Started by Mr. Bad, May 04, 2007, 08:12 AM
What pisses me off about feminists is that they expect to act like a bunch of male-bashing, man-hating cunts and still expect men to want them.Fuck that shit.
It IS my experience, and considered opinion at this time, that differences in gender roles are largely due to socialisation, not biology.
To take an example: stands2p, on this thread, names 'courage' as one of the masculine virtues. I'm not disagreeing with you that it has played out historically as a 'masculine trait' - but I really wonder how this can be proved, scientifically, to be innate to men. (I'm not assuming that you think that, stands2p, BTW - I can't tell from your post.)
I think legislation which sees no difference in gender, therefore, can elide the voices and experiences of those who do. But I also think legislation which recognises differences can be inherently problematic when it comes to deciding how that difference is applied to groups.
I think that your idea that gender is a social construct has been very damaging in schools
As a feminist, why is this insulting to you? Is there something wrong with being towards the feminine side of the spectrum?
Shiva - The talk/non talk stuff got axed a while back too.
Shiva... We're not talking about "human traits" here. We're specifically talking about masculine & feminine traits.
Trying to pretend there is no such thing as masculine or feminine traits makes you feel comfortable for some reason.
Hopefully as new studies emerge & we find even more ways the male/female brains differ, you will become more comfortable admitting that there are indeed ways in which we differ behaviorally. Until that day, I wish you well debating on the side of things that science has disproven & continues to disprove.
It is by disallowing the words "masculine" and "feminine" that feminists hope to create their utopia.
But thanks to shiva for hanging in there - it's good to know that there's at least one feminist who doesn't turn tail and run when they debate with a group that doesn't simply nod in agreement to the feminist dogma.
"Lastly, where the heck is Kate? Looks like another hit-and-run.""Notice how they run as soon as the logic appears."
As to debate, it looks like I am possibly the sole feminist here (not sure who else is?).
Hey, Dr E! I just saw your message on the other thread - I will try and reply to the points raised there asap. I just wanted to say that I do appreciate everyone who took the time to reply in detail - no doubt, to many of you, it's an issue that you've been over countless times!
This was an interesting thread.
@ Mr. Bad:QuoteBut thanks to shiva for hanging in there - it's good to know that there's at least one feminist who doesn't turn tail and run when they debate with a group that doesn't simply nod in agreement to the feminist dogma. I'm not a feminist. You people cannot seem to grasp that simple concept. Re-read it as many times as you need to, eventually it should sink in. Methinks people here are too attached to their labels and generalizations. (And imaginations.)
"Lastly, where the heck is Kate? Looks like another hit-and-run."
"Notice how they run as soon as the logic appears."
Gender as construction: the consensus here seems to be that scientific findings have been rejected by feminists and/or gender constructionists. I think it is not so much the scientific studies or results they reject, but rather the interpretation of those results. Firstly, I don't know any theorists that argue biological sex is entirely a social construction! (Can you give me a HT if you do, because I sure think *that* would be an interesting read!) The one I can name as coming closest to this is Judith Butler - from what I remember, she wasn't arguing that there are no biological differences between men and women, but rather that we cannot escape the fact that how we interpret, talk about, even think about those differences is shaped by social conditioning. Whether one thinks this is fair or not, accurate or not, it is a fact that our society 'polices' the genders - if gender roles were natural, then why would we need to do this? The focus of such theorists' work tends to be on analysing how and why gender/sexuality is constructed within the culture, therefore. I think it's perfectly reasonable and valid to investigate this.
Secondly, the issues of whether and why gender roles are constructed relates to politics insofar as politics legislates on groups.I think, as human beings, we have more in common than we do separating us. But I don't seek to deny difference. I quite like gender, I'm not at all sure I'd want to be rid of it: variety is the spice of life, hey? The question for democratic politics, though, is whether everyone gets listened to. Who does not have a voice?One of the things that progressive anti-racist work has taught us is that its dangerous to deny difference. 'Colour-blindness' may in fact have the effect of eliding and silencing voices which DO speak of difference. I am not advocating 'gender-blindness' for precisely this reason.It IS my experience, and considered opinion at this time, that differences in gender roles are largely due to socialisation, not biology. However, I do recognise that others feel differently. At this time, I don't think we can answer the question how far biology is destiny.I think legislation which sees no difference in gender, therefore, can elide the voices and experiences of those who do. But I also think legislation which recognises differences can be inherently problematic when it comes to deciding how that difference is applied to groups. I think you, Mr Bad, and most others here might be in agreement with that point at least. That's why the argument over masculinity, or femininity, is so damned important!