Via Ally Fogg in The Guardian:
“In a recent meta-analysis, Petersen and Hyde pooled 834 studies from 87 countries and seven national data sets to give them over a million subjects. While hundreds of gender differences were found, almost all were marginal – only a handful could be described as persistent and pronounced. Importantly, the more gender-equal societies become, the more those differences diminish. Forget Mars and Venus: it’s more like Men are from Manchester, Women are from Salford.
On topics of sexual behaviour and sexual politics, we can argue all day about what is moral, what is sensible, what is practical, what is just. Let’s not get distracted by what is natural. There is really no such thing.”
Popular “common sense” narratives about gender posit that, compared to women, Men Are Dirty Pigs Who Are Obsessed With Sex, and that this sex difference is biological or innate. Based on this stereotype, some further argue that (a) it is women’s role in heterosexual relationships to tame men and that (b) marriage is the vehicle through which men’s sexual urges are channeled into one person.
Other narratives say that Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus, suggesting that men and women are so different that they are almost alien species to one another. Some religious narratives claim that men and women are “complementary” to one another, not only sexually, but personality-wise as well.
The meta-analysis, available at the embedded link above (in PDF form), is an interesting read for those interested in gender issues and differences. A snippet:
“The gender similarities hypothesis suggests that men and women are very similar for most, but not all, psychological variables. Evidence from numerous meta-analyses supports this hypothesis by indicating that gender differences are small or close to zero in areas such as cognitive abilities, psychological well being, and self-esteem (Hyde, 2005)…..
This meta-analysis indicated that gender differences in sexual behaviors and attitudes may not be as large as popular opinion suggests. In support of the gender similarities hypothesis, small gender differences for the majority of sexual behaviors and attitudes suggest that men and women are more similar than they are different in terms of sexuality.”
I wonder, how might popular narratives about men and sexuality be unfair to men (and women)? How might the message, sometimes implicit and other times explicit, that marriage exists to entrap men and control their sexualities be a bad PR campaign for marriage?
Categories: Marriage
I find this narrative to be very prevalent in the modern evangelical movement. The idea that men will be happy with regular sex and adoration, and that they should never be alone with a woman not their wife because that is asking for trouble is very common.
Many people accuse feminists of branding all men as rapists but that is largely a myth. Feminists are concerned with social attitudes towards rape and the patriarchal system that promotes those attitudes and the damage that system does to men & women.
Very true, Mont.
I find many religious narratives about men’s alleged inherent nature to be far more defamatory of men than the vast majority of feminist narratives.
I have often questioned the idea that marriage is or should be some sort of redemptive institution for party-heartying men. More specifically that a woman should take in some feckless or immature man and mold him into a good husband. First off, people only change when they want to. Marriage will not “civilize” a loser man if he doesn’t want to be civilized to begin with. Secondly, how does the wife benefit from essentially taking on a psychiatric patient who needs “fixing” as a husband? Wouldn’t a reasonably functional woman be better off finding an emotionally mature man who WANTS to get married rather than someone who needs to be saved?
If a man doesn’t want to marry and if he’s for whatever reason incapable of meeting the responsibilities of marriage BEFORE the wedding a woman should move on and find someone better suited for her.
I’d say that anyone who can’t control their own sexuality, male or female, is a bad marital bet.
It does seem like if a person is going into a marriage with the goal of changing that person’s essential nature, that marriage might not have a great outcome.
I read this book fairly thoroughly once. It was a bit academic at times, which meant that fewer people would read it than the books (such as John Gray’s Mars and Venus series) propagating the memes it was trying to discredit. There were some surprising findings, such as debunking the common perceptions that all-girl groups co-operate better than all-boy groups, or that women in general talk more, or the like. It’s a real eye-opener as to how women and men are more alike than is commonly believed.
What the authors did not cover, however, are how men and women differ in terms of aggressive/violent behaviour or sexual propensities. That would have been even more eye-opening.
There have been recent developments with Catherine Hakim’s “Erotic Capital” as well, saying that women who are sufficiently attractive should use it (within limits) because it nets them better positions/perks in the employment arena. Now that’s something the authors of The Myth of Mars and Venus could look into, especially Hakim’s concept of “the universal male sex deficit,” or “an imbalance between heterosexual men’s desire for sex and women’s willingness to supply it.”
I would agree that the common stereotype that “Women marry men hoping they’ll change” really shouldn’t be believed in; no one really changes because they were forced to. It is better to be mature about it and NOT marry someone because you think you can change him/her. When you marry someone, you also choose the issues you will deal with for as long as that relationship lasts.
So, is personhood enough?
RK, I’m not sure what you’re asking. Maybe you can state your question more clearly, or with more sentences to fully explain what it is you’re asking.
Is personhood all that is really needed for all of us…I know it will be enough for some…but my question is, could it possibly be enough for all, or even most, in regards to the development of identity? I think this is at least a question that must be asked in accompaniment of questions of sex differences.
*sigh*.
Rejecting narrowly-drawn boundaries of gender does not mean rejecting the experience or concept of gender, let alone sex. If someone disagreed that the city limits of Chicago represented the entire state of Illinois, you wouldn’t say that that person rejected the idea that either “Chicago” or “Illinois” existed, would you?
Also, feeling a sense of “personhood” (I’m assuming you mean universal humanity?) is not at odds with feeling a sense of identification with subsets of that humanity. It’s more a both/and. The way you phrased your question makes me think you see it as an either/or.
I’m not sure where you see in my post a call for completely eradicating the concept of gender, RK.
What I see as the take-aways from these findings are that:
(a) society has greatly exaggerated most sex differences between men and women;
(b) it’s not accurate to think of men and women as “opposites,” “complementary,” or “alien species”- because men and women are actually more alike than they are different.
I think there is still room in there for recognizing gender as an aspect of one’s identity. But these findings are important to keep in mind when certain groups try to tell us that there are authentic and inauthentic ways to be Real Men and Real Women.
La Lubu: Also, feeling a sense of “personhood” (I’m assuming you mean universal humanity?) is not at odds with feeling a sense of identification with subsets of that humanity. It’s more a both/and. The way you phrased your question makes me think you see it as an either/or.
Why would I have phrased it “is it enough” when I meant it as an either or question? Yes, I agree it’s a both/and, and if I didn’t believe this I would not have asked whether personhood was “enough”? (Recall that I’ve already stated in another thread that our common personhood is the only equality that matters, which some might think is contradictory to what I’m saying right now, but actually I would argue that it is precisely because our common personhood is the one thing which makes us all equal that personhood alone is not enough for an individual sense of identity).
Rejecting narrowly-drawn boundaries of gender does not mean rejecting the experience or concept of gender, let alone sex.
I’m certainly not for “narrowly-drawn boundaries” either, though I do think that there’s a big problem with the implications I’m drawing from what Fannie’s saying…that the experience or concept of gender, and how it relates to identity, should be merely measured in rigid quantitative terms, or that we should all be raised to see it that way.
Fannie: “(a) society has greatly exaggerated most sex differences between men and women;”
True. Now, the question is, why?
Now, I know from the basis of previous comments, if I claimed that it is probably a virtually inevitable tendency for human culture to exaggerate the differences between men and women, or that this was “human nature”, it would be claimed that this is merely a “substitute religious argument”. But let’s get this one off the table now.
We all know there are some individuals who can avoid sex for a lifetime. But does anyone believe that it would be realistic to expect an entire culture to avoid it?
Okay, maybe that’s an extreme example, as then the culture would cease to exist, barring a great increase in ART. Right.
So, let’s just qualify the question a little bit. Does anyone believe it would be realistic for an entire culture to avoid having sex for pleasure’s sake, and to have it only for the purpose of reproduction?
If that’s not realistic, what’s your term for what makes it unrealistic?
Can we now ditch this notion that there is no such thing as human nature, or that humans are not in any way limited by their nature, whether we are “part of” nature or “at one with” it? Or whatever anyone wants to call the, ahem, nature of our relationship with nature.
I think there is a balance between the rigidity of Saudi Arabia, on the one hand, and the idea of a culture with no concepts of femininity or masculinity at all, on the other hand. (Not to mention the absurdity of the idea of a culture where individuals have their own such concepts but none influence the wider culture at all). I can’t say exactly what the best balance is, but that’s the best we can hope to find.
Lastly:
John Maynard Keynes (regarding Bertrand Russell): “Bertie in particular sustained simultaneously a pair of opinions ludicrously incompatible. He held that in fact human affairs were carried on after a most irrational fashion, but that the remedy was quite simple and easy, since all we had to do was to carry them on rationally.”
Can you see why Keynes said Russell’s two opinions here were “ludicrously incompatible”?
Does anyone believe it would be realistic for an entire culture to avoid having sex for pleasure’s sake, and to have it only for the purpose of reproduction?
Wow. Where are you getting that? That if we don’t have rigid, strict definitions of masculinity and femininity—we must therefore foreswear all sex that isn’t specifically, deliberately procreative (no sex for pleasure)? I’m confused, because you seem to agree that a very broad, expansive notion of gender identity is natural to human beings—more natural than the rigid definitions. That the rigid definitions are something that have to be forced upon people….that naturally, we attune ourselves to wherever we fit on the spectrum, all without any conflict as to whether we are male or female.
I’m not seeing where fannie has argued that either gender or sex aren’t real. She hasn’t argued for a society in which people don’t perceive or identify with gender in themselves and others. What I got from her post was that she was arguing against the notion that men and women are inherently at odds with one another—separate and unequal. Take a good look at her concluding paragraph—the one that questions the toxic messages about gender (as her earlier example, “men are pigs”—we do agree that’s toxic, right?) that only serve to stunt communication and limit one’s humanity?
Can we now ditch this notion that there is no such thing as human nature, or that humans are not in any way limited by their nature, whether we are “part of” nature or “at one with” it?
And yet, within my lifetime, in US society, we have gone from being told that women were incapable of intellectual achievement because of their nature to women being the majority of college students today. Sorry R.K., but evolution simply doesn’t work that fast. What that means is that the “argument to nature” was wrong.
Fannie (and she can correct me if I’m wrong) isn’t arguing that there is no such thing as human nature (and neither am I). She is arguing that where those lines are drawn are arbitrary and almost always unconnected to any measurable reality. That what has to go isn’t the concept of nature or gender, but the itsy-bitsy boxes drawn around it.
But these findings are important to keep in mind when certain groups try to tell us that there are authentic and inauthentic ways to be Real Men and Real Women.
THIS. When I was a kid, I was given an IQ test to pass ahead a grade. The school district psychologist that was giving the test at one point said, “oh, don’t worry about this part; girls don’t do well on this part.” I thought he was just busting my chops, priming me to perform better (by getting an “I’ll show you!” reaction). It was the section on tangrams. I blew the lid off the test—-visual/spatial ability has always been my strong point. And then something funny happened. He got quiet, serious. Started asking me if I’d ever felt that I really should have been a boy. Did I like boys? Did I ever feel like kissing boys? (I was eleven). I said, “Uh….yeah, I’m a girl, and I’m straight, not a lesbian.”….which ended his questioning. (with a harumpf, might I add)
See, being that good on a skill that was noted as a “boy’s skill” all of a sudden put my gender-identity into question. Let me be clear: something that would have been viewed as a talent in a boy was noted as a symptom in me—a symptom of some undiagnosed problem. A flaw.
That’s just one example of how toxic narratives around gender are harmful—and I have yet to meet a woman that hasn’t experienced something similar—had her female identity called into question for displaying some skill or talent that isn’t properly “feminine”. Wanna know what’s feminine? Anything a woman does.
I agree with much of what you say, La Lubu. Especially this:
“…I have yet to meet a woman that hasn’t experienced something similar—had her female identity called into question for displaying some skill or talent that isn’t properly ‘feminine’.”
And, from what I’ve heard many men say, they experience a similar phenomenon regarding their male identities if they are displaying a skill or talen that isn’t properly “masculine.”
Honestly, I’m not sure what to say to RK because I find his response to be confusing. It looks like he’s using the word “sex” to mean both biological sex and sexual intercourse. For instance, how is it in any way germane to this discussion to ask whether it’s realistic to ask people to go without having sex for a lifetime?
I’m also not sure what his beef is with my post or its implications. If studies show that men and women are way more alike than different, why does he see it as a good thing to continue clinging to an “opposite/complementary” gender narrative that is fictional?
Concepts of femininity and masculinity are fine to keep. It’s the insistence that there’s one authentic way for women to be feminine (and for men to be masculine) that I reject.
Oh, I agree that men can also experience “losing man points” for doing things coded as “feminine”….it’s just that in most cases that isn’t going to be a part of their everyday, workaday life. Whereas, *for people who adhere to a strict definition of femininity*…..there is no way to be both a competant, responsible adult and maintain “femininity”. In that worldview, all the codes for responsibility, intelligence, foresight, wisdom, competance……are all *masculine*. Being feminine means being childlike, which….goes against the grain of human development. In order to be “feminine” as the gender essentialists define it, one has to arrest her natural human development—stunt her growth.
I will say this—we often underestimate how much the women’s movement broadened the horizons for men. That’s a good thing. Right now, I’m trying to think of an action or activity a man could perform that would make me think he was less “masculine”…..and can’t think of any.
Very true. Many forms of gender essentialism demand women to exist in a childlike, passive state. Hence many feminists dislike of when adult women are regularly called “girls.”
“Right now, I’m trying to think of an action or activity a man could perform that would make me think he was less “masculine”…..and can’t think of any.”
Hmmm, many people beileve that a man engaging in any activity that is socially “coded” feminine makes him less masculine. Eg- ballet, nursing, being a hair stylist. Interestingly, despite allegations that we’re man-hating, it’s not usually feminists who enforce such harmful, rigid notions of “authentic” masculinity onto men.
La Lubu: That if we don’t have rigid, strict definitions of masculinity and femininity—we must therefore foreswear all sex that isn’t specifically, deliberately procreative (no sex for pleasure)?
No, La Lubu, that is not what I was saying.
For instance, how is it in any way germane to this discussion to ask whether it’s realistic to ask people to go without having sex for a lifetime?
I take it you both agree that it is unrealistic to expect a culture to not have any sex for pleasure because to have sex for pleasure is part of human nature. Is that fair to say, or not?
I brought up that example to make the point, simply stated, that you cannot deny that there is such a thing as “human nature”. Yes, what it encompasses is subject to debate, but you cannot deny that it exists, and while the desire for sex is one aspect, certainly it is not the only aspect of it. I’m talking about human nature per se, not saying that either of you are advocating a society where no one has sex for fun, in fact, I’m sure you don’t advocate that.
Sorry if you could not understand the point I was actually getting at (also with the quote from Keynes). I take it this is either due to lack of clarity on my part, or else just because we keep arguing past each other.
But I guess you do see this, for you (La Lubu) write:
Fannie (and she can correct me if I’m wrong) isn’t arguing that there is no such thing as human nature (and neither am I)
OK, let me try to make my main point more clearly: Acknowledging that there is such a thing as human nature, and also acknowledging that we have ideals by which we hope to overcome the bad tendencies in our nature, what we have to do is find a balance between our nature and our ideals, not to just totally deny one for the other.
I’m not seeing where fannie has argued that either gender or sex aren’t real. She hasn’t argued for a society in which people don’t perceive or identify with gender in themselves and others. What I got from her post was that she was arguing against the notion that men and women are inherently at odds with one another—separate and unequal. Take a good look at her concluding paragraph—the one that questions the toxic messages about gender (as her earlier example, “men are pigs”—we do agree that’s toxic, right?) that only serve to stunt communication and limit one’s humanity?
Now, there’s nothing there that I would argue with if that’s all you were saying. I imagine that if both of you and I were to try to quantitatively measure our disagreements we’d find that it was much less than what it appears. The thing is that in those little areas of disagreement probably lies the big dispute which is so hard to resolve. I say this to point out how quantitative measurement can often not give you the whole story, and the same goes for trying to reduce all sex differences to mere quantitative measurement.
La Lubu: And yet, within my lifetime, in US society, we have gone from being told that women were incapable of intellectual achievement because of their nature to women being the majority of college students today. Sorry R.K., but evolution simply doesn’t work that fast. What that means is that the “argument to nature” was wrong.
Not really surprising though, as as long as I can remember it has been a stereotype (to some degree reflected in reality) that girls study better in school, and do better in it. Are we refuting a stereotype here or reinforcing it? I think it’s a fine thing that far more women are achieving and going to college, but there’s more to this than just the breaking of stereotypes, if indeed they have even been broken.
Fannie: I will say this—we often underestimate how much the women’s movement broadened the horizons for men. That’s a good thing.
I think the women’s movement has achieved many positive things. Yet I think with any movement we have to acknowledge the clouds as well as the silver linings, and one of the very likely clouds can be seen in ghetto males today. This is not to be used as an argument for reversing the gains of the feminist movement, but it should at least cause us to ask questions about whether we’re at the right balance between ideals and natures. (I do feel that the effects of cultural changes have to be looked at especially strongly in regards to the lower economic classes, not just the higher ones).
Concepts of femininity and masculinity are fine to keep.
So are you saying you don’t agree with Letty Cottin Pogrebin et al that “masculinity and femininity do not exist” (or that they are not important)? Or are you saying that they’re okay as long as they remain only with one individual, and are not shared by too large a number of people? Just trying to clarify.
It’s the insistence that there’s one authentic way for women to be feminine (and for men to be masculine) that I reject.
Oh, I agree with this, but here’s how I would say it. I believe that the more (loosely-drawn, and not “enforced”) concepts of masculine and feminine that a culture has, the better, because this makes it so that a man, woman, girl, or boy who feels that they do not “measure up” in one concept has many others available in which they can, rather than just having one way in which they either pass or fail.
By the way, I have experienced many of the same (or at least mirror-image) things you both have regarding gender stereotypes, so believe me I know how it can be. I just never concluded that the answer was to so minimize the concepts of femininity and masculinity that we were left with nothing by which to fulfill the need, or that we could eliminate the need.
R.K.: Who’s Letty Cottin Pogrebin?
I think we’re talking past each other because we have different references for what constitutes masculinity and femininity. I think if you identify as “masculine” or “feminine”—that’s it. You’re masculine or feminine, as the case may be. That it is intrinsic to your character, not something that can be taken from you. But the more gender-essentialist folks (and mind you, those folks don’t just come from fundamentalist circles, but radical feminist ones too) believe that masculinity and/or femininity are something that has to be worked on, practiced, defended. That it’s possible to lose one’s masculine or feminine identity if one oversteps the “bounds”. From what you’ve said about the subject, I think you lean more toward the latter.
By the way, I have experienced many of the same (or at least mirror-image) things you both have regarding gender stereotypes, so believe me I know how it can be.
No, I don’t think you have. Not if you’re male. There is a qualitative difference in how stereotyping affects men and women. Men aren’t told that they’re lousy parents for working 40 hours a week. Men aren’t told to dumb their language down on dates, if they expect to get a second date. Men aren’t told that if they earn too much money, they’ll never get married. Men aren’t told that their competance scares away potential partners. Men aren’t told that if they’re too physically fit, they will lose their masculinity. In short, men aren’t given the message to squelch themselves at every opportunity and set their sights a little lower, a la Brave New World. Masculinity is still associated with responsible adulthood and….well, functionality in the world. Or, there’s a difference between interpersonal sexism as you experienced, and institutionalized sexism as women experience it. Not that interpersonal sexism is any fun, but frankly, it doesn’t impact one’s life as much as the institutional kind.
So (for at least the second time today), it’s not about “minimizing” the concepts of masculinity and femininity, but expanding them to the point where they actually encompass the broad range of humanity. To where the idea actually fits the pre-existing reality.
(and with that said, there will always be some outliers who don’t experience a gender, or who experience gender-neutrality. The spectrum can still include these folks too. That is also a part of the full spectrum of human nature.)
I do think it’s interesting that you used the term “measure up”, as in someone not feeling like they can “measure up” to a masculine (or feminine) standard. It’s not a phrase that would have come to me, or likely to most women. I’ve never experienced feeling like I met a standard, or didn’t meet a standard to whatever degree…only that the standard itself was bogus—too limiting, not in tune with the way life really was. (And then, only in comparison with mainstream culture—within my own cultural/socioeconomic background, I’m “feminine”; it’s only men from higher socioeconomic backgrounds that think I’m unfeminine.) But I have talked with a lot of men who experienced that sense of not “measuring up” to the rigid template of masculinity they thought they had to have (think: Clint Eastwood…”make my day”, etc.) I think that’s one of the toxic messages about masculinity—that it isn’t intrinsic to male identity, that it’s something one can “lose”, that it’s something one can “fail” at—that needs to disappear.
No, I don’t think you have. Not if you’re male. There is a qualitative difference in how stereotyping affects men and women. Men aren’t told that they’re lousy parents for working 40 hours a week. Men aren’t told to dumb their language down on dates, if they expect to get a second date. Men aren’t told that if they earn too much money, they’ll never get married. Men aren’t told that their competance scares away potential partners. Men aren’t told that if they’re too physically fit, they will lose their masculinity.
Every one of those has a mirror-image, not to mention other things men and boys face (or are told) which are equally bad.
I really don’t find it that relevant to discussion to talk about all that I’ve experienced in my past, other than to say that there is a lot you just don’t know. Saying “You couldn’t have experienced anything like what I have” does not make an argument, and is often highly assumptive.
I do think it’s interesting that you used the term “measure up”, as in someone not feeling like they can “measure up” to a masculine (or feminine) standard.
Why do you think I put it in quotes? Could you respond to the full paragraph from which you take that out of context from? Picking out single terms or words in the hope of reducing another’s argument is not good form, really.
Specifically, do you believe that we should try to create a culture which has no loosely-drawn, unenforced concepts of what is masculine or feminine that are shared by any large number of people?
Also, to give a specific example, do you believe clothing stores should cease even having separate sections called “women’s” and “men’s”, even if it is already allowed for men to buy women’s clothing and women to buy men’s and nobody is telling them they can’t dress in them as well?
Both of the above I find extreme, trying to eradicate the nature for the ideal rather than seeking a balance.
Every one of those has a mirror-image, not to mention other things men and boys face (or are told) which are equally bad.
It doesn’t sound like you have an understanding of what institutionalized oppression is. Roughly, it’s about power dynamics. So, when you say that there are things which are “equally bad” for men, you are saying that there are areas where men have been systematically, deliberately kept from positions of power, authority and opportunity, simply because they are men. That isn’t the case. There is no “glass ceiling” for men.
That’s relevant, because it speaks to our different experiences regarding gender—that women have more artificial obstacles to negotiate because of false conceptions of gender, and that those artificial obstacles aren’t avoidable because they permeate daily, workaday life. But you are welcome to provide me with specific examples of how men have been systematically kept from good jobs, positions of authority, educational opportunities, etc…..specifically because they are men, and because it’s not worthwhile to hire/promote/educate men, because what are they gonna do with their lives anyway, *snicker*.
That’s what I’m talking about. As odious as interpersonal sexism is, I have the ability to ignore it. I can’t ignore institutional sexism—I have no choice but to deal with it. I can’t survive in the world without dealing with it. Men aren’t dealing with that particular axis of oppression (even though they may be dealing with other concurrent axes, such as racism, homophobia, etc.).
I still don’t understand why you assume that I am anti-gender identity. I specifically said earlier in the conversation that it’s a moot point—that because I am female, everything I do is feminine. There is no need to have artificial lines drawn around it. That, as you phrase it, the natural human tendency is to have loosely-drawn, unenforced ideas of what is masculine and feminine.
Since you seem keen on having some discrete, rather than blurry boundaries, why don’t you give some examples of where you would draw those boundaries—even as you agree they should be loose and unenforced? What, specifically, could a woman do that would be clearly defined (and agreed to by the vast, overwhelming majority of society, even as they agree there should be no form of punishment or discouragement) as totally masculine, beyond the pale of her feminine identity? What, specifically, could a man do that would be clearly defined (and agreed to by the vast, overwhelming majority of society, even as they agree there should be no form of punishment or discouragement) as totally feminine, beyond the pale of his masculine identity?
Also, to give a specific example, do you believe clothing stores should cease even having separate sections called “women’s” and “men’s”, even if it is already allowed for men to buy women’s clothing and women to buy men’s and nobody is telling them they can’t dress in them as well?
Heh. My clothing store needs could be solved entirely if women’s clothes came in an “athletic cut” option the way men’s do—more give in the shoulders and chest, roomier in the thighs while still being trim in the waist and hips. That would be perfect.
If you really want to hear a spirited conversation among a crowd of women, introduce the topic of clothes shopping and fit. Specifically, how there is no such thing as standard sizing for women’s clothes, and doesn’t that make it difficult to find stuff you want to wear that looks good on you? Then just sit back with some popcorn—you’ll get an earful. For the past few years, designers have been on this kick of thinking women come in two shapes—thin and fat. So, you have your choice of a straight-up-and-down ectomorphic cut, or an extra-generous muu-muu cut. Maude help you if you expect to have a shirt actually accommodate breasts, which we kinda still expect to happen in the women’s department. /derail
It doesn’t sound like you have an understanding of what institutionalized oppression is. Roughly, it’s about power dynamics.
La Lubu, here is probably the big reason why even though we might find we are not that far apart quantitatively, there is a huge gulf in our way of thinking about things that make the difference seemingly insurmountable, as you seem to buy into the idea that “power dynamics” is the base root of all unfairness in life, or at least those that relate to human differences.
I don’t think you realize how your way of looking at it actually may exacerbate the problem you think you’re trying to solve (the low number of women in power positions). I have no problem with women in power, but a person, male or female, who indicates an obsession with power is the last person who should be entrusted with it. I would not promote a man or a woman who demonstrated an ideology centered on power struggle as the basic determinant in human affairs, and I’m sure many employers and managers feel the same way.
I know these are not your words, but let’s follow the flow of the ideology of power struggle:
It has finally happened. After centuries of having it denied to us through oppression and intimidation, we are finally in power, and they, the powers that were that kept us out, have been dethroned. Of course now that we are in power it is our responsibility to make sure we do not abuse it as they did. But let us not be so naive as to think that the struggle is over. They may be out of power, but they have not abandoned their desire for power, and they are determined to get it back and put us back down again. We have been kept out of power for too long to let that happen. And they will engage in any method they can in order to get their power back. We have already seen examples of them doing so, have we not?
They will use subterfuge, deception, trickery, persuasion, anything to get it back. They will abuse the system any way they can, even under the guise of “fairness” and “democracy”. Any weakness in the system will be fully exploited by them in order to regain their position of privilege. We cannot be fooled by such methods. They will beguile many people into thinking they are only out for fairness. They will manufacture arguments in order to try to sway many people back to their side and help them regain their lost power and oppress us again. They will even try to claim that we are the ones abusing the power.
Well, we want to make sure we don’t abuse power, of course, but in the meantime, as long as they are scheming to regain their lost position of privilege, we must remember the lengths that they will go to to try to put us back down. Arguments about “fairness” and “democratic process”, etc. in their hands are going to be used as methods for overthrowing us again. Not that we are not all for fairness and democratic process, but we must remember that the words mean a totally different thing to them than they do to us. They will even try to beguile or bribe some of those who support us now into supporting their schemes. They will even get some of us to support their schemes without our realizing it if we are not careful and vigilant. Thus we have to be continuously on guard for any attempt by them to get back in power. And whenever they attempt to do so, we must stop them from doing so, however we may have to do it.
How will we know when they are trying to get back in power and put us back down again? We won’t always be able to prove it. They are experts at covering their tracks and we have to remember that and not be fooled by cries that we “have no proof”. Of course frequently will will not have “proof”. They will see to that. But if we wait for “proof” of what their scheme is, we will lose, and they will be back in power again and put us back into the position of inferiority that they have always wanted us in. Demands that we wait for proof will be a major part of the game. For now, rather than waiting for proof or evidence, we must judge by effect. Anything that has the effect of weakening our power, or strengthening theirs, in any way must be considered as part of their scheme. Again, we are also for fairness, democracy, and the assumption of innocence, but right now we are in the struggle that will determine the difference between oppression and freedom, and as long as that is the case some temporary drastic measures will have to be taken.
Arguments or measures that have the effect of weakening our position, for now, just have to thus be assumed to be part of their scheme to regain power. This necessarily means not only watching out for any attempt on the part of our known enemies to weaken us, but also watching out for any cracks or weaknesses of those we consider our “friends”. Remember, trying to cause division in our ranks will be one of the prime methods they will use to try to conquer us again. This may be done through bribery, or it may be done in a much more subtle way, so that the person who was on our side does not even realize they are being used. How will we know which is which? Sadly, we won’t always, that they will make sure of. Hence we must operate on the assumption that any division in our ranks must be part of the scheme by the old powers to regain their position by trying to divide and conquer us. For the time being, to prevent that from happening, we will have to act accordingly, even if that means excluding from our ranks any of those who show signs of deflecting from our goals.
Sometimes, in order to keep from being oppressed again, we may have to do some things that some might criticize as extreme. But the struggle for empowerment and against oppression is one that is so central that such acts may be necessary in order to create the society where we never have to worry about a return to oppression again. One day, when we have created a society that no longer thinks in terms of oppressing others and taking power for themselves, any “extreme” measures that we must temporarily take in the meantime will be able to wither away, and we will then hopefully achieve the truly egalitarian society that we must.
Sorry for going to such lengths, but even that above is merely a condensement of the problem of “power dynamics” ideology. We’ve seen it’s results plenty of times in history; the French Revolution being only one of many examples , and it’s even starting to creep in to America’s two parties today. And again I’m not saying these would be your words, La Lubu, but we can see how they flow from the ideology, and while many may well wind up agreeing to the above, others will be in that group of friends and allies “excluded” for showing “weakness” like arguing that things are being taken too far in the name of preventing the old oppressors from regaining power.
So, when you say that there are things which are “equally bad” for men, you are saying that there are areas where men have been systematically, deliberately kept from positions of power, authority and opportunity, simply because they are men.
I wasn’t talking about power, I was talking about men and women both being told they are not masculine or feminine enough, which in and of itself can have major effects psychologically. Believe it or not, for many people interpersonal harrassment is a far bigger issue for them than whether or not they get above a “glass ceiling” and achieve a position of power. And yes, these things do permeate daily, workaday life for many people, children and adults, male and female, and these people can’t ignore the interpersonal. Yes, I said it, feeling branded as less feminine or masculine can be very hard on many people. It’s just that your idea on how to solve the problem (if it ever can be totally solved) is different from mine, in that I do not believe denying the need for the ideal is the answer.
But you are welcome to provide me with specific examples of how men have been systematically kept from good jobs, positions of authority, educational opportunities, etc…..
Please define “systematically” in a way that it only applies to “institutional” and not “interpersonal” in a society where the de jure legal barriers no longer exist.
Yes, men have been in power far more, and still are (Mary Tudor and Catherine the Great notwithstanding) though less and less so. How the lower income woman, beaten constantly by her lower paid or unemployed husband or other, is more affected by the fact that most of the Fortune 500 are men than she is by the beatings is an idea that is going to need explaining to many people. Or would the beatings have stopped if Hillary Clinton had become President and most of the Fortune 500 were women?
I still don’t understand why you assume that I am anti-gender identity. I specifically said earlier in the conversation that it’s a moot point—that because I am female, everything I do is feminine. There is no need to have artificial lines drawn around it.
Are you saying thus that the only thing we should regard as masculine or feminine is in having the different sex organs? If not, elaborate.
That, as you phrase it, the natural human tendency is to have loosely-drawn, unenforced ideas of what is masculine and feminine.
Not clear whether you are agreeing or disagreeing there.
Since you seem keen on having some discrete, rather than blurry boundaries…
Where do you get that from? Where did I say that?
…why don’t you give some examples of where you would draw those boundaries—even as you agree they should be loose and unenforced?
Are you trying to get me to say that I want to be the one deciding what these things are?
What, specifically, could a woman do that would be clearly defined (and agreed to by the vast, overwhelming majority of society, even as they agree there should be no form of punishment or discouragement) as totally masculine, beyond the pale of her feminine identity? What, specifically, could a man do that would be clearly defined (and agreed to by the vast, overwhelming majority of society, even as they agree there should be no form of punishment or discouragement) as totally feminine, beyond the pale of his masculine identity?
I’m not going to give examples that I, personally find unmasculine or unfeminine. But let me give you two things that some might give, even though I personally don’t feel that way at all. For women, watching Westerns, for men, watching soap operas. I have often watched the latter myself and I enjoy watching the former with women who also enjoy them. But where would you take it from there, if those were my examples. For my part, I may watch soaps but I am not going to try to weed it out of every other man (or woman)’s head that watching them is “feminine”, or that watching Westerns is “masculine”. The only thing that would do that is if an equal number of men and women really enjoyed soaps and an equal number of women and men really enjoyed Westerns (the latter is closer to being the case than the former, I believe). Where are you going with this? When you say “totally”, you’re engaging in the same tactic of trying to bait me toward an either-or position that you keep using.
Am I wrong to interpret your response as an answer of “yes” to my question: “Specifically, do you believe that we should try to create a culture which has no loosely-drawn, unenforced concepts of what is masculine or feminine that are shared by any large number of people?”
Also, am I to interpret your last post as an answer of “yes” to my other question about clothing fashions?
You know, I don’t ask that you just answer yes or no to these questions, you can answer maybe, I don’t know, not sure, depends….but instead you dance around them to avoid an answer.
RK, I’m just finishing up the book, The Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galeano; it’s an excellent book, and I suggest you read it for an idea on what my perspective is on power dynamics. Racism, sexism, classism, colonialism, imperialism, heterosexism, religious and ethnic persecution….those are all real systems in the world. Systems that harm people, and that no level of mere positive thinking is going to overcome. So, spare me the “change your thinking and it won’t affect you” speech. The Civil Rights Act has done more to improve my life than the power of positive thinking. (not that positive thinking isn’t useful. it gives one the perspective and energy to keep fighting the good fight.)
Believe it or not, for many people interpersonal harrassment is a far bigger issue for them than whether or not they get above a “glass ceiling” and achieve a position of power.
Uhh, no. Being told that xyz isn’t in step with what some group of people have arbitrarily determined is “proper” for your sex is not a bigger issue than whether or not you can access a job that pays well enough to pay the bills. Really. Look, I’m a working class woman. When I’m talking about the glass ceiling, I’m not thinking about the boardrooms in the Fortune 500. I take it as a given that those are totally inaccessible to 99.99999% of people. I’m thinking about who gets the full-time slots, let alone the managerial positions at your local big box store. Who gets the chance to get the type of job where one doesn’t have to play leapfrog with the bills. Who gets hired at the jobs that pay higher (which, except for nursing, are almost exclusively coded “male” where I live). Maslow’s hieracrchy of needs, and all.
I’m talking about that level of power. The power to be self-sufficient. And the power to be given a chance. I know you want to believe that everyone has an equal chance, but it’s just not true. It’s much better than it was in my grandmothers’ day, but there is much work left to do. We’re not there yet.
The reason I asked you for examples of femininity or masculinity that would be powerful enough to negate a person’s acknowledged identity is….because I really can’t think of any. No, I’m not kidding. I mean, a man would literally have to be a drag queen before I would consider him effeminate, and even then I’d still consider him a man (unless he specifically identifies as a transwoman). A woman would have to be a drag king before I’d consider her masculine. My categories of “masculine” and “feminine” are that broad, and not because of any ideology—just because that’s what I observed growing up. Well, women had (and still have) more latitude than men—but still. I noticed that the stereotypes existed primarily as stereotypes and not reality. That in the “real” world (meaning, the one I had contact with! *smile*), people weren’t that limited.
How shall I say….how ’bout this: ideas about masculinity and femininity are intimately tied to culture—and social class (for example: chivalry wasn’t extended to peasant women). So, our (meaning yours and mine, not just the royal “our”) different set of boundaries about femininity and masculinity originate in our different cultures and different classes. Example: working class men think I’m feminine. Middle class men think I’m “butch”. If there were such a thing as agreed-upon, objective categories of “masculine” and “feminine” that weren’t tied to culture and class, this wouldn’t be the case.
La Lubu, I think we’re at an impasse because each of us believes we understand the other, but also believes the other is not understanding us.
Interesting that you recommend Galeano’s book, in light of what I just said about power struggle ideology. I recommend it too, and will order it, but along with this book and this book as well as others so as not to get a one-sided dosage.
Relating to the rest of your post, La Lubu, are you familiar with the works of Catherine Hakim?
Otherwise, your last post reveals more in what you don’t argue with than in what you do argue with.
That’s my last post for this thread. Sorry we were unable to at least come to a common understanding of what our differences in fact are.