solicitors are female – and that percentage is going to rise substantially and quickly.”
http://www.lawscot.org.uk/news/2016/02/gender-equality-but-what-about-the-men/
Yes, the pay gap is shocking within the profession. Yes, there aren’t enough women in senior legal roles. But you are completely wrong that ‘most’ of these formally male dominated professions are male. Most are now female here, and given time the impact in the leadership roles is inevitable. Yes, the figures are lower in countries like Canada and USA, but even here the numbers of women are on the rise:
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-law-canada-and-us
In terms of higher education in the UK, check out the table “Students in 2014/15 by mode * , level * and gender”, where you’ll see women significantly outnumber men at university.
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/finddata
Doctors in the UK? Have a look at this charming article in a state of panic that women doctors are taking over:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html
Violence? Scotland is unfortunately one of the most violent countries in the world, mainly due to an unhealthy relationship with alcohol:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4257966.stm
And although women are much more likely to be victims of domestic violence(80%/20%) – men are more likely to victims of violent crimes generally (4%/2%).
But anyway, enough of you interpreting online statistics from feminist organisations in my country for me. Here’s some happy gender news. We have a woman first minister and a gender balanced cabinet
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13190660.Sturgeon_hailed_for_gender_equality_in_Cabinet_reshuffle/
It’s not the 1970s, significant progress has been made on many fronts, in many countries. Don’t reduce feminism to unrealistically trawling through statistics pulling out the worst examples for women, while ignoring areas where men are now struggling, or had always struggled AND ignoring the great strides that are continuing to be made. There’s a long way to go before women are on an equal footing with men in many areas, but while I applaud people like you for constantly and consistently keeping up the fight, I’m also concerned that your blatant disregard for other groups of people, your blatant disregard for circumstances surrounding many of the statistics (desire to work full time being a key one in terms of employment), places barriers in the form of ridicule and mistrust for feminism generally.
And mansplaining to me about Scotland? I mean, really, I shouldn’t have to bring that up …
LikeLike
@VW
I knew we would. This is where your assertion started.
Me and my crew? You mean like sociologists and social scientists? Okay, so we need to understand what we’re talking about before moving forward. Let’s do definitions (again) because we’re not on the same page.
1. Social Construct – “A social construction, or social construct or a social concept is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society which exists solely because people agree to behave as if it exists, or agree to follow certain conventional rules. Obvious social constructs include such things as games, language, money, school grades, titles, governments, universities, corporations and other institutions.”
Especially with the advent of second-wave feminism, it has become fairly common to separate biological sex from gender, claiming along the way that there is no inherent connection between the two. Indeed, in more recent years, social constructionists have asserted that gender is entirely a social construct.
The rules by which, for example, biological women navigate the world are products of a given society and, indeed, they vary between societies. There is no fact in nature that compels women to wear dresses, have long hair, be nurturing toward children, cook, clean, etc. These are roles that women have been socialised into fulfilling, and they could be, and are often, otherwise. Moreover, like the chess example above, these are conventions – the rules exist because we create them and they can be changed. ”
2. Gender Role – “A gender role is a set of societal norms dictating what types of behaviors are generally considered acceptable, appropriate or desirable for a person based on their actual or perceived sex. These are usually centered around opposing conceptions of femininity and masculinity, although there are myriad exceptions and variations. The specifics regarding these gendered expectations may vary substantially among cultures, while other characteristics may be common throughout a range of cultures.”
3. Socialization -Socialization is predominately an unconscious process by which a newborn child learns the values, beliefs, rules and regulations of society or internalizes the culture in which it is born. Socialization, in fact, includes learning of three important processes: (1) cognitive; (2) affective, and (3) evaluative. In other words, socialization includes the knowledge of how things are caused and the establishment of emotional links with the rest of the members of the society. Socialization, therefore, equips an individual in such a way that he can perform his duties in his society. Who are the agents of socialization? The agents of socialization vary from society to society. However, in most of the cases, it is the family which is a major socializing agent, that is, the nearest kinsmen are the first and the most important agents of socialization. The other groups which are socializing units in a society vary according to the complexity. Thus, in modern complex society, the important socializing agents are educational institutions, while in primitive societies, clans and lineages play a more important role.
Gender is a social construct, this hasn’t been news for decades.
4. Gender Socialization – Socialization is the process of internalizing society’s values in order to adapt to one’s culture .It influences how people behave as males and females in society. The social learning process that imbibes people into understanding the various aspects of culture includes the process of gender socialization. Gender socialization encompasses the process of learning society’s gender roles and their advantages and limitations.
In most societies there is a clear categorization of what it means to be male or female. This categorization process and the agents of socialization that transmit knowledge about gender roles influence how individuals define themselves and other in terms of gender and sex roles.
In many societies gender roles are rigidly defined. For instance men have traditionally been expected to be strong, aggressive even dominating. Women have been expected to be nurturing, sensitive, emotional and relatively passive. Children are taught these values both consciously and subconsciously from a very early age. This is further reinforced with the use of toys as boys are given large sized, noise making or violent type whereas girls are often given gentler toys. These expressions influence information of self as well as identities. […]
—–
We are socialized into a particular gender. There is little to no hard-wiring involved.
You are defining how social constructivism works. Our likes and dislikes evolve from our interaction with society. Nothing revolutionary here, honest.
Wait, wut?
Is the idea of classes of peopleversus individual people a conception that is shrouded in mystery to you? This foundational misunderstanding seems to be near the centre of many of the objections you have put forth.
Should we spend some time on defining what Class is? Hierarchies? Sociology? Marxism? Because I’ve been using terminology with the base assumption that these concepts were understood.
Through the process of socialization we learn about society and are imprinted with the societal expectations of our race, class and gender. There is no ‘black-box’ here, we can trace our preferences back to the society we were raised in and the environment that we matured in.
At the top of most of societies hierarchies the straight white male sits. Is it so hard to imagine, that those who are in power would tend to structure society around their particular set of wants and needs? From this notion we get the idea that SWM, is considered the default ‘normal’, and with this case of being the default, SWM’s get to define who, and who is not fully human in terms of rights and of privileges. (Just in case you were thinking that somehow, biologically speaking, different levels of humanity exist).
LikeLike
Trying to beat me into submission with the longest comment ever patronisingly telling me nothing new?
As always, it’s taken a step too far. Can we consider evolution to be a natural process? Traditional roles develop based on circumstance, obviously. Man, stronger, hunter, roaming – woman, less strong, pregnant/breastfeeding in safe place. Makes a basic divide. Sure, we’re beyond most of that but how much of an instinctive nature remains along broad male/female lines is debatable, in terms of how veering towards these roles would make more successful breeding conditions. Be nurturing towards children? Are you kidding? Have you grown a baby in your body, breastfed it for a year or more and felt those chemicals? Doesn’t sounds like it. Don’t be ridiculous – look at every other creature out there (apart from sea horses). I am not arguing against shaking up gender roles, I’m stating that gender neutral does not exist in the majority of humans. I agree that society creates what society is, but we can use logic to shape changes that benefit everyone.
“The specifics regarding these gendered expectations may vary substantially among cultures, while other characteristics may be common throughout a range of cultures.”
The problem comes when we acknowledge that gender roles are a social construct. This doesn’t mean that there are no gender differences. It just means that the current expression sits at x and y. What about the all the primates who have clear gender roles? Is that the patriarchy at work too? Stop telling me that children only play with toys society tells them to play with – put down your preconceptions and confirmation bias, and read about primates:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/101220-chimpanzees-play-nature-nurture-science-animals-evolution/
It’s true there is unhelpful expectation of how people should behave, based on their biological sex. But the broad differences haven’t been plucked out of the air in order to oppress women. Men are generally physically bigger and stronger, and have testosterone whirring round their body, often making them more likely to be aggressive and dominating. Women usually go through a whirlwind of differing emotions on a monthly basis – I think that does make us generally more empathetic and sensitive. These broad differences aren’t fixed, they shouldn’t be used to oppress anyone, and one isn’t preferable to the other. But they exist.
“At the top of most of societies hierarchies the straight white male sits. Is it so hard to imagine, that those who are in power would tend to structure society around their particular set of wants and needs?”
But their wants and needs are a social construct, don’t you get it? They’re just as ripped off in all this as anyone else. None of this is an argument to stop fighting for a more equal society, just a reminder to keep it in perspective.
LikeLike
One of the more extreme things I stumbled on a while back was a vague attempt at explaining intersectionality. In it, you could climb a step or two if you belonged to a group of “privilege” and could drop a step or two if you belonged to an “oppressed” group.
At the time, my husband and I, both living in the same conditions and analogous (on the scale) employment and education, scored radically differently purely based on sex and mental health. Apparently I was halfway down to “absolutely, completely oppressed” and he was around a third of the way up “above average privilege”. Because a woman with significant mental health issues cannot be living the same standard of life of experiencing better treatment and enjoyment of life than a man without them, at least not if their living conditions are identical.
Ran through a few friends and relatives as well and, again, the quality of life disparity between what was assumed and reality amazed me. Especially when comparing other couples who also shared much of their life experiences and status markers. It was assumed that the bisexuals, the women, the unemployed and the older members of the couple would all be living a worse life. Yet the reality gave the test a 35-ish-% success rate: below chance.
This is one of the reasons I cannot take “intersectionality” and the concept of blanket oppression and institutional privilege seriously. Because it generally doesn’t play out like that. You can’t attach a life-enjoyment number to an identity, or a job, or a level of education and then apply it to all, or even to most, humans. The only one that routinely plays out in a prescribed way is class and income. In short: money has a set value in terms of happiness, sex, sexuality, degrees or health, on their own, do not. Money’s happiness value can be applied to all other categories to mitigate or worsen someone’s enjoyment of life. Yet on equal financial levels, there is no other reliable predictor of someone’s happiness.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I couldn’t agree more. An interesting example is the life of the wealthy urban gay man (in the 1st world) as compared to the life of any other type of gay man anywhere else. Money insulates people from all sorts of things. The housewife who has a cleaner, a cook and a chauffeur feels a whole lot less put upon than the one who has to do it all herself. That alone changes ( and can even erase) the status of subservience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely! I think a lot of the middle-class university whining about safe spaces this and tone policing that is an unwelcome distraction from the fact that most first world nations still have a pretty horrific class issue. For example, social mobility is crashing both the UK and the USA.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts
Despite everything we do to give the illusion of a classless society, in reality something is still keeping us divided. And money’s ability to jump you through hoops, open doors and grease social relations may play a big part. The First World: where anyone can make it if they can afford to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems to me to be linked to narcissism/egocentrism. “I am the centre of the universe, so anything that I experience is more important than anything that happens to anyone else in the world.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Probably so. I think many of us fall for it, especially when we use anecdotes as our starting points (guilty, before anyone else accuses me first), but when one fails even to expand beyond the starting point, it makes me wonder why the dogmatism. “The holy church of me.”
LikeLike
Men often percieve themselves above women within their own social class regardless of the respective social class, or economic position. Male company dicrectors percieve themselves more adept at leading big companies, male labourers on a factory assembly lines, or on construction sites and even beggars on the street corner, percieve themselves as better at what they do, because of the accident at birth of a particular set of reproductive organs. That comes from accepting at face value the patriarchal social values behind the set up and it is often rationalized by the fact that men have on average more physical strength and on the nonsensical notion, that men are more intelligent. Even gods are often percieved as male characters, because men are seen as the more likely protagonists.
Males having in general more physical strength is most likely the issue, that has led to this stereotyping of individual human beings gategorically, but to be honest, it is merely an excuse based on a might makes right sort of set up. The sad thing about this cultural behaviour and set of social values is that it is so pervasive throughout human societies, that women themselves are taught to subject and submit to it being true and natural. Even some very bad science has been made up to support this arbitrary black and white division between humans. It has been force fed to our identities and abused by anyone who yearns for power for the sake of power, from individual personal relationships, to social, political and historical proportions.
It is natural, that us apes have tendencies to confirm our personal genestock continuing through us having power within our respective social group. It is also natural that we aim to further the genes of our respective social group to continue. Sometimes these goals are in contrast to each other as accumulating power to one individual might be the demise of an entire social group or even species. This has happened in nature before us and most propably shall happen after us, unless we destroy life on earth by favouring the individuals natural need for power when it is exxessive. If we are special in any way, it could be, that here on this earth we might be the first species, that can actually regulate the individual for the benefit of the species. That regulation only needs to take to account something we have realized ages ago, that the rights of the one individual do end where the rights of a nother begin.
There are a lot of comments here and someone else may have expressed as much in more eloquent manner, yet, I thought to bring that up as a feminist man.
LikeLike
Sorry raut but I’m chuckling at your line that you are apish…………
Imagine a kid at the zoo seeing one of them behind the cage……….only to be told by his father that he is a cousin………..yeah ok, uh huh, sure.
Any kid with a dose of common sense will laugh this to scorn, and need not be ‘taught’ that the darn thing is an animal and not human. But the apehood may explain why some people have not ‘evolved’ to recognizing a Creator; I suppose apes are a bit slow that way.
(you are right though when you say some act like animals)
LikeLike
Well, ColorStorm, when I evaluate wether, or not we humans are indeed related to other apes, I personally rather rely on the varying lines of research (and invariably agreeing) estimations, of the scientific community, than the intuition of a random child, who might or might not disagree with the scientists. Wich would you prefer?
Appeals to common sense are rather moot, would you not agree? My common sense tells me that it is no mere coincidence, that we humans not only look like primates, act like primates, and share common homology, but also that we have comparatively and over all, a very similar genestock and that there are fossils that are indeed links between us and our common ancestors with other apes. Is my common sense any less reliable in this, than that of a random child who knows little about this issue and consequently has hard time to accept the idea that we humans are indeed one species of apes?
Do not underrestimate children. They are much more open minded to different ideas than you give them credit for. They can easily be swayed by evidence, but their inquisitive nature can also be snuffed with authoritarian nonsense about gods, creators and other rather far fetched ideas, that generally go against common sense, unless the person whose common sense is in question has been subjected to poisoning of the well, by telling them taking particular stories at face value is supposed to be a virtue.
If my lack to recognize a particular creator entity in nature is due to my lack of evolution, I can surely hold that against the creator and question the ethics of such a creator. Can I not?
However, before I consider this seriously, I would require at least a shred of evidence, that there actually is a creator to be identified and recognized, at all. It is a rather counter intellectual idea as it is supposed to exist outside time/space and as such any objective reach to us humans. Right? Also it would require, that it is even possible, that human individuals of the currently dominant human species (the rather smuggly named homo sapiens sapiens) on the face of the planet are on some different level of evolution, wich would go pretty much against all that I know about evolution.
We humans – you and I – act like the animals we are, but that does not mean, that there are no options to our behaviourial models. Apes and even monkeys are known to change their social behaviour models, according to a rationell and preference.
LikeLike
Instinct is rarely wrong Rautakky, just look at the animals you applaud.
As to the kid who looks skyward and thinks of God above all………..it is simply years of persuasion by others who tries to steal what he instinctively knows.
And in line with this post is the difference itself between the sexes which is a strong proof itself.
And no, you cannot hold anything against the Creator.
LikeLike
“Instinct” you say? Are you equating instinct with common sense now? Or what?
Human intuition is a rapid response survival mechanism we constantly abuse, by relying on it, when we would have time to investigate, make rational evaluations and conclusions based on some even remotely objective data. You know, like in the scientific method. Would you rely on the intuition of any random child on any issue, in comparrison to rational conclusions of professionals using the scientific method? I would certainly not.
If we had good and even remotely objective reason to take the “instinct” of a child as most likely truth about any issue, that would revolutionarize medical care, politics, transportation, economics, and just about any cultural phenomenon and practise we have. Would you rather be tended by the “instinctive” choises of a random child, than a professional and licenced doctor, if you ever fell ill? Honestly?
Your claim, that children are inclined to believe in a god even without any cultural indoctrination to teach them this notion, is nonsensical. Cultural notions like gods, are cultural constructs and ideas of specific gods are taught to children by their elders. That is why in Hindu culture children believe in Ganesha, but not in YHWH. Simple really. Even if it was natural for kids to percieve gods by looking skywards without cultures teaching them about their respective notions of particular gods, how could you know this? We have not established anything like that at all on any objective level, and if we could and would, that still would not make the god any more real. It would only indicate a more common belief, for wich we would still need to establish a reason. Truth is not, however as you propably know, not established by counting noses. Is it?
In the real world taking such ideas like gods, at face value, or simply as instinctive, or intuitively as truths is not a virtue. Not even, if does not get you killed this time over. How could it be?
The difference of the sexes is a proof about what? That we are divided into two separate sexes in issues concerning reproduction, exactly like all the apes and other animals? Is that not infact proof, that we are indeed just one specific breed of animals? Does that not confirm our relation to other animals, instead of a fairytale, that we were originally made from mud and a rib bone? Get serious.
How did you come to the conclusion, that I can not hold anything against the creator entity? I can hold anything immoral and/or unethical against other imaginary characters. I hold many issues against Darth Vader. Wether the creator entity is for real, or not, I have a number of things against such an entity. More seriouly though, if I ever had any confirmation that such an entity even exists. For now, one of those issues is, that this alledged entity has failed me and most of humanity by not being willing to make itself known to us. That is, if it could be shown that this entity is able and conscious enough to be responsible for the creation work. Why could I not hold anything against it? I am in now way incapacitated from holding stuff against any alledged creators, be they real or not. Look, I am doing it here right now.
LikeLike
Just the most important part of your reply here rautakky.
You say He has failed to make itself known……….’ Sorry, no. He has made Himself known through every aspect of life. Consider this:
—For the invisible things of him (God) from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,—
Granted, it is just a taste, but the argument is from nature, and it is no different today. Without going too far off topic, your conscience also knows that ‘things made’ require a maker…..and to repeat, are CLEARLY seen……..so yes, this is the common sense as well as the instinctive response.
But you need to ask yourself, outside of life, WHAT evidence will satisfy you……………
LikeLike
@ColorStorm, nature is nature. Everything we do know about nature tells us that it is nothing else. Actually everything we can observe, measure or evaluate is nature. Nature is everything we do know exists. It is even natural, that we have concepts about something outside nature.In that ligth I am perfectly justified in expecting some natural evidence of the things that are supposedly outside nature, before I take any of them at face value, and I recommend you do the same for the benefit of yourself, your community, human species and all life on the planet we both are dependent upon.
I do not know what evidence would satisfy me of the existance of any particular god. Yet, god should know how to convince me and if this god is willing and capable to let me know, what could be the reason for not letting me know? Can you think of any? Any evidence at all would be a start. For example, if we could ever establish something supernatural has indeed affected the material world. The world is full of claims of this or that supernatural entity, gods and fairies affecting the material reality. As much as the supernatural entities themselves may be beyond our reach of enquiry as unfalsifiable claims, these claimed effects are not. Yet no scientific reports exist of any such effect. These claims simply do not stand things like the double blind test or any other use of the scientific method.
However, as you confess, you prefer “instinct” before rationality and as such then there is very little I can reason with you about. Did I get this right? Would you really prefer the instinct of a child over a medical professional, if it was about your own health? Would that not be an extraordinary dangerous position to take?
A claim that things made require a maker is true enough. As it is equally true, that things not made do not require a maker. How do we define what is made? In nature things appear without any maker all the time. When the sea grinds a rock into small pebbles and then those into smooth sand, who made the sand? Was it not the sea? Is sea not a natural, physical and material element, that needs no guidance in turning rock into sand? Both of us are fully capable of observing similar events in nature. Are we not? I certainly am and my observation is confirmed by science, wich is the best if not indeed the only method we have to evaluate anything even in a remotely objective manner.
Human made artifacts do not appear without a human maker, though even they may evolve to be something completely different from what the maker intended. Chimpanzee made artifacts do not appear without a chimp maker. A birds nest is an “artifact” created by the bird. The bird is the maker of the nest. We could just as well say, that the birds nests appear naturally in nature by birds, like the sea produces the sand. The difference in creating these different things from human made artifact to the sand is the level of conscious planning behind them. That is why we do not assign sand on a beach to be an artifact. Do we?
LikeLike
Probably sailing too far off shore in this thread raut, but if I can only borrow a line from the initial topic, that would be to ‘open your eyes.’
You do not know of ‘any evidence that would satisfy you…………’ again, open your eyes. 😉
Cya later, and tkx for the interchange.
LikeLike
@ColorStorm, like I said. I do not really know what would convince me of the existance of any gods. I have never believed in any gods, nor have I ever had a reason to believe. The reasons believers have given me this far are pathetic and/or ridiculous. Perhaps you have some reason why you believe, that might convince me?
However, if there was some god, would that god not know what would convince me? Why do you think a god would choose not to convince me?
What would convince you of the biological evolution and the scientific proof that we are indeed related to apes? 😉
Thank you for the conversation.
LikeLike
Well first, sure you are welcome, but can I leave you with a thought to chew on.
There are in fact many ‘gods.’ These are the receivers of extravagance that devour the human mind….the ‘god’ of fame……..the ‘god’ of pornography…….the god of money…..god’ of idolatry……..’in short, anything that displaces the One true and living God who gives all things.
You see there is not a ‘god’ who created an oak tree………or a ‘god’ who created the stars….. it is God, above all.
I may add that collectively the false ‘gods’ together could not lift a feather, but it is God Himself who owns all the goose down.
See the difference? And as to me convincing you? Nope, sorry, can’t do it. That’s an envelope you need to open yourself. But I can hand it to you……
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the food for thoughts. I might struggle with it a bit. 😉 Are you infact asking me to accept, that there is only one god, among thousands suggested and sincerely believed gods, even before I accept any of them might be true? To me that sounds a bit backwards. How could I accept only one of them is true, when I know nothing at all about them. All I have are these rumours and let us be honest, rather dubious anecdotal accounts?
I can see a difference between the many monotheistic ideas of gods and polytheistic ones, but that does not get me any closer to be convinced by any of them. How could it? Simply because the suggested amount of unlikely, unproven and unfalsifianle extraordinary claims is less in any particular monotheistic religion, in comparrison to polytheistic ones? I am sorry, but that does not make any of the suggested divinities any more likely in comparrison to each other, let alone what is objectively possible to discern from the very material and natural universe we inhabit. Bertram’s teapot does not become much more likely, if there is only one of them, instead of dozens, or even thousands of them.
No indeed, you do not need to try to convince me. I thought it might have been an interresting experiment for the both of us. But does it mean, that you do not think I could be convinced of the existance of a god by the same reason what convinced you? Why would it not work on me, what worked for you? What is this mysterious “envelope” you are referring to?
I am still kind of curious, what would convince you of the natural evolution, though?
LikeLike
I think that deep down in our heart we often want to blame others for the issues we see in the world about us. So often we are inclined to say, ‘They’ should do something about this or that, without always saying who ‘they’, expect we know it is someone other than us.
LikeLike
I am curious whether the following song resonates with woman nowadays. it was an anthem of the feminist movement 40 years ago but I don’t tend to hear it anymore. I like the song, probably because it was sung by an Australian, and it takes me back to my youth:
LikeLike
Pingback: violetwisp