Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

[mankytoes]

2 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

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 to difficult?

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

 

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.

You think I lack knowledge because I'm not agreeing with you. You view your position as factual, so anyone disagreeing with you lacks knowledge. You aren't talking about a hard science where we can point out what is actually "right" and "wrong". The fact that you think you can "point out I am wrong" shows you are being closed minded, absolutely.

Come on, I never said it was too difficult, you're misrepresenting my words again, in the very argument when you're defending yourself from doing that last time! If someone asked me to recommend a feminist book I'd say Three Swans (seriously, off topic, if you haven't read that book it's fucking amazing), not The Female Eunuch. I read for pleasure, the wiki for Whipping Girl doesn't sound like much fun- " Serano also explores trans-objectification, trans-fascimilation, trans-sexualization, trans-interrogation, trans-erasure, trans-exclusion, and trans-mystification " remember, this is a forum for people who like a fantasy novel series about epic warfare and dragons...

Can you honestly say you feel open minded on this issue, that you might change your viewpoint? You aren't giving off that impression at all.

It's not a misunderstanding, that's what I've heard.

Well I'm certainly never going to question your desire to put forward your views and to educate others, what I'm questioning is whether you are really interested in actually to alternative viewpoints. I'm not sure what in those five paragraphs really corrected what I said? I mean I'm talking about gender constructive feminism, I think that should be self evident. I always try and be polite, but if someone thinks sex and gender are the same thing, I'm not really able to engage with them, because our base assumptions are so different.

You're clearly well read on the subject, and I respect that, but please don't assume I don't know these figures, de Beauvoir in particular is someone I have studied, and I have read up on feminism academically as well (if nothing else, "and the feminist view is..." is always a good way to bump up a word count. There's always a feminist view).

[Lyanna Stark]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

You think I lack knowledge because I'm not agreeing with you. You view your position as factual, so anyone disagreeing with you lacks knowledge. You aren't talking about a hard science where we can point out what is actually "right" and "wrong". The fact that you think you can "point out I am wrong" shows you are being closed minded, absolutely.

Hard science? You want to discuss Mathematics, Physics and Engineering? Thing is, the way you are debating and your choice of words reveal that you lack up to date knowledge. Your terminology is wrong, your reasoning is not logical and your dismissal of trans-women show your views of feminism are outdated.

Quote

Come on, I never said it was too difficult, you're misrepresenting my words again, in the very argument when you're defending yourself from doing that last time! If someone asked me to recommend a feminist book I'd say Three Swans (seriously, off topic, if you haven't read that book it's fucking amazing), not The Female Eunuch. I read for pleasure, the wiki for Whipping Girl doesn't sound like much fun- " Serano also explores trans-objectification, trans-fascimilation, trans-sexualization, trans-interrogation, trans-erasure, trans-exclusion, and trans-mystification " remember, this is a forum for people who like a fantasy novel series about epic warfare and dragons...

Yes, it does. I am also unsure why you are namedropping Greer when I specifically said she is terrible (including the Female Eunuch, which btw was written in 1970 and hasn't aged well). Three Swans I have never heard of, and it turns up nothing on google apart from a pub.

Regardless of what the wiki says, Serano is immediately accessible, and I say this as a second language speaker. English is my second language, yet it gave me no trouble at all. I assume English is your first language, so it should give you less.

Quote

Can you honestly say you feel open minded on this issue, that you might change your viewpoint? You aren't giving off that impression at all.

 On the contrary, I've read a lot of books on this subject that changed my viewpoint. Serano's "Whipping Girl" being one of them. It's concise, angry, well argued and completely on point, while being backed up by research, as Serano is a biologist.

Quote

It's not a misunderstanding, that's what I've heard.

I guess it's "what you heard" vs "what I've read over 20 years".

Quote

Well I'm certainly never going to question your desire to put forward your views and to educate others, what I'm questioning is whether you are really interested in actually to alternative viewpoints. I'm not sure what in those five paragraphs really corrected what I said? I mean I'm talking about gender constructive feminism, I think that should be self evident. I always try and be polite, but if someone thinks sex and gender are the same thing, I'm not really able to engage with them, because our base assumptions are so different.

Well are you talking about gender constructivism (not constructive, that is a different word, and means something else), since you previously argued that in the "nature vs nurture" debate, @TerraPrime was disregarding that biology played a role.

You specifically stated that:

" 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. "

Which is again, not even quite what Butler meant, and it also misrepresents what people are arguing: I would be surprised if anyone here was ever arguing that biology and body play no part (in fact that was refuted as a non-issue of de Beauvoir already in 1949 in I believe the first or second chapter, and again in the section on "Biology" and its conclusion, which I assume from your referencing her you should know quite well).

Quote

You're clearly well read on the subject, and I respect that, but please don't assume I don't know these figures, de Beauvoir in particular is someone I have studied, and I have read up on feminism academically as well (if nothing else, "and the feminist view is..." is always a good way to bump up a word count. There's always a feminist view).

You claim to have studied de Beauvoir? Good. Which is your favourite part of "The Second Sex" and why? How did you feel about her negativity about the female bodied experience? The stereotyped female bodies linked to immanence and preventing women from gaining transcendence via physically grasping the world through means of the body? Or her take on Freudian psychology in it? Agree or disagree?

This is no joke, very few people read and appreciate de Bauvoir these days, I'd be happy to talk about it.

[butterbumps!]

37 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

You think I lack knowledge because I'm not agreeing with you. You view your position as factual, so anyone disagreeing with you lacks knowledge. You aren't talking about a hard science where we can point out what is actually "right" and "wrong". The fact that you think you can "point out I am wrong" shows you are being closed minded, absolutely.

Which argument have you made that you believe is equally valid, but being too summarily dismissed-- that gender is more than a social construct with biological roots?   If so, I'm not sure anyone is denying some biological basis.     But why does it matter for the discussion here, which was centering around the socially-reinforced constructs we can control or at least seek to influence?

[Lily Valley]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

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.

Don't come into the feminist thread and expect people to look out for your feelings.  If you spout the kind of tripe we have to eat all fucking day WHEN WE'RE NOT specifically talking about feminism, you are going to have people yelling at you.

 Lyanna showed you a great deal of respect by giving you a lengthy response and offering you some resource material.  You responded by whining and saying her reference was "too hard and you'll give it to your girlfriend instead."   She is actually the only one not handling you with kid gloves and even she held back.

This is a feminism discussion inside of an international club of literature fans.  If you want to talk about feminism without getting your feelings hurt, go somewhere else.  Nobody in here has to cater to your feelings.  

I am speaking from experience.  Frankly, the people in this forum have been extremely polite to you so far.  Nobody in here would be as nice to me if I kept stepping in shit the way you have.  THAT is the TRULY patronizing behavior you're experiencing and you're too green to even realize it.

As to your love of spending time with your family, I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU.  I HAVE NEVER PERSONALLY SEEN YOU PARENT IN PUBLIC, SO I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR KIDS OR YOUR BEHAVIOR.  I AM VENTING IN A FEMINIST FORUM ABOUT BAD BEHAVIOR FROM THE SEAT OF A WOMAN WHO DOESN'T WANT A STRANGER'S CHILDREN WIPING CHEESE ON MY SKIRT IN THE MORNING.  I know it's hard, but can you imagine that men can be absolutely needy and annoying without waving their dick around?  Behavior doesn't have to be lascivious to be intrusive.

 

[Chaldanya]

Honest to god, Lily, this gives me life. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Lily Valley said:

As to your love of spending time with your family, I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU.  I HAVE NEVER PERSONALLY SEEN YOU PARENT IN PUBLIC, SO I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR KIDS OR YOUR BEHAVIOR.  I AM VENTING IN A FEMINIST FORUM ABOUT BAD BEHAVIOR FROM THE SEAT OF A WOMAN WHO DOESN'T WANT A STRANGER'S CHILDREN WIPING CHEESE ON MY SKIRT IN THE MORNING.  I know it's hard, but can you imagine that men can be absolutely needy and annoying without waving their dick around?  Behavior doesn't have to be lascivious to be intrusive.

 I'm essentially an introvert, but my daughter is quite extroverted (especially when she was a toddler) and she would often intrude on other peoples space and interject herself into their conversations. I would do my best to mediate this behavior whenever possible. Yes, I understand that people can be needy and annoying "without waving their dicks around". I just think your annoyance here regarding this sort of thing seems a bit assumptive to me. As a parent yourself, I'd think that you might have a little more understanding regarding overseeing a young child, and not automatically assume this is some sort of ploy to engender female sympathy. Sometimes it's just about teaching your child to interact with the world in a socially acceptable manner. Some parents are better at this than others.

[Lily Valley]

15 minutes ago, Chaldanya said:

Honest to god, Lily, this gives me life. 

You're too polite.  He's being treated like a three year old having a tantrum.  If I performed the same antics it's called "public drunkenness" and I spend the night in jail or a hospital.  Or in this case, one of you people rips me three new assholes and I have to go take a long sobering look at my sense of entitlement and patronizing fucking attitude.

11 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I'm essentially an introvert, but my daughter is quite extroverted (especially when she was a toddler) and she would often intrude on other peoples space and interject herself into their conversations. I would do my best to mediate this behavior whenever possible. Yes, I understand that people can be needy and annoying "without waving their dicks around". I just think your annoyance here regarding this sort of thing seems a bit assumptive to me. As a parent yourself, I'd think that you might have a little more understanding regarding overseeing a young child, and not automatically assume this is some sort of ploy to engender female sympathy. Sometimes it's just about teaching your child to interact with the world in a socially acceptable manner. Some parents are better at this than others.

For the love of God, I am NOT talking about the behavior of children.  I am talking about using children and parenting as a mechanism to seek out female approval.  Yesterday's case:

Man with two small children maintains constant eye contact with me, not his children while I am drinking my coffee and minding my own business.

Children get out of his grasp and approach me while he continues to make eye contact with me even though I am turned away from him at this point.  

 Child approaches me covered in cheese.  Man approaches still making eye contact with me and not his child.

Man engages me and not his child.  I glower in disapproval at him, smile at child and try to go back to minding my own business.

Man LOUDLY engages children while continuing to make eye contact with me and not his children.  I move and turn my back.  Man gets louder.

We repeat for the next 20 minutes until I leave.  

Would you experience this?  Probably not.  Would you do this?  I hope not.  This little story is actually not for you.  I brought it up because I was curious if other women have seen an uptick in this kind of bullshit.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Fair enough. I appreciate the detailed description of the event, and I would likely find that sort of behavior annoying. And no, that's not something I would do.

[Balefont]

20 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.

 

Re: Hereward

LoL Thank you. If I could say that phrase while riding a tracker, I would. For you.

Love the slip at the end there!  Hahaha

 

Riding a *tracker*, eh?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Lily - to be fair, I have the maternal instincts of a rattlesnake, and I apparently give off that vibe.  Neither children, nor parents of children, tend to approach me in public looking for approval or otherwise (my own and my niece excepted).

There's a lot of rage here because there are a lot of reasons to rage.  

If I had a dollar for:

• Every time someone asks my corporate partner if his "tax guy" is on AFTER I've introduced myself.
• Every wolf whistle, "baby smile", comment on my appearance
• Every time I am apologized to by a man for cursing in my presence 
• Every time I have been asked to make coffee, make the lunch reservations, buy the gift, whatever
• Every time I have been shoehorned into a client presentation for "diversity" (tbc, NOT DIVERSE)
• Every time I have said something, it has been ignored, and a man has said it 3 minutes later and it is suddenly brilliant (it was so bad on one deal we joked about making tee shirts)
• Every time (pre third kid) that I wasn't drinking at an event that someone asked me if I was pregnant (that may say more about the alcoholism of lawyers tbh, but it really annoyed me)
• Every time I've heard that other women are really the problem

I could probably buy a car.  I want real money, HOUSE money for:

• The time a male partner told me I had a B+ intellect and he'd only promoted me because I was a woman but it had been a mistake (this was right after he was being forced to retire - yes I have his clients now; yes they are happy)
• The time a man grabbed me and exposed himself
• The time I had to get authorities involved after being stalked by an employer (from a school-sponsored job) who assumed because I was polite I must be "into him" as much as he was 'into me'.  He sent emails.  That was helpful.
• The time I met a client out for a drink and he assumed it was a date
• And some other stuff too, that it's not worth going into here.

Point is, we've all got lists and lists of this stuff and more.  A lot of this stuff is just background noise in our lives, and we have to spend that much more emotional energy on a day to day basis filtering out the noise to find the signal of our life and it can be exasperatingly exhausting.

ETA:  And I haven't even TOUCHED the stuff I see with my kids.  That's a whole separate post.

 

[mankytoes]

49 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

Hard science? You want to discuss Mathematics, Physics and Engineering? Thing is, the way you are debating and your choice of words reveal that you lack up to date knowledge. Your terminology is wrong, your reasoning is not logical and your dismissal of trans-women show your views of feminism are outdated.

Yes, it does. I am also unsure why you are namedropping Greer when I specifically said she is terrible (including the Female Eunuch, which btw was written in 1970 and hasn't aged well). Three Swans I have never heard of, and it turns up nothing on google apart from a pub.

Regardless of what the wiki says, Serano is immediately accessible, and I say this as a second language speaker. English is my second language, yet it gave me no trouble at all. I assume English is your first language, so it should give you less.

Well are you talking about gender constructivism (not constructive, that is a different word, and means something else), since you previously argued that in the "nature vs nurture" debate, @TerraPrime was disregarding that biology played a role.

You specifically stated that:

" 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. "

Which is again, not even quite what Butler meant, and it also misrepresents what people are arguing: I would be surprised if anyone here was ever arguing that biology and body play no part (in fact that was refuted as a non-issue of de Beauvoir already in 1949).

You claim to have studied de Beauvoir? Good. Which is your favourite part of "The Second Sex" and why? How did you feel about her negativity about the female bodied experience? The stereotyped female bodies linked to immanence and preventing women from gaining transcendence via physically grasping the world through means of the body? Or her take on Freudian psychology in it? Agree or disagree?

This is no joke, very few people read and appreciate de Bauvoir these days, I'd be happy to talk about it.

You've missed my point. You are using language as if we're discussing hard science. If you want constructive debate, you can't around saying "I'm right, you're wrong".

Come on, I'm from a political background, dismissing someone's argument because their "terminology is wrong" is low. It's the argument that matters.

I'm not dismissive of transwomen at all, that's another totally unfair accusation. One of my problems with prominent feminists is their transphobia.

 

I just name dropped Greer because that was the first famous feminist book that came to mind. Jeez, you see what I mean by bad faith? You assume everything is a dig at you, when I was actually trying to be more friendly. Lol I always do that, as you've pointed out I get words mixed up. It's called Wild Swans. And seriously. So good.

Fair enough, I'll have a further look. As you say, wiki made it sound like a textbook.

If you keep calling up my spelling and grammar I'm going to start doing the same to you. You used the wrong form of "to" in your last post FFS.

Jesus, I'd need to review, this was eight years ago. It was the first time I'd really read about the whole idea of sex and gender though, and it did stick with me. There's something about hearing ideas and thinking "shit, that's so true, as if I haven't read this before"? 

 

12 minutes ago, Lily Valley said:

Don't come into the feminist thread and expect people to look out for your feelings.  If you spout the kind of tripe we have to eat all fucking day WHEN WE'RE NOT specifically talking about feminism, you are going to have people yelling at you.

 Lyanna showed you a great deal of respect by giving you a lengthy response and offering you some resource material.  You responded by whining and saying her reference was "too hard and you'll give it to your girlfriend instead."   She is actually the only one not handling you with kid gloves and even she held back.

This is a feminism discussion inside of an international club of literature fans.  If you want to talk about feminism without getting your feelings hurt, go somewhere else.  Nobody in here has to cater to your feelings.  

I am speaking from experience.  Frankly, the people in this forum have been extremely polite to you so far.  Nobody in here would be as nice to me if I kept stepping in shit the way you have.  THAT is the TRULY patronizing behavior you're experiencing and you're too green to even realize it.

As to your love of spending time with your family, I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU.  I HAVE NEVER PERSONALLY SEEN YOU PARENT IN PUBLIC, SO I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR KIDS OR YOUR BEHAVIOR.  I AM VENTING IN A FEMINIST FORUM ABOUT BAD BEHAVIOR FROM THE SEAT OF A WOMAN WHO DOESN'T WANT A STRANGER'S CHILDREN WIPING CHEESE ON MY SKIRT IN THE MORNING.  I know it's hard, but can you imagine that men can be absolutely needy and annoying without waving their dick around?  Behavior doesn't have to be lascivious to be intrusive.

 

I didn't say it was "too hard", you're repeating her misquote of me. I mean, it isn't too hard to quote someone on a forum. You can just scroll up and see literally exactly what I said.

It's not about my feelings, it's about just general common decency, if you want constructive debate. Someone earlier in the thread asked us to use the term "women" instead of "females" for the same reason. I don't think I say "females" much anyway, but I've made sure I haven't.

Er, ok. Could you please actually tell me exactly points I've made that have given you such a low opinion of me?

You aren't on a feminist forum. You're on a thread about feminism in a Song of Ice and Fire forum. I'm sure there are plenty of feminist forums if you would like to visit one.

I do have to wonder how you deal with other men. I mean, if that's your reaction to me, how do you react to, like, Trump supporters? I mean my friends rip it out of me for being so liberal. I feel like your head might explode.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

@mankytoes what kind of world would you want to live in if you were a woman?  Or put differently, what structural societal changes do you think would be beneficial?

[Lily Valley]

The thing is, Zabs, I wouldn't have had to give a play-by-play to you or any other woman on this thread.   I would really appreciate it if the men in here would realize that not all of the conversations are actually for them.  If they don't understand, that's fine ask a question.  Don't get immediately butthurt or jump to misandry or baby-eating.  To my knowledge, nobody in here has ever actually eaten a baby.  A couple of us have actually eaten men, but they liked it and it was fine.

Manhole, I am NOT picking on you I really appreciate you coming back with some understanding.  All the behavior I described can be summed up to other women as "approval-seeking".  I like kids, so I probably attract more incidents like this than other women.  It irritates the SHIT out of me.  Nobody threw me a fucking parade for taking my son to the park and I sure as FUCK never walked around acting like it was "so hard" but I was "really proud of my self for doing a good job so mommy can sleep in."  Before you ask, the man in question made sure I overheard this award winning achievement being discussed with his kids (while trying to make eye contact with me and not his children).

2 hours ago, Lyanna Stark said:

@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.

Guess what?  Guess what?  Guess what?

I found the whole book on pdf here.   Can we revisit this after I go home and read it? 

Manky, I'll let my friends here tell you how I treat real life humans.  In return,  I'll ask you if you have enough bandages for that sore ass of yours.  

[Mlle. Zabzie]

4 minutes ago, Lily Valley said:

The thing is, Zabs, I wouldn't have had to give a play-by-play to you or any other woman on this thread.   I would really appreciate it if the men in here would realize that not all of the conversations are actually for them.  If they don't understand, that's fine ask a question.  Don't get immediately butthurt or jump to misandry or baby-eating.  To my knowledge, nobody in here has ever actually eaten a baby.  A couple of us have actually eaten men, but they liked it and it was fine.

 

That's fair - I knew exactly the phenomenon.  It's the same thing when male colleagues make an excuse for not being available for something because they have to "babysit" their own children.  Eff that noise.  They get no cookie from me for that.

[karaddin]

5 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

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. :-)

Actually it's one thing I haven't really looked through the trans lens at all, I'll try ponder that for a while now I've realised. First response is to say it's complicated, and the top level stereotype threat in tests is tied to awareness of your gender rather than subconscious - this is based purely in my own belief I wasn't negatively impacted by it in the past... Not even sure if I would be now.

One of the things I find particularly interesting is the finding that awareness of the problem of stereotype threat does not mitigate the problem, rather it exacerbates it. It paints a stark picture where education hampers performance and cannot get you out of that hole.

My idea is actually based on memory research I was having to do a report on earlier this year. I came across a study from 5-10 years ago performed in a school in Spain. It found that a) being asked to write a bunch of positive or negative things about a subject (the Mediterranean diet in the case of the study) had a significant impact on subsequent attitudes towards that diet, but also b.) that by "disposing" of the thoughts symbolically by destroying the paper you wrote them on and then throwing them in the bin it not only nullified the change in attitude but actually reversed it in some cases. Ie the group that had written negative things were more positive than control group.

What I want to see, if I could replicate stereotype threat in the first place, is whether this disposal approach can eliminate the performance drop from ST. It's a very cheap solution to a difficult problem if it works.

Lyanna - Gender performance is a complicated one and I'm not sure I remember Seranos point on it well enough to try represent her - but I certainly do not subscribe to all expression being performative. There are components of it that are, definitely, but you say that's all there is misses the nuances.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, Lily Valley said:

The thing is, Zabs, I wouldn't have had to give a play-by-play to you or any other woman on this thread.   I would really appreciate it if the men in here would realize that not all of the conversations are actually for them.  If they don't understand, that's fine ask a question.  Don't get immediately butthurt or jump to misandry or baby-eating.  To my knowledge, nobody in here has ever actually eaten a baby.  A couple of us have actually eaten men, but they liked it and it was fine.

Manhole, I am NOT picking on you I really appreciate you coming back with some understanding.  All the behavior I described can be summed up to other women as "approval-seeking".  I like kids, so I probably attract more incidents like this than other women.  It irritates the SHIT out of me.  Nobody threw me a fucking parade for taking my son to the park and I sure as FUCK never walked around acting like it was "so hard" but I was "really proud of my self for doing a good job so mommy can sleep in."  Before you ask, the man in question made sure I overheard this award winning achievement being discussed with his kids (while trying to make eye contact with me and not his children).

I don't feel like you're picking on me. I probably came on a bit strong in my initial post. All I can say to that is that time in my life is one I remember fondly, as I was probably closer to my children then than I have ever been since. And there truly was no ulterior motive behind it, or approval seeking. It was just something I genuinely enjoyed. 

[Liver and Onions]

I read Serano's Whipping Girl a while ago because of Lyanna Stark's recommendation. I'd advise anyone to give it a go.

I'd like to chime in about the Princess thing. I have no kids myself, but I wonder how it would work to expose them to the idea of a narrative failing a character. For instance, I like Ariel. I liked her as a kid, then it wasn't good to like her for feminist reasons (which are completely valid), and then I liked her again when I realized she had potential but the story failed her. (I can only see the hypothetical children rolling their eyes while Me the Not-Mom introduces feminist film theory into their cartoon movie fun time). 

[mankytoes]

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

@mankytoes what kind of world would you want to live in if you were a woman?  Or put differently, what structural societal changes do you think would be beneficial?

That's a good question, I'd probably have to give it some more thought. I know I would not have much tolerance for anyone telling me to smile. Or cat calling.

I guess it's hard to relate, because people generally focus throughout their lives on the problems that their demographics face more- as a man, that's suicide, addiction and paternity rights, mainly.

2 hours ago, Lily Valley said:

Manky, I'll let my friends here tell you how I treat real life humans.  In return,  I'll ask you if you have enough bandages for that sore ass of yours.  

For an adult(?) feminist, you talk a lot like teenage boy off reddit.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Knock it off with the personal commentary. That applies to everyone. [/mod]

[mankytoes]

1 minute ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

[mod] Knock it the fuck off with the personal commentary. [/mod]

Sorry, are you talking to me or Lily?