Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

[Lily Valley]

14 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Parenting skills are learned. When you see young girls pushed/enticed into playing "keep house" and "tea party" while boys are shoehorned into playing "cowboys and indians," you're witnessing socialization by gender in action. When girls pick up a doll, they are practicing care-giving. When boys are denied the freedom to play with dolls in similar ways, they are being denied the chance to learn that skill. When young girls are more entrusted with baby sitting than young boys, we are socializing one gender differently than we do another. When young girls are taught house work more often than young boys are, we are socializing one gender differently than we do another.

 

I'd like to add that as a young mom with a lot of young mom friends, I had little experience with babies or patience with small children when I had my own.  I learned.  You grow a patience or you wind up with kids in Children's Services.

I have some more thoughts on this regarding the new crop of young fathers I'm seeing around town these days.  For the last 10-15 years I've been seeing dads out and about a lot more with just their kids.  It has occasionally created a new way for men to annoy the crap out of me.  I know this ties into a larger issue of "woman as a vessel to endow approval on men" and I'd like the board's thoughts.

I have seen a serious uptick in  "Young Dad Insisting On Approval Because He's Has His Children In Public All By Himself".  I tack this one up to the fact that I am in my 40's and by myself.

These Dads deliberately seek me out.  They permit their children to approach me at coffee shops and then try to engage me in conversation.  I was totally baffled by this behavior until I talked to a friend of mine who is the father of a toddler.    He does all the all the childcare when his wife works.  He directed me to these cartoons.  As a result of this kind of sexism, he realized that it is EASIER for him to be the one to deal with the pediatrician and to do the daily outings with their toddler.  He says he gets showered with admiration because "A DAD!"

Now that I realize what these guys are looking for (female approval), I am pissed.  I realize that in order for things to change, this is slow going.  I still don't think I should have to be disproportionately polite to a parent who is letting their kid run amok at a coffee shop just because he's a man.  Also, I had hoped that in my waning years I'd stop being a mirror for men's vanity.  It seems they still have a use for me.

http://www.boredpanda.com/dad-vs-mom-going-out-in-public-parenting-comics-chaunie-brusie/

I have personally relied on this kind of sexism by sending my son's father or my own father to a school meeting on my behalf.  This was especially effective for disciplinary meetings.  I found I was likely to be lectured on account of my son's behavior.  The fellas were offered tea and congratulated just for showing up. 

[Lyanna Stark]

6 hours ago, mankytoes said:

But the point is, pregnancy is ONLY a risk with women. Men and women can be hit by buses, or quit on short notice. I'm not saying companies should have that attitude, but they are going to look at their bottom line, not social progress.

I don't think anyone is saying you become less competent, but if you have an important role, it can't just not be done for a few months, or however long. And if your role involves client relationships, they want to keep speaking with the same person. You can "call BS" all you want, but if you look into it, you'll see the wage gap is much bigger in those sorts of roles. I don't know how else you explain that?

In the same sense, we get told you only pay women 77% of what you pay men, yet they're just as good. Why are companies not taking advantage of that, and hiring way more women? Do you just think companies are really stupid and sexist?

Well no, put this in reverse.

While there are single women having children, and single mothers, most parents are in some way or another around the time the child is born, actually a couple. That means that the child is both parents' responsibility. Often the pregnancy was planned, so this huge risk is generally not really a risk, at least not in most of the USA and in Western Europe (minus Ireland and Poland).

As for having to quit work when you are pregnant, no, you don't. As someone who has worked up near delivery date both times, this is generally not the case in the UK (where I had child #1, worked up to around ten days before delivery date, wish I had worked longer) and definitely not the case in Sweden (where I had child #2, worked up until two days before delivery date, and baby was on time, too). The only time you get time off during pregnancy, as a rule, is if you are experiencing some severe medical issues, which can happen, but isn't too common. Pregnancy is not a disease. You are still a functioning human being during it, albeit somewhat heavier.

Regarding the bolded, may I present Scandinavia to you, where both women and men are encouraged to take parental leave, and lookie there, none of those economies have collapsed because parents take parental leave, which also includes those in important positions, for instance the Government (yes, a Government minister took parental leave, the country did not collapse either). This whole thinking that nobody is replaceable generally means the organisation has weaknesses that need to be addressed, since nobody in their right mind would encourage a business or organisation to set itself up in such a way where someone is absolutely irreplaceable. People switch jobs, and that is a constant hazard to any employer of somewhat competent staff in this day and age. Sure, client relationships are important, but then they need to be handled anyway so that they are not vulnerable enough that should one person leave, the company takes a huge hit. That is simply not sensible business practice. Similarly, if someone is responsible for a certain unique set of tasks, requiring special skills, it is often a very good idea to try and document this, train some additional staff to take over at least the every day running of this, because believe it or not, people go on holiday, the have accidents, they retire, or they switch jobs. Again, sensible business practice that you plan for these things. Pregnancy and parental leave are not different, and as long as they are seen as a natural part of someone's life, they will be incorporated in this planning process. It happens in Scandinavia as a matter of course, and as stated, so far none of the countries are anywhere near collapse because of issues surrounding parental leave.***

Further, as people are well aware of the parental leave system here, and that both mothers and fathers do take parental leave, then it's generally frowned upon for the employer to be caught out and without a plan for that. After all, people generally give notice at least 6 months in advance that they are having a child, and can draw up an outline of a plan (expected late march, woman takes first 9 months off, man next 9 months off etc) so the employer can have a chance of either re-allocating resources, hire replacements, or otherwise plan accordingly. This is no different from other "life events" in people's lives, and to somehow view pregnancy and children as something SO ALIEN that it falls completely outside the scope of "things that can happen during your work life" means an implicit bias is already at hand: in that work and family life cannot, and should not be combined. This is a faulty presumption.

If we examine that faulty presumption for a moment, it is easily discernible that it means child rearing needs to be done as a separate thing, and again we end up with one parent removing themselves from the workplace in order to read children and take the primary responsibility as the care giver. This almost always defaults upon the woman. So this presumption leads to its logical conclusion in that "women must remove themselves from the work place in order to have children". It's a cyclical argument. Children can't be combined with the workplace, and then you must remove yourself from the workplace to have children, because children cannot be combined with the workplace, ad infinitum.

"We are told" that women are just as good, you write. Would you care to clarify what you mean by that? "We are told" is a passive way of creating a sentence, and it attempts to relieve you of any sort of responsibility, because someone else told you so. However, what are you own views? Are women just as good as men? You clearly seem to imply that a. women are paid less and b. then companies should hire more women IF they are as good, yet that doesn't happen and c. that the implication that companies are sexist and stupid seems too unlikely to be true. The end point of this argument you pose is, put more simply and in less opaque language than you did: women aren't as good as men. OR  companies are stupid and sexist. You cannot have it both ways I am afraid.

 

The Myth of the Great Mother

Now this is something that I find extremely harmful. "Mums can do everything", "My dad could never have done what my mother did", "Mothers are better in the position of <X, Y and Z> by virtue of being mothers". No. There is no magical essence of Motherhood that turns you from a normal woman into some sort of Inner Goddess or a multitasking automaton. This doesn't happen. What does happen is that gradually, gradually you are weighed down by more responsibility, more work, more organising, and you just adapt, and learn to live with it. Just like organisations slimming down to become more "efficient" and its workers more unhappy since they are always super stressed, so it goes with mothers. It's a gradual slide down the slope, both due to social pressures of how a mother is supposed to be, but also because of the gradual piling on of stuff. Here is an article dealing with this particular myth, and why it is so harmful.

This myth also hurts women since we are just assumed to BE better, take more responsibility, multitask like a beast and worst of all? We're supposed to like it. If we don't,  we are unnatural and bad mothers.

As for whether I found work or child rearing more relaxing: I have a good education and an interesting job, I love my children, but if you asked me how I'd prefer to spend my day - going to playgrounds, driving to various events, cooking, cleaning, washing etc. or working an intellectually stimulating job, then the choice is easy. Luckily for me, my kids have always loved their daycare and have had amazing teachers. I loved going to daycare myself, because my mother made the same choice of working a fulfilling job, full time, since I was small. To me, this is natural and I admire her for it.

Funnily, very few people would ask a man whether he found work or child rearing more relaxing or rewarding. That would be nearly an unthinkable question to ask. Same as "Do you find it hard to combine work with fatherhood?" since it's implied in there that only mothers have that problem. Only mothers have the moral obligation to both take the larger responsibility and if we don't the moral obligation to feel bad about it.

Further, it devalues men's capabilities as parents, as if there is some magic female essence that is needed to figure out holiday plans, whether or not it is time to bring out the winter boots and the mittens, how to book and appointment with the pediatrician, or how to go to parents' meetings at school.

This thought that there is a magical motherhood essence is brutal, and it devalues men as parents, turning them into glorified babysitters. There is no inborn capability to figure out if it's mitten weather, or not. There is no magic in booking an appointment with the pediatrician. There is no magical motherhood essence, but practice and patience involved consoling a crying child (and sometimes even that won't help and you have to resort to bribery).

 

*** As a sidenote, having worked both in the UK and in Scandinavia as a parent, I found the UK system extremely inflexible, backwards, formal and more difficult to work with. My employer seemed somewhat surprised that I would come back after I became a parent, and there was absolutely zero flexibility with regards to dropping off/fetching children at childcare, or taking care of sick kids, working from home, or anything. The Swedish system has a far larger degree of flexibility, childcare is heavily subsidised, here flexitime is the norm so I don't need to get stuck in the school rush every day, taking care of sick kids is a non-issue and men taking parental leave is totally natural. It assumes that people are willing and able to reschedule, have phone conferences and in general have a more flexible attitude, which I find as being a great relief. Not everyone is the same and can fit into a rigid system of 9AM - 5.30PM, and that is taken into account.

[mankytoes]

12 hours ago, Lily Valley said:

It is AGAINST THE LAW in the US to discriminate on family status or potential family status.  It is AGAINST THE LAW to ask questions in an interview about a person's family status or future plans for family status.  We also have a lawsuit system in place in this country that vigorously sues the SHIT out of companies who screw up on this.

It's against the law in most countries, but in practice, it's very hard to prove. Many things are against the law- marajuana, prostitution, etc, that doesn't mean they don't happen. 

The only way you can prove discrimination is if the women is much more qualified. But in that case, it's probably worthwhile for the company to employ her over the man anyway. It's the borderline hirings that go the way of the man, and you are going to struggle to prove anything in court. 

Well yeah, but you guys sue the shit out of each other all the time...

12 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

Parenting skills are learned. When you see young girls pushed/enticed into playing "keep house" and "tea party" while boys are shoehorned into playing "cowboys and indians," you're witnessing socialization by gender in action. When girls pick up a doll, they are practicing care-giving. When boys are denied the freedom to play with dolls in similar ways, they are being denied the chance to learn that skill. When young girls are more entrusted with baby sitting than young boys, we are socializing one gender differently than we do another. When young girls are taught house work more often than young boys are, we are socializing one gender differently than we do another.

So when you tell me that your mom is better at parenting, I say, of course she is. She either has a knack of it, and/or she's really benefited from all the social training. Your dad, on the other hand, probably never had the same chances to develop his parenting skills. Maybe, in part, it's because he didn't feel he could afford it by spending more time at home at the expense of career advancement? Which, you know, circles back to the issue.

And this is not a litany of complaint against the evils of men. Men suffer in these cases, too. I have mentored 3 graduate students, all male. In all cases, they were clueless on basic survival skills like ironing your shirt or putting together an outfit for a professional setting. Are there women who are deficient in these skills, yes. But I suspect (no data here) that proportionately, there are more men who are lacking in housekeeping skills. This is not an advantage, if you measure successful adulthood with self-sufficiency. Socialization based on gender roles harms both sexes.

I do agree with that. I wouldn't call myself a feminist, but one feministy thing I would definitely practise is gender neutral parenting. Then again, my girlfriend was a total tomboy as a little girl, refused to wear dresses, and now she's a really caring type person. It's difficult to say exactly how much gender is nature v nurture, and it's always a risk of going too far and trying to ban your daughters from playing princess. I was reading an article by a mother saying how she tells her daughter how she hates princess culture. I feel the same way, but it isn't really your place. 

I say, you don't know my dad. But this is all a bit personal. He's never really been a career focused person, anyway. We are a lower class family, it's more about surviving than developing some fancy fulfilling career. Both my parents have done all sorts of jobs to keep our heads above water (selling books out a van, stuff like that).

You seem, correct me if I'm wrong, to be approaching this from the perspective that there are absolutely no inherent gender traits. I haven't reached the same conclusion. I think there are certain characteristics which tend to occur more often in different sexes. What really convinced me of this was the case of David Reimar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

[Lyanna Stark]

26 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

You seem, correct me if I'm wrong, to be approaching this from the perspective that there are absolutely no inherent gender traits. I haven't reached the same conclusion. I think there are certain characteristics which tend to occur more often in different sexes. What really convinced me of this was the case of David Reimar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

 

There are lots of stuff written on this, but what you really should read is Whipping Girl by Julia Serano. It explains what you are after in detail. I might add as well that Serano is trans, so she has direct and relevant experiences which are highly applicable.

I mean no offence, but a lot of the stuff you bring up can easily be explained or understood with a bit of reading up on the subject, and I find it helpful to read since I assume everyone here is a reader.

[mankytoes]

6 hours ago, Lyanna Stark said:

 

Regarding the bolded, may I present Scandinavia to you, where both women and men are encouraged to take parental leave, and lookie there, none of those economies have collapsed because parents take parental leave, which also includes those in important positions, for instance the Government (yes, a Government minister took parental leave, the country did not collapse either). This whole thinking that nobody is replaceable generally means the organisation has weaknesses that need to be addressed, since nobody in their right mind would encourage a business or organisation to set itself up in such a way where someone is absolutely irreplaceable. People switch jobs, and that is a constant hazard to any employer of somewhat competent staff in this day and age. Sure, client relationships are important, but then they need to be handled anyway so that they are not vulnerable enough that should one person leave, the company takes a huge hit. That is simply not sensible business practice. Similarly, if someone is responsible for a certain unique set of tasks, requiring special skills, it is often a very good idea to try and document this, train some additional staff to take over at least the every day running of this, because believe it or not, people go on holiday, the have accidents, they retire, or they switch jobs. Again, sensible business practice that you plan for these things. Pregnancy and parental leave are not different, and as long as they are seen as a natural part of someone's life, they will be incorporated in this planning process. It happens in Scandinavia as a matter of course, and as stated, so far none of the countries are anywhere near collapse because of issues surrounding parental leave.***

"We are told" that women are just as good, you write. Would you care to clarify what you mean by that? "We are told" is a passive way of creating a sentence, and it attempts to relieve you of any sort of responsibility, because someone else told you so. However, what are you own views? Are women just as good as men? You clearly seem to imply that a. women are paid less and b. then companies should hire more women IF they are as good, yet that doesn't happen and c. that the implication that companies are sexist and stupid seems too unlikely to be true. The end point of this argument you pose is, put more simply and in less opaque language than you did: women aren't as good as men. OR  companies are stupid and sexist. You cannot have it both ways I am afraid.

 

The Myth of the Great Mother

Now this is something that I find extremely harmful. "Mums can do everything", "My dad could never have done what my mother did", "Mothers are better in the position of <X, Y and Z> by virtue of being mothers". No. There is no magical essence of Motherhood that turns you from a normal woman into some sort of Inner Goddess or a multitasking automaton. This doesn't happen. What does happen is that gradually, gradually you are weighed down by more responsibility, more work, more organising, and you just adapt, and learn to live with it. Just like organisations slimming down to become more "efficient" and its workers more unhappy since they are always super stressed, so it goes with mothers. It's a gradual slide down the slope, both due to social pressures of how a mother is supposed to be, but also because of the gradual piling on of stuff. Here is an article dealing with this particular myth, and why it is so harmful.

Funnily, very few people would ask a man whether he found work or child rearing more relaxing or rewarding. That would be nearly an unthinkable question to ask.

 

Come on, if you want a proper debate, don't deliberately misrepresent what I said. You must know that wasn't at all what I was saying. I'm not defending the situation, I'm explaining it. I was actually suggesting governments incentivise businesses to counter this.

I've expanded on this point earlier, I think it's too simple to just look at wages. Many female teachers (to give a profession where women outnumber men) would be able to work in banking, but have no interest in it. This is an important point to me, because I'm not a materialistic person, and my main priority in work is not how much I earn. Obviously this links with other issues that have been discussed, how men are expected and pressured to earn the money, how women are socialised into more caring jobs, etc. 

I wasn't talking about women though, I was talking about my mother, and you can't tell me about my own experiences. I'm well aware this isn't typical, I know some horrible, abusive mothers, sadly. 

It's so interesting that you think that. I have heard so many fathers saying they want to spend less time at work, more with their families. 

 

5 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

 

There are lots of stuff written on this, but what you really should read is Whipping Girl by Julia Serano. It explains what you are after in detail. I might add as well that Serano is trans, so she has direct and relevant experiences which are highly applicable.

 

Looks interesting, thanks, though maybe a bit heavy for me. My girlfriend has a degree in sociology, maybe I'll pass the recommendation on to her . 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

 

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

It's against the law in most countries, but in practice, it's very hard to prove. Many things are against the law- marajuana, prostitution, etc, that doesn't mean they don't happen. 

The only way you can prove discrimination is if the women is much more qualified. But in that case, it's probably worthwhile for the company to employ her over the man anyway. It's the borderline hirings that go the way of the man, and you are going to struggle to prove anything in court. 

 

Well, you are almost proving my point.  This is the crap that I see over, and over, and over again.  Look, I was going to make it.  I am simply better at what I do than most people in this country, men or women.  But as you say, it's the borderline cases - and you should be asking yourself why.  I can tell you, as someone who sits on both our hiring committee and our associate review committee, the condition of having a uterus (whether it has been, is, or will be used) isn't what you hear.  You hear about confidence gaps.  You hear about lack of stickiness in client relationships.  You hear about presentation skills.  Guess what, if you dig into a lot of these things, you find out that (1) they are true (totally true) but that (2) they are either fixable with the right sort of support, or more sadly could have been fixed if they had gotten the same support as some of their peers.   And, in accordance with human nature, people tend to support people like them, so, e.g., a man's client stickiness issue might have been addressed by continuous staffing and/or opportunity to socialize with the client that the woman isn't offerred.  I refer you to Professor Frances Frei and Jerry Kang on this stuff, because there is data on this, not just my anecdata.  

On the princess stuff - you and I are on the same page on this.  My husband and I had to have a long conversation when he was putting down Princess stuff, in front of all three kids (boy and 2 girls).  I had to discuss with him that just because girls like it doesn't mean that it is less (and as a corollary, it was ok for boys to like princesses - e.g., my son LOVES Elsa.  Well, Elsa is cool, so that makes sense).  And so, he's on board.  We do try to find good princess stuff  (e.g., Elsa + Merida > Rapunzel > Belle + Mulan > Ariel/Snow White etc.; reading The Paper Bag Princess - which is marvelous, etc.) The stuff is pernicious, and once you see it you can't UNSEE it.

[Dr. Pepper]

41 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

 

I do agree with that. I wouldn't call myself a feminist, but one feministy thing I would definitely practise is gender neutral parenting. Then again, my girlfriend was a total tomboy as a little girl, refused to wear dresses, and now she's a really caring type person. It's difficult to say exactly how much gender is nature v nurture, and it's always a risk of going too far and trying to ban your daughters from playing princess. I was reading an article by a mother saying how she tells her daughter how she hates princess culture. I feel the same way, but it isn't really your place. 

 

Your sister being a tomboy and also a caring person aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested banning girls from playing with princesses.  It's more about allowing both boys and girls the opportunity to interact with different things instead of making it all strictly gendered.

If you're confused about how much of a role nurture has, here's a small anecdote. I was just internet shopping for baby clothes.  They are dozens of outfits for boys with career or job oriented things.  Tools, space ships, fireperson, even math.  For the girls, there isn't a single one, just flowers and phrases like 'loved', 'happy', 'so cute'.  

INFANT clothes, for tiny little babies that don't care what the fuck they are wearing.  These clothes are mostly for adults, to remind us how we need to treat and talk to the babies. As in,  "oh, look at you tough little boy with your hammer onesie are you going to be a builder when you grow up", "oh, what a cute little sweet baby girl with your delicate little flowers on your shirt that also says so happy, how about a little smile cutie pie."  

From the very earliest age we're programing kids with these very strict gendered stereotypes.  It builds from clothes to toys, from toys to activities.  You give a boy a doll and the world freaks out.  All children need to be exposed to different sensory but girls are taught from the earliest ages not to get dirty while boys are taught that getting dirty is just being boys.  Then you have girls developing behavior which would be described as prim and proper for not wanting to touch dirt because they were never properly exposed to that sensory input so it feels weird and foreign to them and they were also told that they should stay clean and so cute to be so loved and they grow up tending to be less inclined to roll around in the grass.  Their toys tend to be dolls and tea cups and dress up where they have to be careful and easy going and clean and they wear clothes with delicate flowers and birds and words like 'cute, loved, happy' and you wonder why they grow up to fit a certain mold?

Meanwhile 'boys will be boys' and they get that sensory exposure at an early age, they get to get dirty, they get clothing with tools and spaceships and firetrucks on it, they get toys that affirm they have to be physical, can get dirty, have to work jobs.  If they diverge from this, they will typically be mocked with insults that are highly gendered and meant to define anything feminine as undesirable.  "Sissy", "throw like a girl", "yo mama".  

All of this progresses throughout school.  It moves from the toys to the books and tv shows where these gendered stereotypes are further indoctrinating youth.  It permeates sports and extracurricular activities.  It doesn't stop there, but continues well into adulthood.  You have politicians talking about the need to 'protect women', usually coupled together are 'women and children', as though we adult women are peers with children and have similar needs and wants.  It continues with how we're treated at work and how we're worth less than men when it comes to pay.  

If you're confused about the how society nurtured your mom and sister into being caring, love caregivers and your dad into being an aloof pushover, you're simply being deliberately obtuse.  

[Mlle. Zabzie]

25 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

If you're confused about the how society nurtured your mom and sister into being caring, love caregivers and your dad into being an aloof pushover, you're simply being deliberately obtuse.  

I don't know that is the case.  I think this stuff is hard to see, particularly if one has never sat and thought to question it in the first place.  I was a very different person when I was in my early 20s and saw the world very differently.  

I can be annoyed about it.  I can wish it were different, but I do think education is necessary and it takes time.   Stuff that is so plainly obvious to me now wasn't through a good chunk of my life.  So, @mankytoes I'll listen, and I'll debate politely and thoughtfully, but I would ask you to keep an open mind and open eyes and ask you to listen carefully to what we are saying (and not saying) here, and to what others (e.g., your GF?) say and don't say IRL.  Think about, e.g., why gender neutral parenting is important to you.  Ask yourself not "what the world is" but "what would I like the world to be".

[mankytoes]

12 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

 

Well, you are almost proving my point.  This is the crap that I see over, and over, and over again.  Look, I was going to make it.  I am simply better at what I do than most people in this country, men or women.  But as you say, it's the borderline cases - and you should be asking yourself why.  I can tell you, as someone who sits on both our hiring committee and our associate review committee, the condition of having a uterus (whether it has been, is, or will be used) isn't what you hear.  You hear about confidence gaps.  You hear about lack of stickiness in client relationships.  You hear about presentation skills.  Guess what, if you dig into a lot of these things, you find out that (1) they are true (totally true) but that (2) they are either fixable with the right sort of support, or more sadly could have been fixed if they had gotten the same support as some of their peers.   And, in accordance with human nature, people tend to support people like them, so, e.g., a man's client stickiness issue might have been addressed by continuous staffing and/or opportunity to socialize with the client that the woman isn't offerred.  I refer you to Professor Frances Frei and Jerry Kang on this stuff, because there is data on this, not just my anecdata.  

On the princess stuff - you and I are on the same page on this.  My husband and I had to have a long conversation when he was putting down Princess stuff, in front of all three kids (boy and 2 girls).  I had to discuss with him that just because girls like it doesn't mean that it is less (and as a corollary, it was ok for boys to like princesses - e.g., my son LOVES Elsa.  Well, Elsa is cool, so that makes sense).  And so, he's on board.  We do try to find good princess stuff  (e.g., Elsa + Merida > Rapunzel > Belle + Mulan > Ariel/Snow White etc.; reading The Paper Bag Princess - which is marvelous, etc.) The stuff is pernicious, and once you see it you can't UNSEE it.

Well I did ask that question, and Lyanna didn't like it. This is definitely an eggshell issue. 

I'm aware there has been a lot of studies on this, a lot of data. I've read stuff about how women don't apply for jobs, how women don't network, there's no lack of attention to this issue, it's trying to separate causation from consequence. Too often, I see people just accept whichever study backs up their pre-existing viewpoint (to be fair, you get that on basically every issue).

At the risk of diverting, Rapunzel is above Mulan? Didn't Mulan like win a war, and Rapunzel just chills in a tower, growing her hair? Anyway, my kids will get the original stories. Kids love gory stuff. 

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Your sister being a tomboy and also a caring person aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested banning girls from playing with princesses.  It's more about allowing both boys and girls the opportunity to interact with different things instead of making it all strictly gendered.

If you're confused about how much of a role nurture has, here's a small anecdote. I was just internet shopping for baby clothes.  They are dozens of outfits for boys with career or job oriented things.  Tools, space ships, fireperson, even math.  For the girls, there isn't a single one, just flowers and phrases like 'loved', 'happy', 'so cute'.  

INFANT clothes, for tiny little babies that don't care what the fuck they are wearing.  These clothes are mostly for adults, to remind us how we need to treat and talk to the babies. As in,  "oh, look at you tough little boy with your hammer onesie are you going to be a builder when you grow up", "oh, what a cute little sweet baby girl with your delicate little flowers on your shirt that also says so happy, how about a little smile cutie pie."  

From the very earliest age we're programing kids with these very strict gendered stereotypes.  It builds from clothes to toys, from toys to activities.  You give a boy a doll and the world freaks out.  All children need to be exposed to different sensory but girls are taught from the earliest ages not to get dirty while boys are taught that getting dirty is just being boys.  Then you have girls developing behavior which would be described as prim and proper for not wanting to touch dirt because they were never properly exposed to that sensory input so it feels weird and foreign to them and they were also told that they should stay clean and so cute to be so loved and they grow up tending to be less inclined to roll around in the grass.  Their toys tend to be dolls and tea cups and dress up where they have to be careful and easy going and clean and they wear clothes with delicate flowers and birds and words like 'cute, loved, happy' and you wonder why they grow up to fit a certain mold?

Meanwhile 'boys will be boys' and they get that sensory exposure at an early age, they get to get dirty, they get clothing with tools and spaceships and firetrucks on it, they get toys that affirm they have to be physical, can get dirty, have to work jobs.  If they diverge from this, they will typically be mocked with insults that are highly gendered and meant to define anything feminine as undesirable.  "Sissy", "throw like a girl", "yo mama".  

All of this progresses throughout school.  It moves from the toys to the books and tv shows where these gendered stereotypes are further indoctrinating youth.  It permeates sports and extracurricular activities.  It doesn't stop there, but continues well into adulthood.  You have politicians talking about the need to 'protect women', usually coupled together are 'women and children', as though we adult women are peers with children and have similar needs and wants.  It continues with how we're treated at work and how we're worth less than men when it comes to pay.  

If you're confused about the how society nurtured your mom and sister into being caring, love caregivers and your dad into being an aloof pushover, you're simply being deliberately obtuse.  

True, but she definitely stopped being a tomboy, she dresses more feminine than average, probably. 

This isn't what I was referring to, but here is an example- http://meghanward.com/2013/01/29/why-i-hate-princesses/

But as you say, it's just an anecdote. And the thing is, conservative parents tend to say "you can see a clear difference between boys and girls without socialisation", and liberal parents tend to say the opposite. I haven't had or worked with children, it's very hard to make a judgement. I would raise my kids gender neutral- girls get football forced on them just like boys- but I'm not going to object if they end up having stereotypical interests. Whatever toys I was given, I would just make them fight. 

You're tapping into another issue that gets to me. It's a person, just dress it normally. If you want something to dress all cute, buy a doll.

The thing is, you can be so gender careful, as soon as another boy see's your five year old with a doll and calls him a girl, isn't he just going to completely go off it? 

I can't say I'm aware of many British politicians talking about "protecting women" very often. You mention sports, it has been noted that girl's participation in sports actually drops off much more around puberty than from an early age, at least in my country. 

I'm not confused, if you want to persuade people you really should try not to be so patronising. You're assuming they were nurtured into those roles, that it wasn't just their nature. And with what evidence? You have no knowledge of these people. Do you not think it's a little arrogant for you, a total stranger, to tell me about the people I know better than anyone? 

[mankytoes]

32 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I don't know that is the case.  I think this stuff is hard to see, particularly if one has never sat and thought to question it in the first place.  I was a very different person when I was in my early 20s and saw the world very differently.  

I can be annoyed about it.  I can wish it were different, but I do think education is necessary and it takes time.   Stuff that is so plainly obvious to me now wasn't through a good chunk of my life.  So, @mankytoes I'll listen, and I'll debate politely and thoughtfully, but I would ask you to keep an open mind and open eyes and ask you to listen carefully to what we are saying (and not saying) here, and to what others (e.g., your GF?) say and don't say IRL.  Think about, e.g., why gender neutral parenting is important to you.  Ask yourself not "what the world is" but "what would I like the world to be".

There is a good rule in debate that you should assume good faith. I think you can see that Lyanna and Dr Pepper don't subscribe to that at all. They are looking to pounce on anything I word ambiguously. 

I guess we all like to think we're open minded, but I think I'm being at least as open minded on this as anyone else. I'm trying to balance ideas of nature and nurture, most other people seem just to be saying "it's all nurture! No question!". And I think my views on feminism are pretty balanced, I mean I've had more arguments with anti-feminists than feminists. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

13 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

At the risk of diverting, Rapunzel is above Mulan? Didn't Mulan like win a war, and Rapunzel just chills in a tower, growing her hair? Anyway, my kids will get the original stories. Kids love gory stuff. 

 

So my view is that Mulan suffers from the "exceptional" woman problem - the other women in the story actually don't come off so well.  That bothers me (and bothers me about a lot of Disney movies, actually) - the fact that she had to pretend to be a man and succeed at war man-type stuff to prove awesomeness kind of bugs me.  Rapunzel brains her tower invader with a frying pan, and does her own thing - what she wants to do, which is to go see the lanterns, and crucially does it while being herself.  It's more self-actualized.  Of course, the other woman in the story with a major role is a child abusing witch, desperate to stay young so there's that.  Both stories have problematic love stories intertwined, but less problematic than, say Snow White - at least they get to know the guy!  Frozen and Brave are just better on all this stuff.    

[Mlle. Zabzie]

9 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

There is a good rule in debate that you should assume good faith. I think you can see that Lyanna and Dr Pepper don't subscribe to that at all. They are looking to pounce on anything I word ambiguously. 

I guess we all like to think we're open minded, but I think I'm being at least as open minded on this as anyone else. I'm trying to balance ideas of nature and nurture, most other people seem just to be saying "it's all nurture! No question!". And I think my views on feminism are pretty balanced, I mean I've had more arguments with anti-feminists than feminists. 

Please understand that this is deeply personal and coming from lived experiences for all of us.  There are going to be some tough reactions here and it's probably worthwhile to take those tough reactions as they are meant - not as personal affronts but rather as a build up of frustration that they aren't being listened to (anywhere).  

On nature v. nurture, I have 3 kids, including twins.  They are all very different and have been from birth.  That's nature.  But the fact that my son will plays with stuffed animals (we don't have many dolls for whatever reason but he plays with them at school) and loves to dress up (in all kinds of things), and one of my daughters loves superheros - that's nurture because we have signaled as parents that all toys in our house are to be played with and that various things are cool or not (which are largely influenced by our eclectic interests - we have a LOT of legos and they know way too much about Star Wars). My children will think it is normal for dads to be involved and nurturing parents because honestly, I am lacking in the sensitivity department, and my husband is not.  And strangely, that stuff gets passed down - my own father (and I'm older than you are, I'm guessing by a bit) was a very involved parent, as was my grandfather (and now we're really in a time machine).

[TerraPrime]

57 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

You're assuming they were nurtured into those roles, that it wasn't just their nature. And with what evidence? You have no knowledge of these people. Do you not think it's a little arrogant for you, a total stranger, to tell me about the people I know better than anyone? 

The thesis is that gender is culture-specific, and so, in its genesis, gender is a construct imposed and enforced by culture and customs. Since we all live in one culture or another, we are all susceptible to that influence. So in order for someone to not have been influenced by culture, they'd have to be uber-special to escape its grasp. It is entirely possible that for many (most?) women, they are "naturally" (however you define it) nurturing, BUT it is indisputable that women, as a group, are socialized to be nurturing, as well. How could you tell that a woman's nurturing traits are all "natural" and none of it was from cultural enforcement?

 

Second, while sex hormones do have an impact on neural development, I am not aware of evidence saying that one type of hormone level biologically predisposes one to be nurturing.

 

That said, I also don't think all humans are complete blank slates, identically void of predispositions or predetermined traits. The mere existence of trans* people will dispute this idea. However, this doesn't then follow that the traits that our cultures choose to assign for each gender are rooted in biological determinism.

[Crazydog7]

31 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Please understand that this is deeply personal and coming from lived experiences for all of us.  There are going to be some tough reactions here and it's probably worthwhile to take those tough reactions as they are meant - not as personal affronts but rather as a build up of frustration that they aren't being listened to (anywhere).  

 

This you can't bend the gender under any circumstances thing is relaxing quite a bit.  And the bit about mom doing 90% of the heavy lifting and getting no recognition whereas if dad shows up he gets a medal is a constant truism about as old as dirt.  I will always be on the side of the feminists because the alternative is to join the Mens Rights Movement and all of those guys are idiots. 

[mankytoes]

15 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Please understand that this is deeply personal and coming from lived experiences for all of us.  There are going to be some tough reactions here and it's probably worthwhile to take those tough reactions as they are meant - not as personal affronts but rather as a build up of frustration that they aren't being listened to (anywhere).  

On nature v. nurture, I have 3 kids, including twins.  They are all very different and have been from birth.  That's nature.  But the fact that my son will plays with stuffed animals (we don't have many dolls for whatever reason but he plays with them at school) and loves to dress up (in all kinds of things), and one of my daughters loves superheros - that's nurture because we have signaled as parents that all toys in our house are to be played with and that various things are cool or not (which are largely influenced by our eclectic interests - we have a LOT of legos and they know way too much about Star Wars). My children will think it is normal for dads to be involved and nurturing parents because honestly, I am lacking in the sensitivity department, and my husband is not.  And strangely, that stuff gets passed down - my own father (and I'm older than you are, I'm guessing by a bit) was a very involved parent, as was my grandfather (and now we're really in a time machine).

I understand that, but you really shouldn't assume that the same isn't true the other way. People claiming/implying I don't care about women (not saying anyone has said that about me here) is a bit of a "trigger" for me (following on from the other thread) because of life experiences you can probably have a guess at. I'm trying to keep things pleasant, but that should go both ways, people should think before they say such personal things about someone's family.

I guess you're never going to have a big enough sample, but do you think the innate differences are there in a group? I mean you'd have to be deluded to suggest only boys like cars and only girls like dolls. Or to deny the strong role of nurture. I mean I remember as a little boy hating pink, I wouldn't touch it, I wouldn't go near anything pink. And I genuinely would have told you then it wasn't anything to do with how my peers saw me, it was how I truly felt. But we all know that pink actually used to be a boy's colour, and light blue (which I've always liked) was a girl's colour.

But, purely on nature, is there anything boys are more drawn to? I don't think anyone can truly be certain on this, and this is where some feminists (and anti-feminists) can seem very dogmatic. You can't experiment on people in that way. So you can't be certain that any differences in outcome are not, at least in some small part, related to sex or gender.

To be clear, I think the politicians should assume there are no differences unless proven otherwise- and I don't see how that proof is possible. But we should be intellectually honest about this.

32 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

So my view is that Mulan suffers from the "exceptional" woman problem - the other women in the story actually don't come off so well.  That bothers me (and bothers me about a lot of Disney movies, actually) - the fact that she had to pretend to be a man and succeed at war man-type stuff to prove awesomeness kind of bugs me.  Rapunzel brains her tower invader with a frying pan, and does her own thing - what she wants to do, which is to go see the lanterns, and crucially does it while being herself.  It's more self-actualized.  Of course, the other woman in the story with a major role is a child abusing witch, desperate to stay young so there's that.  Both stories have problematic love stories intertwined, but less problematic than, say Snow White - at least they get to know the guy!  Frozen and Brave are just better on all this stuff.    

Right, I've got to be honest, I can't really remember many of these stories in detail. Also, you're talking Tangled Rapunzel, not traditional Rapunzel, right? I think they've feministed all of the modern ones up a bit. It's almost funny how unfeminist Snow White is, but I don't think it's a problem as long as that isn't the main message a child is getting.

3 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

The thesis is that gender is culture-specific, and so, in its genesis, gender is a construct imposed and enforced by culture and customs. Since we all live in one culture or another, we are all susceptible to that influence. So in order for someone to not have been influenced by culture, they'd have to be uber-special to escape its grasp. It is entirely possible that for many (most?) women, they are "naturally" (however you define it) nurturing, BUT it is indisputable that women, as a group, are socialized to be nurturing, as well. How could you tell that a woman's nurturing traits are all "natural" and none of it was from cultural enforcement?

 

Second, while sex hormones do have an impact on neural development, I am not aware of evidence saying that one type of hormone level biologically predisposes one to be nurturing.

 

That said, I also don't think all humans are complete blank slates, identically void of predispositions or predetermined traits. The mere existence of trans* people will dispute this idea. However, this doesn't then follow that the traits that our cultures choose to assign for each gender are rooted in biological determinism.

I definitely agree with all of that, I don't if I gave the impression otherwise, but that's how I feel too. Except I'm asking the question the other way around, because people on here don't seem to think that, they think the opposite, than none of it is natural, and that is is all cultural emforcement.

Yeah, and this is where we have to be scientifically honest, and say we don't know. We don't fully understand the human brain. We can not isolate how different things effect it, in the we can the liver or the heart.

Unfortuanatly discussing trans or gay people is this context is just not politically accepted at this point. So much has been based on the idea that "I was born this way" that it is not going to be allowed to be discussed for a while. But I think it will come round, because it doesn't matter. If someone proved conclusively tomorrow that all LGBT people were that way because of nurture, it would not change my views one tiny bit (though there would be a lot of explaining how "by nurture" doesn't mean "by choice"). Lets be honest, it's not great intellectually when the general opinion is that women are how they are entirely because of nurture, but LGBT people are the way they are entirely because of nature. But you've got to be practical too, and it's fucking awesome that western society has gone from locking gay people up to letting them marry in fifty years.

[TerraPrime]

That whole LBGTQ part is off topic here, but I encourage you to bring it to the LBGTQ thread.

The short form is that there are queer and trans people participating in this thread and sharing our experience. Over in LBGTQ thread, there isn't an orthodoxy on "born this way." I diligently refute it every time anyone posts it. So, what you're seeing as the discourse on this issue seems like a pretty narrow slice of what's going on in the LBGTQ community at large.

[TerraPrime]

17 hours ago, karaddin said:

TP - stereotype threat is an interesting one. As I understand it there have been some replication issues with the studies on it. Assuming the research hasn't been done by anyone else in the next 4 years, and I am able to replicate it, I'm intending to do my honours research on a mechanism that may nullify or even reverse stereotype threat. 

It is a fascinating phenomenon. The part that bothers me about it is that they don't have a good framework to explain it, yet, imo. The explanation is still heavily hand-waving at this stage. My exposure to it is from "Whistling Vivaldi." I did follow up on about half a dozen of the original research articles cited, but I didn't look further to discover any dissenting views.

 

Now that I read your comment, I am wondering how that maps onto the trans experience. Is that where you're thinking of going with your thesis? I think it's very interesting. :-)

[Lyanna Stark]

4 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Come on, if you want a proper debate, don't deliberately misrepresent what I said. You must know that wasn't at all what I was saying. I'm not defending the situation, I'm explaining it. I was actually suggesting governments incentivise businesses to counter this.

No, I am not misrepresenting anything, and no, you are not explaining anything to me. Your anecdata suggest strongly that you lack knowledge to put it into perspective. I pointed this out and added recommended reading for it. That is not "not liking" that is simpy pointing out that you are wrong.

I'm also somewhat bemused that you are

a. arguing feminism with me but

b. think the books I read on the subject seem too difficult?

c. yet you think I'm arguing in in bad faith and that you are being open minded?

In any case, I suggest you keep reading, since I put something down you might find useful.

 

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

There is a good rule in debate that you should assume good faith. I think you can see that Lyanna and Dr Pepper don't subscribe to that at all. They are looking to pounce on anything I word ambiguously. 

I guess we all like to think we're open minded, but I think I'm being at least as open minded on this as anyone else. I'm trying to balance ideas of nature and nurture, most other people seem just to be saying "it's all nurture! No question!". And I think my views on feminism are pretty balanced, I mean I've had more arguments with anti-feminists than feminists. 

 

No, that is a complete misunderstanding. Hence why I recommended something for you to read, because it explains it in detail.

In short:

A. Gender essentialists believe that sex and gender are the same, and that gender derives completely from binary sex, that each gender has naturally inborn traits (note: gender, and that they equal sex with gender, important). The last time feminism of this kind was really "hip" was probably in the 70s and maybe 80s, with attempts to try and put more value in traditionally feminine pursuits, but above all they claimed that there is something uniquely female, tied to the female body (I am using "female" here for this particular context, sidenote). Some were just honestly trying to promote traditional women's pursuits like child rearing or knitting, while others used it as a "separate but equal" argument. From the stuff I've read they also seem to have a somewhat unhealthy fascination with Mother Goddesses. As for feminists in this category, I sort of consider Germaine Greer to be in this category, although she sometimes claims to be a constructivist, but eh, I'll call it like I see it. Apart from that, a lot of socially conservative women (especially politicians, see Paula Bieler for an example of this) who want to be taken seriously as "feminists" generally adopt gender essentialism as it is extremely nonthreatening to the social conservative men. After all, it can be used to justify women working part time, doing all the child care work, being the gatekeepers of sex and just generally altruistic and whatever you want, since you can just link all sorts of hodge podge you feel like and claim "it's in our biology!".

B. Gender constructivists see gender as something that is constructed in a cultural setting, a society, where the cultural setting dictates how gender is going to be expressed. Gender constructivists see sex and gender as separate entities, where sex is the biological part (somewhat simplified) while gender consists of all the cultural, social stuff, how we interact, how we are experienced by other people, etc. This divide between essentialists and constructivists really took shape during the early 90s, even if it existed before, with most feminist scholars from de Beauvoir and onwards focusing on how a woman's body should not stand in her way of self-realisation. Consider de Beauvoir's famous quote "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". FYI she wrote "The Second Sex" in 1949, do this analysis has been knocking around for well over 60 years now.

Further, (and this will be a bit rough and brief since we are not entering a more complex territory) the constructivists can be broken down in the more Butler leaning ones, which claim that gender is only performative, and that gender can only exist as performative action. Hence according to these theories we constantly create gender by performing it, hence gender is an actively created entity, one might say. More or less. Her "Gender Trouble" from 1990 was extremely influential at the time, but has since lost some of its luster, I think. (I am no super fan of Butler.)

Then on the somewhat other side of constructivism we have feminists like Serano, who has created a far more, to me at least, complex but also better model of understanding the interplay between sex and gender, where she also posits that we have what she labels "brain sex" since it is what we *know* ourself to be (which can also end up on a non-binary spectrum), in addition to our biological bodies and our genders. She uses "gender expression" which I think is a useful terminology, as the way we express our brain sex via our bodies, and our gender expression is what people "read" when they encounter us. In some ways you could say this is performative, but Serano argues (if I understood it correctly, I am sure @karaddin can correct me) that our gender and how we express it has strong and complex ties to our brain sex and how all these three things: body, brain sex and gender interplay, so to simply see it as performance is to deny that complexity.

 

PS. If you claim I argue in bad faith again, just consider how I basically abbreviated some of the most important feminist works in the last 100 years in about 5 paragraphs so you don't have to actually read them.

[Lyanna Stark]

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

Second, while sex hormones do have an impact on neural development, I am not aware of evidence saying that one type of hormone level biologically predisposes one to be nurturing.

@TerraPrime Have you by chance read Fausto-Sterling's "Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality"? It was actually sologdin who recommended it to me, and it has some extremely interesting information on this type of question, and bias within the scientific community when carrying out this sort of research. Since it is far, far closer to your area of expertise, I imagine you'd get more out of it than I did, but I still found it very informative and interesting.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 hours ago, Lily Valley said:

I'd like to add that as a young mom with a lot of young mom friends, I had little experience with babies or patience with small children when I had my own.  I learned.  You grow a patience or you wind up with kids in Children's Services.

I have some more thoughts on this regarding the new crop of young fathers I'm seeing around town these days.  For the last 10-15 years I've been seeing dads out and about a lot more with just their kids.  It has occasionally created a new way for men to annoy the crap out of me.  I know this ties into a larger issue of "woman as a vessel to endow approval on men" and I'd like the board's thoughts.

I have seen a serious uptick in  "Young Dad Insisting On Approval Because He's Has His Children In Public All By Himself".  I tack this one up to the fact that I am in my 40's and by myself.

These Dads deliberately seek me out.  They permit their children to approach me at coffee shops and then try to engage me in conversation.  I was totally baffled by this behavior until I talked to a friend of mine who is the father of a toddler.    He does all the all the childcare when his wife works.  He directed me to these cartoons.  As a result of this kind of sexism, he realized that it is EASIER for him to be the one to deal with the pediatrician and to do the daily outings with their toddler.  He says he gets showered with admiration because "A DAD!"

Now that I realize what these guys are looking for (female approval), I am pissed.  I realize that in order for things to change, this is slow going.  I still don't think I should have to be disproportionately polite to a parent who is letting their kid run amok at a coffee shop just because he's a man.  Also, I had hoped that in my waning years I'd stop being a mirror for men's vanity.  It seems they still have a use for me.

http://www.boredpanda.com/dad-vs-mom-going-out-in-public-parenting-comics-chaunie-brusie/

I have personally relied on this kind of sexism by sending my son's father or my own father to a school meeting on my behalf.  This was especially effective for disciplinary meetings.  I found I was likely to be lectured on account of my son's behavior.  The fellas were offered tea and congratulated just for showing up. 

To be honest with you I think your assumption here is a touch offensive. When my kids were toddlers, I worked a late shift (4pm-12 midnight) so I always had my kids during the day. I loved taking my kids to the park, on short hikes, etc. It had nothing to do with wanting female attention and everything to do with wanting to spend time with my kids. It was pretty natural for my children to approach other kids in the park and by association that would often mean approaching that childs caregiver. It is only polite to engage on some level at that point. I could understand your point if these interactions were blatantly lascivious or something, but outside of that I think you're reading way too much into this.