Opinions of Feminism

[Gangor]

Two points: Firstly that women and men have different strengths and weaknesses. They are often just suited better to different roles. This is a generalisation of course, and I certainly don't think there should be rules to enforce sterotypes or other forms of similar discrimination. HOWEVER, nor should we fret when there are fewer female politicians (for example) than men. There's simply more men who put themselves forward for that.

Secondly, women are biologically different to men. They have babies. Now quite rightly there are many laws to protect mothers in the workplace, however we have to also to understand that the possibility of your star employee suddenly deciding to quit and become a mother is a significant risk for employers. Employers usually invest a lot in their employees (especially in the roles feminists complain women are shut out of) and so there is a lot to lose, yet no recourse for the employer. It would be foolish to think that employers don't take this into account when choosing who to hire or promote, or to say that they are wrong to do so.

 

[Traitorfish]

Two points: Firstly that women and men have different strengths and weaknesses. They are often just suited better to different roles. This is a generalisation of course, and I certainly don't think there should be rules to enforce sterotypes or other forms of similar discrimination. HOWEVER, nor should we fret when there are fewer female politicians (for example) than men. There's simply more men who put themselves forward for that.

Why are there more men who put themselves forward? Why are do so many women feel so disempowered, so unable to contribute to mainstream politics? They certainly don't have this same lack of presence in social activism, and in some areas- the Women's Movement and Pro-Choice Movements in particular- actively take the lead. Women involved in fringe politics, such as Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg and Lucía Sánchez Saornil, were able to occupy positions of leadership in the early 20th century, when sexism and misogyny were even more deeply entrenched- and more explicit- than they are today. We're supposed to live in democracies, after all, not feudal societies, so swaggering alpha males should not naturally rise to the top of the pile. I would suggest that this (alpha) male-dominated nature of contemporary mainstream politics is itself symptomatic of an entrenched system of male privilege, one which harms both men and women by privileging that small number of the former able to adopt a sufficient exaggerated performance of masculinity.

I'm not meaning to nag here, but I simply do not hold that one can look at any given moment and form that infer a natural and absolute "way of things". Contemporary society is not, as some would have you believe, the natural expression of any genetically-encoded "human nature", and very little about it is immutable.

Secondly, women are biologically different to men. They have babies. Now quite rightly there are many laws to protect mothers in the workplace, however we have to also to understand that the possibility of your star employee suddenly deciding to quit and become a mother is a significant risk for employers. Employers usually invest a lot in their employees (especially in the roles feminists complain women are shut out of) and so there is a lot to lose, yet no recourse for the employer. It would be foolish to think that employers don't take this into account when choosing who to hire or promote, or to say that they are wrong to do so.

In Sweden, I believe, they distribute child-care leave more evenly, allowing, say, the mother to take the first six months off and the father the next, or perhaps swapping back and forth to some degree. This allows the baby to receive sufficient care in its first year, while both allowing the woman to return to work in the knowledge that the baby is well cared for and without causing disproportionate harm to her career. It seems to work. (Also, it's wrong to assume that all women will have children, that all women can have children, or that all women were born with a womb, so even if you are correct, it's still an unfair generalisation.)

...And how, come to think of it, is leaving to have a child all that different from an employer's perspective (in regards to "investment") than merely finding another job, something which I'm given to understand that men- being encouraged to be more assertive in building a career- are more prone to than women?

 

[Fifty]

Best thing I've ever read, by far, on academic feminism (as contrasted with the good sort of feminism that is concerned with ending injustices towards women)

(by Martha Nussbaum)

 

[Traitorfish]

Best thing I've ever read, by far, on academic feminism (as contrasted with the good sort of feminism that is concerned with ending injustices towards women)

(by Martha Nussbaum)

An interesting read, although the author doesn't really make the step from critiquing Butler to make a wider critique of contemporary academic feminism, as you seem to imply. She only references an "increasing trend", and doesn't really specify how prevalent this trend is. Still, I suppose that in itself says something of the environment which allows such a trend to emerge.

 

[Gangor]

Why are there more men who put themselves forward? Why are do so many women feel so disempowered, so unable to contribute to mainstream politics? They certainly don't have this same lack of presence in social activism, and in some areas- the Women's Movement and Pro-Choice Movements in particular- actively take the lead. Women involved in fringe politics, such as Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg and Lucía Sánchez Saornil, were able to occupy positions of leadership in the early 20th century, when sexism and misogyny were even more deeply entrenched- and more explicit- than they are today. We're supposed to live in democracies, after all, not feudal societies, so swaggering alpha males should not naturally rise to the top of the pile. I would suggest that this (alpha) male-dominated nature of contemporary mainstream politics is itself symptomatic of an entrenched system of male privilege, one which harms both men and women by privileging that small number of the former able to adopt a sufficient exaggerated performance of masculinity.

I'm not meaning to nag here, but I simply do not hold that one can look at any given moment and form that infer a natural and absolute "way of things". Contemporary society is not, as some would have you believe, the natural expression of any genetically-encoded "human nature", and very little about it is immutable.

I have no problem at all with any and all efforts to make women feel "empowered". It would be fantastic if they were better represented in many spheres. But the fact is, they are not, and the reasons they are not don't always have something to do with sexism. What I'm saying is that there is no justification for making rules different for men or women just to make demographics look the way feminists would like.

In Sweden, I believe, they distribute child-care leave more evenly, allowing, say, the mother to take the first six months off and the father the next, or perhaps swapping back and forth to some degree. This allows the baby to receive sufficient care in its first year, while both allowing the woman to return to work in the knowledge that the baby is well cared for and without causing disproportionate harm to her career. It seems to work. (Also, it's wrong to assume that all women will have children, that all women can have children, or that all women were born with a womb, so even if you are correct, it's still an unfair generalisation.)

...And how, come to think of it, is leaving to have a child all that different from an employer's perspective (in regards to "investment") than merely finding another job, something which I'm given to understand that men- being encouraged to be more assertive in building a career- are more prone to than women?

Indeed, there are risks associated with all employees, and it's unlikely that many employers would rule out women simply because of their gender. However it is also unlikely that the womb factor will be ignored. It's unfair, yes. But that's life. Some men might also argue that it's unfair that women have such a biological and social pre-eminence when it comes to bearing and rearing children. But they do, and we deal with it.

 

[Kozmos]

Well like my pa says: "It's always 'dem neyebane (feminists) who cause the biggest trouble about nothing and everything."

And then he added the good ol: Penis bonus, pax in domus.

I can only nod and agree.

 

[Brighteye]

And what is "loosely", prey tell? When she was passed out and couldn't say "no"? When she said "no", but it sounded like she really meant "yes"? When she said "no" and clearly meant "no", but was dressed like a whore, so it doesn't count?

Rape is rape, Domination. There's no "loose" about it.

Except when it isn't rape. I'm very happy to dissect and depart from traditional gender stereotyping. I'm less happy to support laws and beliefs that, for example, make a man a criminal when two drunk adults have sex. As was pointed out in a previous link, this is treating men as responsible for the actions of an equally free agent, and is part of patriarchy.
If a woman is drunk at a party, and a man is too, then it isn't rape. In fact, being under the influence isn't an excuse at all, even if the other person was entirely sober.

We don't let dangerous drivers off because they were drunk and therefore not in control. We don't say that physical assaults are just fine if the attacker was drunk. We hold people to account for their actions. You're responsible for yourself until you're unconscious on the floor.

As much as I dispise radical feminists, this is why they are needed.

I dispise them because they appear to intentionaly go out of their way to find things to complain about. If I hold the door for them, they yell at me or do any of the 'nice' things on a date such as opening the car door or offering to take her coat.

Needless to say I quickly dumped that girl.

I have a nice quotation from this chap called Traitorfish about how feminists (from both sexes) who question the whole concept of chivalry can get angry responses because it's often the only way people expect to see or show appreciation in a relationship.

If there was, it was spoken by a coward. There is nothing anyone can say that justifies violence, with the possible exception of threats of violence.

Violence is the means of last resort. There are plenty of things that justify it, most of which fall into the category 'I will not respond to any other means of communication'. That's in a general sense: in society, where it is forbidden, we must have policemen (typically) do the violence on our behalf. Nonetheless, if, for example, we have a trespasser who cannot be coaxed off our property, he must be forcibly removed.

Why are there more men who put themselves forward? Why are do so many women feel so disempowered, so unable to contribute to mainstream politics? They certainly don't have this same lack of presence in social activism

I have found that women tend to be much less interested in talking about political concepts and general moral issues, and that men are less interested in personal events.
Of course, I also know a woman who has studied, and is involved with, politics, and I have met a guy who loved anecdotes over data.
I see no reason to introduce injustice through some type of positive discrimination because of tendencies in the sexes. It is possible that much of this is indeed cultural, but I'd rather change the culture than correct a possible wrong with a definite wrong.

 

[Traitorfish]

Except when it isn't rape. I'm very happy to dissect and depart from traditional gender stereotyping. I'm less happy to support laws and beliefs that, for example, make a man a criminal when two drunk adults have sex. As was pointed out in a previous link, this is treating men as responsible for the actions of an equally free agent, and is part of patriarchy.
If a woman is drunk at a party, and a man is too, then it isn't rape. In fact, being under the influence isn't an excuse at all, even if the other person was entirely sober.

We don't let dangerous drivers off because they were drunk and therefore not in control. We don't say that physical assaults are just fine if the attacker was drunk. We hold people to account for their actions. You're responsible for yourself until you're unconscious on the floor.

The problem is, though, that this doesn't actually challenge the definition of "rape" as "sex without informed consent", it merely reveals the ambiguities of application. Despite the stereotypes, very few such studies define rape as "sex in which the women was drunk", but specifically define it as a sex in which the women questioned notes a lack of informed consent; it's not as if feminists somehow gain points if they are able to report a larger number. The fact that they are able to turn up so great a result just shows how pervasive is the disregard for women's bodily autonomy. (It is worth noting that rape isn't simply a question of men/women, either- men can also be raped, by both men and women, and women can rape, both men and women. A woman forcing sex upon a non-consenting man is every bit as heinous as the reverse. Tragically, female-on-male is even more poorly reported than the reverse, because a lot of men have a hard time grasping the concept that they are able to not give consent, the traditional understanding of male sexual desire as being constantly "on" allowing so little room for that.)

I will admit, perhaps I was a bit zealous in my reply to Domination, but only because it was something I felt needed quashed early on. When rape is discussed as something that can be defined "loosely", it's far too easy to draw the definitions tighter and tighter, until it only takes the form of chaste virgins being assaulted by barbarous men, and all the "drunks", "sluts" and women who just have the misfortune to be married to their rapist are left to suffer in silence. And that's not something which we can allow.

I have a nice quotation from this chap called Traitorfish about how feminists (from both sexes) who question the whole concept of chivalry can get angry responses because it's often the only way people expect to see or show appreciation in a relationship.

It's not merely the only form that they expect appreciation to take, but often the only form that they can comprehend. This conditioning is so deep that people, especially men, have a very hard time expressing respect for women in ways that don't amount, to some extent, to "chivalry", not least because it is far less certain than a woman will take an "anti-chivalry" stance than a "pro-chivalry" one, and the latter, at least, will know how to deal with unideal realities beyond assuming wilful rudeness. (Well, usually.)
And I'm not speaking from some lofty pedestal, either- this is all very much from personal experience.

I have found that women tend to be much less interested in talking about political concepts and general moral issues, and that men are less interested in personal events.
Of course, I also know a woman who has studied, and is involved with, politics, and I have met a guy who loved anecdotes over data.

But, again, is this innate, or does this itself reflect the socialisation which each gender experiences? It's very hard to make absolute judgements on this sort of thing by looking at a snapshot of a single society. (Also, one wonders, how much do either of those have to do with the bulk of contemporary Western politics? Perhaps I am merely cynical, but a lot of it consists of fairly mundane administrative business, rather than the grand, dynamic actions that the campaign ads would have us believe.)

I see no reason to introduce injustice through some type of positive discrimination because of tendencies in the sexes. It is possible that much of this is indeed cultural, but I'd rather change the culture than correct a possible wrong with a definite wrong.

Well, that's a complex issue. I do believe that "positive discrimination" does have it's uses, but only as far as it is able to change a culture, and not merely to create a superficial semblance of equality.

 

[Bei1052]

So how many times has "the patriarchy" been mentioned?

 

[Traitorfish]

Five, although one was in scare quotes, and two more were part of quotations.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

That doesn't mean that those Jews weren't marginalised, that they did not experience more subtle exclusion and oppression. I don't recall any major pogroms in the US, but I doubt that anyone would tell me with a straight face that Jews have never suffered any exceptional hardship in that country.

Oh, there was plenty. But it would not have been possible without a material advantage by another class.

Then that only goes to further illustrates the point that privilege did not depend upon material wealth, because these women, who, as you say, had only second-hand access to wealth still had a class privilege which ranked them far above working class men.

Yet they still had it somehow.

I think that, again, you're not grasping the true nature of social marginalisation;

No, I know what you mean. It is a subtler and more insidious form of exclusion, but at some point, you have to dispense with subtlety and recognize what, at face value, this all stems from.

Even accepting what you say about subtler forms of victimization, it is for nothing because there are no solutions offered. How do you get men to treat women with less "marginalization"? Sensitivity classes? Those are a joke.

And, as you say, Byron was marginalised in some senses and privileged in others, and, his society being what it was, the latter was greater than the former. That doesn't mean that he didn't experience some marginalisation, or that others with similar marginalised statuses didn't suffer from that marginalisation more greatly for a lack of privilege.

Remove the "Lord" from his name and he'd notice a difference.

("Non-neurotypical" refers to anyone of non-"normal" mental functioning; it was originally used in the context of autism activism, but can also refer to other mental conditions (not necessarily "mentally illness", in the traditional sense".)

So now autists are victims of historic oppression too? I wonder how that can be, when autism was only defined in recent times. Before that, autists were just thought of as "that weird, creepy guy."

But why material wealth? Are men somehow innately wealthier than women? Straights more than gays? Cis people more than trans people? I think you underestimate the role of culture in all this.

There are far too few transgendereds to have weighted out the power of cisgendereds. They also didn't exist until the 20th century, when the technology to perform that surgery even became available. Unless you are referring to hermaphrodites, who are of even fewer numbers.

With all due respect, "trite theorising" and "whining about victimisation" are not phrases which convey much in the way of interest.

Unless you have a specific complaint with a specific solution to a problem, it rings as nothing more than whining for victim attention.

 

[Traitorfish]

Oh, there was plenty. But it would not have been possible without a material advantage by another class.

But the majority of the other class were less wealthy than the wealthy Jews.

Yet they still had it somehow.

What do you mean?

No, I know what you mean. It is a subtler and more insidious form of exclusion, but at some point, you have to dispense with subtlety and recognize what, at face value, this all stems from.

That assumes that it does all stem from material inequality, which I'm not sure is the case. I would suggest that material inequality is the symptom of marginalisation as often as the reverse; are non-heterosexuals innately less wealthy than heterosexuals? Is there something about non-norm sexuality that puts one at a natural material disadvantage? I have no reason to think as much, so how do we explain heterosexism?

Even accepting what you say about subtler forms of victimization, it is for nothing because there are no solutions offered. How do you get men to treat women with less "marginalization"? Sensitivity classes? Those are a joke.

Raise awareness of male privilege. Encourage women to listen to men. Encourage people to think about expectations of gender, and to societal norms from individuals. It can be done; we're doing it already. Slowly, sure, but we're getting there.

Remove the "Lord" from his name and he'd notice a difference.

Well, yeah, that was kinda my point...?

So now autists are victims of historic oppression too? I wonder how that can be, when autism was only defined in recent times. Before that, autists were just thought of as "that weird, creepy guy."

You're conflating "marginalisation" with "oppression", or at least with a very particular usage of "oppression", which is not what I meant.

There are far too few transgendereds to have weighted out the power of cisgendereds. They also didn't exist until the 20th century, when the technology to perform that surgery even became available. Unless you are referring to hermaphrodites, who are of even fewer numbers.

That isn't even remotely true. I would suggest that you do a bit more research into the nature and diversity of trans identities, not all of which are, as you assume, transsexual. (Although intersex people (the preferred term) also suffer from a similar form of marginalisation.)

Even then, that doesn't really answer my question; why are these groups marginalised, if they had no innate lack of material wealth? Simply being a small minority doesn't explain it.

Unless you have a specific complaint with a specific solution to a problem, it rings as nothing more than whining for victim attention.

Is it illegitimate to observe that non-explicit sexism still exists? I would've thought it was preferable for its very imprecision...

 

[Cheetah]

Okay, I've been short on time and haven't been able to reply for a while. But I'll try to answer the easiest and/or most interesting points at least. Just ask me if there's something you think I should have answered that I didn't.

Yes, I'm getting into a bit of a less-than-properly-marshalled philosophical argument here. I'll try and beat it into some sort of order:

Basically, in Liberal philosophy, autonomy is assumed to be the fundamental right of a person, "person" usually being defined as a sapient being. As such, the imposed curtailing of autonomy constitutes the denial of full personhood, and as social marginalisation necessarily limits autonomy, it necessarily denies full personhood.

As this applies to women today, it is, in the West, primarily social, rather than political or economic forms; it takes the form of the overshadowing of women's work and voices in favour of those of men [1], of the widespread and widely accepted objectification of women[2], the double standards which exist in relationship to sexuality and sexual expression[3], and so on and so forth. All of these are forms of "soft oppression" which limit the ability of women to exercise full autonomy within society, being bound to imposed expectations of behaviour and performance and punished for deviation. (It's also worth noting that traditional sexism sucks for men, too, just to an (on average) lesser extent, so this isn't an exercise in blaming one side or the other; "Patriarchy", as they say, "hurts everyone".)

I still question whether those points you bring up are real, statistical problems.

The few instances I know of where [1] has happened, there has been a public outcry over how terrible it is, so I feel confident that this is no more a problem for women in general than it is for individual people anyway.

[2] happens of course, but just as much for men as for women. If I understood you correctly, your problem with objectification is that it limits people's autonomy. I will contend that limiting people's autonomy may actually be a good thing, and that we have laws, rules and social conventions precisely for that reason. If you'd like to be more specific and say that women are more sexually objectified than men, I'll agree with you, but point out that the only reason for this is the different ways in which men and women get sexually attracted (in general, women need a greater level of emotional attachment for attraction to take place, while men are much more direct). Such differences are real, but are only general rules that work well over large populations. On individual levels, you can find men and women operating differently from the default. And while women may be less likely to sexually objectify men, or only a small number of women do so at the same level as men, it is still being done. It is not innately about women having a "lower" position.

[3] is real, no argument about that. I know I certainly am more willing to settle with a less promiscuous girl, and I believe this holds true for most men. I believe this desire is an evolutionary trait we have picked up, and I believe women have picked up complementary traits. While [3] may cause some unhappiness, I believe it causes far more happiness, and I see nothing wrong with it.

That's it, yes. (It's honestly sort of baffling how many people can't quite grasp something so simple! )

We agree on this then. Nice with common ground.

I just realised though, making a person do anything without consent is (in all relevant cases) wrong. So theoretically, we shouldn't even need a special definition of rape, just the fact that something happens without consent should be enough.

Not sure how this realisation is useful, but I just felt like sharing it.

If the other partner has legitimate grounds for believing consent was given, then no. Miscommunication is certainly an issue which may arise.

Definitely. I think a lot of problems - both rape (or not) and most others - have a greater occurrence because of miscommunication.

A lot of her argument seems to depend on the fact that many women do not recognise what would be objectively described as rape as such, for whatever reason, which I'm not sure is particularly effective; not to condescend to the women in question, but rape is a very poorly understood topic, and more so in the United States than in other Western nations. For example, she declares that "it is inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily have sex again with the fiend who attacked her", which is a patent nonsense, and an offensive one; it relies on a deeply flawed understanding of rape as necessarily violent and necessarily occurring outside of a relationship, both of which are self-evidently incorrect, and erases the suffering (understood or not) of women who are trapped in abusive and sexually exploitative relationships.

Take her example of an apparently "actual" rape- it is extreme, violent, and non-characteristic of even most violent rapes. Using it as an illustration of "real" rape is not only unrealistic and limiting, but deeply insulting to those women who have experienced non-violent rape or rape within a relationship. It's akin to limiting one's understanding of school bullying to physical violence, which, until quite recently, was the understanding of not only most bullies and authority figures, but most victims.

I agree on the errors you point out vis-a-vis rape in relationships, etc., I noticed those flaws as well. However, I believe some of the main points still stand: A 25% rape occurrence is simply illogically high.

I also noted something in your reply (which I now can also see in the article), that didn't hit me before: By declaring that you know that the experience a woman had was rape, when she says she wasn't raped, are you not effectively, and very clearly, taking away that woman's autonomy? Or to say it in a more immature way: What right do you have to say whether a woman was raped or not?

You own definition of objectifying, for reference:

That's not what objectification means; it refers to a denial of or declinaton to acknowledge an individual as a subject, which is to say a thinking entity with it's own subjective experience. This is something which effects women to a far greater extent than men (although not exclusively so, of course), and is more deeply embedded in our culture.

Now, I'm just thinking aloud here, but could we be better served with identifying some sort of situation that exists between completely voluntary sex and rape? As several women seem to have experiences which you and others would label as rape, that they do not agree is rape, could it be that a simple, discrete choice of just two options - rape or voluntary sex - is not enough to describe all human experiences of this kind?

I will admit, there is a bit of cliquishness to certain blogs, which can be rather off-putting to outsiders. They usually assume a certain level of engagement with the theory as a baseline, which I'd say is fair enough- not every blog must act as Feminism 101- but they aren't always particularly fair about expressing it, and there can be the occasional swamping. Like any human endeavour, especially one with a particular philosophical interest, they have their flaws- I'm sure that one could easily find Republican or Liberal Democrat or French Socialist Party or whatever blogs that are similar.

Also, on the "support groups" thing: it should be remembered that many blogs are, to some extent, just that; they are consciously woman-friendly spaces designed to create a support network, of sorts, to help women deal with the sexism they face in everyday life. Some deal more heavily with theory, with activism or with political or cultural critique, and they generally have a different atmosphere as a result. The "support network" variety can get a bit introverted and insular at times, but that's part of the nature of the thing, and, while perhaps any given culture may be flawed, the format has its place.
Out of interest, are there any particular blogs you mean? The culture varies from blog to blog, as I said, depending on nature and philosophical bent, so examples of the sort you mean could reveal something as to the reason for the problems you've encountered.

Most of them were small ones (sorry, I can't seem to recollect their names), and I suspect you are perfectly correct in guessing that some of them may have been more of a support blog than an actual discussion blog. I did behave decently however, and it was a bit of a shock when I very quickly was accused of being a troll. I would have much preferred that they just explained that they didn't want any kind of critique there (well to be honest, some did try to explain in a partly composed manner that men weren't welcome with anything but reinforcing support for whatever point the blog authors or commenters made). But I can also understand their behaviour since they probably get a few trolls visiting too often for their liking.

Your notion of "feminism 101" did remind me of another place I went though: Shakesville. Which, to be honest, seems to be a bit on the crazy side, though I can easily find points they bring up that I agree with.

The exact same point can be applied to weak men, and is not relevant for strong women.
Still, the argument is always "women vs men" and never "weak vs strong", so the factor is not actual strenght, but sex.

Additionnally, if someone is picking a fight, why should we barred to fight back based on how the person will stand a chance ?
Is the person in fault the agressor or the winner ? Because I'm pretty sure it's the former.

This is where TraitorFish - and you probably - won't like me much: To me, this is about sex, and I do not hit women (unless they're running at me with a knife yada yada...), but, most of the time, I will hit back if a guy hits me.

I suppose this is a bit of the traditional chivalry, and that is perfectly fine with me. I like to act this way, and I will continue to act this way, and I will expect and encourage others to act this way, because I think sexually dimorphic differences in humans - both appearancewise and behaviorally - are not only natural, but, in the long run, good.

Well, there are complexities to it, yes, and it's certainly not so simple as "bosses are sexist". However, that does not mean that sexism does not play a part, that glass ceilings no longer exist, that structural sexism does not still effect people. Many careers are still heavily gendered, and "female" careers are overwhelmingly more poorly paid (in many cases, they became worse paid after their "feminisation").

Which occupations have become worse paid after "feminisation"? The only one I can think of is teachers, but I think that has far more broader reasons in society than simply an influx of female teachers.

As for things like male/female jobs and the wage gap in general, could I ask you to watch this: Why Men Earn More - The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap (8 parts on Youtube)

Spoiler :

Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.

Ah, fair enough; I just left that bit aside because I was trying to avoid getting derailed talking about Girls Gone Wild, but I'll adress it now.

I think your reading of culture is innaccurate. You forget that women are frequently held to much greater account for sexual promiscuity, while that men, on the other hand, are frequently compelled to actively pursue sexual "conquests"; it's the whole "slut/stud" double standard which has been very widely discussed, and which is noted as part of an understanding of sexuality which hurts both genders.
Also, on the issue of public nudity, I would say that this is far from a slant in women's favour, but simply another example of patriachal culture hurting both sides. The reason that female nudity is often "appreciated" is because it acts as an entertaining spectacle for heterosexual men, the socially dominant sexual demographic; it happens within the bounds of a culture of sexual objectification of women. On the other hand, male nudity is not appreciated, because it is not seen as a publical performance, but declaration of sexual intent on the part of the man, and can be seen as innappropriately assertive or, as you say, "predatory". That doesn't mean that male sexuality is overlooked or subordinated in the same way that female sexuality is, but that it's expression has its own set of limitations.

The two sexual standards are natural, and while they might not be ideal, it is better to accept the fact and work with/around it, than to insist that nature can be changed.

Oh, and I think it is interesting that you brought up male nudity as a comparison here. In you own mind, do you think it would be right that men should be able to publicly show of their bodies in the same way that women can do at present, or do you think that neither sex should show of their bodies the way women can do at present?

I ask, because I am perfectly in agreement with your analysis of the situation (except for certain extraneous terms that you tie in: patriarchy hurting both, etc. ), but there is no way I can see that men showing of their bodies in the same way as women can ever become legitimate: In general, women hate it, they find it creepy and very aggressive. Men don't like it much either; if it becomes too feminine it seems homosexual (and thus, threatening? Sorry, I'm not quite sure why this is so for many men...), if it's too masculine it's a too threatening rival.

On the other hand, showing of their bodies are one of the ways women can compete sexually for mens attention, and would most likely not be deprived of such a tool.

But why material wealth? Are men somehow innately wealthier than women? Straights more than gays? Cis people more than trans people? I think you underestimate the role of culture in all this.

Men are the sex who need to provide material resources to compete sexually, and as such culture grew to assume men to try to hoard wealth, so that we now have both the natural inclination and cultural expectations to hoard wealth. Gays and transgender people are simply too few compared to normal men, and also different, in some way. Humans are very good at creating in-groups and out-groups, and then the smallest (and thus weakest) group usually lose out.

Why are there more men who put themselves forward? Why are do so many women feel so disempowered, so unable to contribute to mainstream politics? They certainly don't have this same lack of presence in social activism, and in some areas- the Women's Movement and Pro-Choice Movements in particular- actively take the lead. Women involved in fringe politics, such as Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg and Lucía Sánchez Saornil, were able to occupy positions of leadership in the early 20th century, when sexism and misogyny were even more deeply entrenched- and more explicit- than they are today. We're supposed to live in democracies, after all, not feudal societies, so swaggering alpha males should not naturally rise to the top of the pile. I would suggest that this (alpha) male-dominated nature of contemporary mainstream politics is itself symptomatic of an entrenched system of male privilege, one which harms both men and women by privileging that small number of the former able to adopt a sufficient exaggerated performance of masculinity.

Men are by nature more likely to seek status and power, because those are strong indicators of sexual attractiveness, naturally speaking. Women do not have the same drive. Social activism may have more women in it simply because it holds less status and power than other areas and thus less men seek to join (this could just as much have with the fact that social activism many times go against the current social standards, which said men would most likely see the benefit from).

And whatever the political system, alpha males do naturally rise to the top of the pile. Simply because they are the ones who try the most. Some fail of course, but others do succeed.

I'm not meaning to nag here, but I simply do not hold that one can look at any given moment and form that infer a natural and absolute "way of things". Contemporary society is not, as some would have you believe, the natural expression of any genetically-encoded "human nature", and very little about it is immutable.

I would actually argue that the modern, Western society is very much nearing the natural state. In less developed countries, we see that more girls choose to study maths and hard sciences, because they want to be engineers and scientists, and improve the world they see around them. In the West, fewer girls choose this, simply because here they can choose whatever that themselves want to choose, and more often than not that is not maths and hard sciences. There are many "exceptions" (don't think it is so rare it can be called exception really), but most girls do not seek to become engineers or scientists. They want media, and drama and jobs where they can "talk with people"...

Boys on the other hand, mostly make choices that they think will land them the most money - and by extension, better chances with girls (after the traditional model). Many of them choose engineering, both because they like it (like the girls who choose it), but some also because they know/think there will be good money and job security in it. But they'll easily choose any high paying career path.

And in the dating market, the alphas do get more of the girls than the less aggressive men...


And now I need to sleep! I'm two hours late for an appointment with my bed!

 

[Traitorfish]

I still question whether those points you bring up are real, statistical problems.

The few instances I know of where [1] has happened, there has been a public outcry over how terrible it is, so I feel confident that this is no more a problem for women in general than it is for individual people anyway.

Well, honestly, this isn't one I think that we can prove decisively; by it's nature, its occurence is unnoticed. All I can is that this is a complaint which womanly frequently have in regards to gender equality, and seems to be borne out by the dominance of male voices in the great majority of fields- political, professional and academic- so it's not something I'm inclined to dismiss as an occasional fluke.

[2] happens of course, but just as much for men as for women. If I understood you correctly, your problem with objectification is that it limits people's autonomy. I will contend that limiting people's autonomy may actually be a good thing, and that we have laws, rules and social conventions precisely for that reason. If you'd like to be more specific and say that women are more sexually objectified than men, I'll agree with you, but point out that the only reason for this is the different ways in which men and women get sexually attracted (in general, women need a greater level of emotional attachment for attraction to take place, while men are much more direct). Such differences are real, but are only general rules that work well over large populations. On individual levels, you can find men and women operating differently from the default. And while women may be less likely to sexually objectify men, or only a small number of women do so at the same level as men, it is still being done. It is not innately about women having a "lower" position.

It happens for men and women, but to suggest an even vague equality in occurence seems very limited in perspective. How much pressure is there upon you, as a man, to present yourself as sexually attractive in day to day life as compared to women? How regularly is the same purely physical standard of attraction asserted in regards to your gender as to women? How narrow is the range of romantically and sexually viable body types of men as compared to women?
This isn't simply about judging people by the apperances, but about the subjective experience of people- people who are mostly women- being made subservient to their percieved value as a sexual object, if that experience is at all acknowledged. Other forms of objectification exist- the Marxist concept of "labour power", for example, is in part a comment on the objectification which occurs in unskilled or semi-skilled labour, and some commentary has been issued on the idea of men as "success objects"- but this is one that is particularly relevent to the issue of gender inequality.

Also, that "women want love, men what sex"; that's a common enough idea, yeah, but not one I've ever seen validated; all that can be shown is that women claim to want love and act in such a fashion, and that men claim to want sex and act in such a fashion, but the actual desires of either gender is hardly self-evident. The argument that says both want love and sex, but are limited by societal norms in which are deemed "acceptable" is no less incosistent with these observations, and certainly explains the myriad exceptions and incosistencies more effectively than normalising essentialism ever can.

[3] is real, no argument about that. I know I certainly am more willing to settle with a less promiscuous girl, and I believe this holds true for most men. I believe this desire is an evolutionary trait we have picked up, and I believe women have picked up complementary traits. While [3] may cause some unhappiness, I believe it causes far more happiness, and I see nothing wrong with it.

Because it leads to the elevation of male promiscuity- "studs") as a mark of masculinity and so social status, while at the same time leading to the shaming of "sluts", and the ensuing social punishment that results? Even though the "studs" need the "sluts" to exist? So it's a system which demands the (percieved) degridation of women to affirm the social status of men? That it is therefore fundamentally and untenable misogynistic? I mean, just off the top of my head, y'know.

We agree on this then. Nice with common ground.

I just realised though, making a person do anything without consent is (in all relevant cases) wrong. So theoretically, we shouldn't even need a special definition of rape, just the fact that something happens without consent should be enough.

Not sure how this realisation is useful, but I just felt like sharing it.

Well, rape has some specific aspects to it that make it exceptional, specifically the violation of bodily autonomy and the forced breach of phsycial and often (though not universally) emotional intimacy which human beings attach to sexual acts- although, of course, there are other acts which also have such problems, such as forced strip-searches (although these can sometimes be a form of sexual assault in themselves).
Certainly, rape is not, as traditionalists believe, wrong simply because it is in violation of established sexual mores, but it is, at least in our society, something worth considering as distinct from other forms of coercion.

Definitely. I think a lot of problems - both rape (or not) and most others - have a greater occurrence because of miscommunication.

That is part of it, yes; even setting aside the issue of rape, the poor "training" that both genders receive in effectively communicating sexual desire leads to a lot of problems in relationships, and everybody walking away feeling unhappy and unsatisfied.

I agree on the errors you point out vis-a-vis rape in relationships, etc., I noticed those flaws as well. However, I believe some of the main points still stand: A 25% rape occurrence is simply illogically high.

On what basis? It seems like the objection to this statistic is based on a reluctance to accept that such a high level of occurance could be possible, rather than any reasoned argument against it; a difficulty in accepting that something that is so universally understood to be a Bad Thing could be so prevalent. Now, I'm not arguing for the statistic as such- I honestly don't know the deails- but "illogically high" is a claim which seems to owe more to emotion than to logic.

I also noted something in your reply (which I now can also see in the article), that didn't hit me before: By declaring that you know that the experience a woman had was rape, when she says she wasn't raped, are you not effectively, and very clearly, taking away that woman's autonomy? Or to say it in a more immature way: What right do you have to say whether a woman was raped or not?

I am afraid that this is a red herring; to define a non-consensual experience as rape when the victim does not is not a denial of their subjetive experience, but a differing interpretation of it. We disagree on how "rape" is defined- something which has a far from universally mutual definition, despite how obvious it really is- not on the mechanical process which this woman experienced.

You own definition of objectifying, for reference:

That's not what objectification means; it refers to a denial of or declinaton to acknowledge an individual as a subject, which is to say a thinking entity with it's own subjective experience. This is something which effects women to a far greater extent than men (although not exclusively so, of course), and is more deeply embedded in our culture.

Now, I'm just thinking aloud here, but could we be better served with identifying some sort of situation that exists between completely voluntary sex and rape? As several women seem to have experiences which you and others would label as rape, that they do not agree is rape, could it be that a simple, discrete choice of just two options - rape or voluntary sex - is not enough to describe all human experiences of this kind?

Honestly? No, and that line of inquiry- which has been previously pursued- only leaves room for rape denialism and apologism. At best, some forms of nominally consensual sex demand re-evaluation- voluntary sex within an abusive relationship, for example- but our understanding of rape must be ironclad if the problem is to be adressed.

Most of them were small ones (sorry, I can't seem to recollect their names), and I suspect you are perfectly correct in guessing that some of them may have been more of a support blog than an actual discussion blog. I did behave decently however, and it was a bit of a shock when I very quickly was accused of being a troll. I would have much preferred that they just explained that they didn't want any kind of critique there (well to be honest, some did try to explain in a partly composed manner that men weren't welcome with anything but reinforcing support for whatever point the blog authors or commenters made). But I can also understand their behaviour since they probably get a few trolls visiting too often for their liking.

I suppose it may be worth observing that there is a particular phenonemon within social activism circles known as the "concern troll", which is to say a troll who acts under a pretence of sincere concern, and it is sometimes easy for an unexperienced outsider to sound like one. Some people are very quick to jump on suspects- often too quick, I fear, and may have driven away more potential allies than they realise. Small blogs are generally percieved as more "private" spaces, and so percieved intrusion will often result in greater hostility.
(While we're on blogs, I would suggest a skim through Tiger Beatdown, my personal favourite, which has the bonus of a very well represented male perspective in the presence of two regular contributors who are male and a formerly-living-as-male transwoman, respectively, thus avoiding some of the "battle lines" attitude you may find on some smaller blogs. It's primarily concerned with cultural (particularly pop cultural) analysis and critique, so you won't have to deal with too much in the way of grand theorising, (although you may have to look elsewhere for some elaboration on certain concepts) but it contains some fairly effective "case studies", as it were, of a feminist view on sexuality and gender. It's damn funny, too.)

Your notion of "feminism 101" did remind me of another place I went though: Shakesville. Which, to be honest, seems to be a bit on the crazy side, though I can easily find points they bring up that I agree with.

Shakesville is a funny one, I will admit; there are some good resources there (their Feminism 101 is pretty good, and is, indeed, where I most likely unthinkingly borrowed the term), and some good posts, but I will admit that a lot of the argumentation tends towards the emotive, which, while it certainly has it's place- McEwan has a knack for expressing outrage, I will say that much- can be difficult to penetrate for outsiders. It's a staple of the online feminist community, but it really isn't ideal for iniates, or at least male ones; from my own experience, I was

This is where TraitorFish - and you probably - won't like me much: To me, this is about sex, and I do not hit women (unless they're running at me with a knife yada yada...), but, most of the time, I will hit back if a guy hits me.

Y'know, honestly, in the context of contemporary society I don't find this all that problematic; it's inideal, obviously, but we hit that point the moment folk start walloping each other. As much as I preach grand ideals, I am well aware that the practical reality is different, and that none of us are free from the opinions and expectations of others. Marx still drank at a privately owned pub, if you seem what I mean.

Which occupations have become worse paid after "feminisation"? The only one I can think of is teachers, but I think that has far more broader reasons in society than simply an influx of female teachers.

Well, most of what is now considered "pink collar" work serves as the most obvious example- secreteries, librarians, table-waiting, service industry work, etc.- which were all of greater status before women entered the workforce and came to dominate those careers. Even today, one can view the dissonance across continents; parking enforcement is seen, in the UK, as a gender-neutral, even masculine career, while in the US it is seen as feminine, and the difference in titles- "Traffic Warden" against "Meter Maid"- reflects this.

As for things like male/female jobs and the wage gap in general, could I ask you to watch this: Why Men Earn More - The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap (8 parts on Youtube)

Spoiler :

Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.

I'll have a look at this, although I'll have to get back to you on my thoughts later.

I will note, thought, that Dr. Farrell isn't known for being head-over-heels in love with traditional or deterministic attitudes towards gender, so I'm not sure that he falls down on your side of things any more certainly than on mine.

The two sexual standards are natural, and while they might not be ideal, it is better to accept the fact and work with/around it, than to insist that nature can be changed.

What do you mean by "natural"? "Derived from nature" hardly communicates innateness. Culture wasn't something we developed in the neolithic after all, even chimpanzees have it, so why declare the "now" be the "always"? It's not as if the double standard is universal, after all, or at least not in the same stark terms as traditional Western culture- contemporary Western culture alone suggests as much!

Oh, and I think it is interesting that you brought up male nudity as a comparison here. In you own mind, do you think it would be right that men should be able to publicly show of their bodies in the same way that women can do at present, or do you think that neither sex should show of their bodies the way women can do at present?

I ask, because I am perfectly in agreement with your analysis of the situation (except for certain extraneous terms that you tie in: patriarchy hurting both, etc. ), but there is no way I can see that men showing of their bodies in the same way as women can ever become legitimate: In general, women hate it, they find it creepy and very aggressive. Men don't like it much either; if it becomes too feminine it seems homosexual (and thus, threatening? Sorry, I'm not quite sure why this is so for many men...), if it's too masculine it's a too threatening rival.

On the other hand, showing of their bodies are one of the ways women can compete sexually for mens attention, and would most likely not be deprived of such a tool.

That is honestly a question about which I am not certain, but I would suggest that it owes something to circumstance.

Also, the feminine/homosexual thing is hardly absolute- not merely because homophobia is absolute (Anicent Greek men, for example, loved naked men, and as much because as despite of any sexual connotations) but because those particualr connotations are not absolute, and in fact have become relatively exagerated in the last few decades in response to the growth of the Gay Rights movement. Just look at all the Nazi propaganda showing topless Aryan supermen with bulging muscles and chisled jaws- either there was some repressed homosexuality their, or we simply interpret such images differently. (Incidentally, am I the only one who finds it hilarious that gay culture has managed to claim both the effeminate and masculine ends of male presentation as their own, trapping homophobic men in a very uneasy centre? )

Men are the sex who need to provide material resources to compete sexually, and as such culture grew to assume men to try to hoard wealth, so that we now have both the natural inclination and cultural expectations to hoard wealth. Gays and transgender people are simply too few compared to normal men, and also different, in some way. Humans are very good at creating in-groups and out-groups, and then the smallest (and thus weakest) group usually lose out.

I'm not sure that this is ture; most primitive cultures seem to be egalitarian and lacking and understanding of private property- Marx wasn't pulling things out of his ass when he discussed "primitive communism"- and the gender-based division of labour within them varies significantly from culture to culture. It only seems to fall into the patterns we see today with the developent of agriculture (and with it, the hoarding which you describe), so, while perhaps the natural path for human society to take, is hardly coded into our genes.

Also, the assumption of heterosexuality and cisgenderism as universal is naive; as I have mentioned previously, many cultures exist in which neither is the case. In Classical Europe and much of historical East Asia, for example, bisexuality was the assumed norm, even when heterosexuality was advocated as a more "proper" practice (and that was hardly universal; the Greeks, for example, were of the opinion that male homosexual love was the purest love of all).

Men are by nature more likely to seek status and power, because those are strong indicators of sexual attractiveness, naturally speaking. Women do not have the same drive. Social activism may have more women in it simply because it holds less status and power than other areas and thus less men seek to join (this could just as much have with the fact that social activism many times go against the current social standards, which said men would most likely see the benefit from).

You keep going back to "by nature", but I've yet to see any solid arguments- here or elsewhere- that any of this behaviour is "natural", in the sense of being innate. At best, what can be established is the route society took to end up where it is today, but this doesn't suggest that it is innate to humanity, let alone correct.

And whatever the political system, alpha males do naturally rise to the top of the pile. Simply because they are the ones who try the most. Some fail of course, but others do succeed.

But why? Is it because they are naturally inclined to rise to the top of any society, or because societies are built in such a way as to allow them to rise? Hell, does society even need a top in the first place? Many disagree.

I would actually argue that the modern, Western society is very much nearing the natural state. In less developed countries, we see that more girls choose to study maths and hard sciences, because they want to be engineers and scientists, and improve the world they see around them. In the West, fewer girls choose this, simply because here they can choose whatever that themselves want to choose, and more often than not that is not maths and hard sciences. There are many "exceptions" (don't think it is so rare it can be called exception really), but most girls do not seek to become engineers or scientists. They want media, and drama and jobs where they can "talk with people"...

Boys on the other hand, mostly make choices that they think will land them the most money - and by extension, better chances with girls (after the traditional model). Many of them choose engineering, both because they like it (like the girls who choose it), but some also because they know/think there will be good money and job security in it. But they'll easily choose any high paying career path.

I fear that what you may be doing here is allowing the state of things to inform you as to an assumed essence, and then citing conformity to what is percieved to be the appropriate essence as evidence of the correctness of contemporary social norms, which is circular, to say the least. Remember, all fields of study- including media, drama and so forth- were considered to be the domain of men at one point, because women were simply too "irrational" or "stupid" to handle them. We have been re-drawing the boundaries of "appropriate" gender roles for around a century or so, with little sign of stopping. That's not to deny that the contemporarily differing norms effect current distribution of careers, of course- as I said, most of this is down to structural sexism (and not exclusively or entirely to the detriment of women)- but that doesn't imply that the underlying structure is "natural", innate or even acceptable.

*phew* I will say this much about you, Cheetah, you're certainly up for a hefty discussion.

 

[Elrohir]

Most of them were small ones (sorry, I can't seem to recollect their names), and I suspect you are perfectly correct in guessing that some of them may have been more of a support blog than an actual discussion blog. I did behave decently however, and it was a bit of a shock when I very quickly was accused of being a troll. I would have much preferred that they just explained that they didn't want any kind of critique there (well to be honest, some did try to explain in a partly composed manner that men weren't welcome with anything but reinforcing support for whatever point the blog authors or commenters made). But I can also understand their behaviour since they probably get a few trolls visiting too often for their liking.

I've done similar things, although to be fair, I was half in it for the lulz, as I expected to get jumped on. Which I was, of course -- even though I was perfectly polite, and kept to asking questions and backing up assertions with evidence. I was banned in about two hours, I believe. (I think the final offending comment was my argument that yes, it is against the law to rape a woman in Oregon, because it's considered a class C felony to have sex with a drunk woman, and that particular instance isn't mentioned in the class A felony rape section -- I tried to convince them that having varying levels of felonies on different sorts of crimes doesn't mean they're LEGAL, but they didn't buy it.)

But, to be fair, this does seem to happen with all sorts of insular blogs. I once posted a comment on a conservative blog (Rightwingnews.com -- seriously!) where I noted that a wikipedia article actually existed, when the blogger had said it didn't. I was nearly instantly accused of being a Kos-troll and a librul, because I hadn't noticed that the article was recently created, as part of some liberal plot?

Feminist blogs and forums do seem to be especially insular and cliquey, but it's hardly unique, although it is extremely interesting.

 

[Traitorfish]

As for things like male/female jobs and the wage gap in general, could I ask you to watch this: Why Men Earn More - The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap (8 parts on Youtube)

Spoiler :

Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.

Well, I had a watch of this, and, I will say, it was well worth it. Interesting stuff- I've encountered Farrell's stuff before, and, while I don't always agree with what he says, he's informed enough and intelligent enough to successfully engage with the issues, rather than just resorting to reactionary denial. A few thoughts on it:

- It forced me to actually stop and think where I was going with this topic. I will admit, my original reference to the pay gap was a bit throw-away, and I rather self-evidently found myself flailing a bit when challenged on it. I did acknowledge earlier that, in most fields, the majority of the contemporary pay gap was down to the kind of simple sexism that it once was, although I didn't exactly follow that up very well. (Also, Farrell makes a good point in observing that in certain "feminine" fields, the situation is reversed. Patriarchy hurts everyone...)

- I think his observations about the risk of holding an over-simplistic view of power or success are valuable, and something that I really should've been able to reach on my own, given my leftist economic politics. (I will admit, I have yet to properly synthesise all areas of my views.)

- However, I think that the point raised by one of the questioners- that to portray the different measures listed as entirely free choices- is very important, and I think this is where my earlier comments about "structural sexism" become relevant. Both subtle discrimination and socialisation effect the choices which people make and feel comfortable making, and so their opportunities and outcomes. Many women are therefore encouraged to go into "softer" careers, which are less stressful but less financially rewarding, while men are encouraged into "harder" careers with greater reward but greater stress, whether or not either avenue is ideal for the person in question. Patriarchy, yet again, hurts everyone.)

- Also, I think his points about the way in which each gender is socialised are very important, even if he neglects to tie it to any wider social critique. His observation that men are expected to marry "down", while women are expected to marry "up", are quite telling as to the double standards we entertain. The continued expectation for women to look for a man capable of materially supporting them not only restricts the life-choices of women, but also seems to play some part in objectifying men by reducing them to a giant walking wallet, which, while perhaps not as problematic as sexual objectification, is far from ideal- I believe Farrell has referred to this elsewhere as reducing men to "success objects". (Patriarchy blahdy blahdy everybugger.)

-Also, being a big old stinking Red as I am, I can't help but wonder if more of this disparity is down to capitalism than to any innate "human nature", given that it is a system which actively rewards the aggressive self-assertion which is characteristic of "alpha" males. Certainly, the "success objectification" discussed above fits neatly with the dehumanising aspects of capitalism so long critiqued by the left. Arguably, given the extent to which we have stepped away from formal behavioural restrictions, a move towards a more cooperative society could naturally lead to greater gender-egalitarianism. Food for though, food for thought.

 

[Danei]

Why do people always bring up the "but men and women are biologically different!" argument? No feminist that I know of thinks men and women aren't a little bit biologically different, on average (though these differences are much, much smaller than some people seem to believe--they're magnified by culture and socialization many times over). The issue comes when individuals (of any gender) that aren't in the middle of the bell curve in every area are being oppressed, ridiculed, or discriminated against because they're 'acting manly' or 'acting feminine', or otherwise not adhering to their prescribed gender roles.

 

[Brighteye]

His observation that men are expected to marry "down", while women are expected to marry "up", are quite telling as to the double standards we entertain. The continued expectation for women to look for a man capable of materially supporting them not only restricts the life-choices of women, but also seems to play some part in objectifying men by reducing them to a giant walking wallet, which, while perhaps not as problematic as sexual objectification, is far from ideal- I believe Farrell has referred to this elsewhere as reducing men to "success objects". (Patriarchy blahdy blahdy everybugger.)

-Also, being a big old stinking Red as I am, I can't help but wonder if more of this disparity is down to capitalism than to any innate "human nature", given that it is a system which actively rewards the aggressive self-assertion which is characteristic of "alpha" males. Certainly, the "success objectification" discussed above fits neatly with the dehumanising aspects of capitalism so long critiqued by the left. Arguably, given the extent to which we have stepped away from formal behavioural restrictions, a move towards a more cooperative society could naturally lead to greater gender-egalitarianism. Food for though, food for thought.

I'd like a little explanation of why sexual objectification is worse than success objectification. Both, in their extremes, lead to a person not bothering to deal with another person because they don't fulfill arbitrary criteria. I've not actually seen such an extreme case of sexual objectification, however, whereas I have known women ignore men who were not rich. I have seen men not give a romantic chance to ugly women, but talk to them anyway.

On the subject of working longer hours, I find the tie to scientific progress interesting. Science-fiction writers of previous generations envisaged lives of leisure in which humans would be mostly free for cultural pursuits, or to engage with advancing science and technology if they chose.
Instead of reducing our work-times, however, the pressure to earn more than others, be more successful than others and be a better provider (success object) for grasping partners has led people to work as long, and simply consume resources faster (produce more). Success objectification and macho competitive behaviour (which might well be heavily linked) could be said to be the underlying reasons why we live in an over-consuming world rather than a mostly work-free one.

The science fiction dream of humans being waited on will never occur until human time is worthless, or we cease chasing greater personal productivity. If a number of people chase productivity then others will feel the need to keep up, in a vicious circle of harder work.
If we can't cut the cultural reasons for competitiveness, and we can't wait until human labour is completely worthless, then the other alternative is to prevent there being such great differences in personal productivity. If we were to introduce a swingeing tax bracket above £180,000, say, then anyone earning such ridiculous sums would simply work part-time. Because all super-rich people would have the same income, they would compete with the amount of free time that they had, and that, most probably, would set the example for the rest of society.

We'd then score highly on happiness and human development, and lower on GDP. But who cares about GDP if we're much happier and as healthy?

As we know from recent books and research, the more equal society created would also no longer suffer from the myriad problems associated with inequality.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd like a little explanation of why sexual objectification is worse than success objectification. Both, in their extremes, lead to a person not bothering to deal with another person because they don't fulfill arbitrary criteria. I've not actually seen such an extreme case of sexual objectification, however, whereas I have known women ignore men who were not rich. I have seen men not give a romantic chance to ugly women, but talk to them anyway.

I wouldn't say that either is innately worse than the other, but it's generally understood that the former effects women to a greater extent than the latter effects men. This isn't a competition, after all; sexism hurts everyone.

(Of course, there's also the simple fact that the means by which becoming a more attractive "success object" is achieved also lend one a very real financial power, while becoming an attractive "sex object" more often that not only gives one indirect access to power, at the liberty of others. That's not to say that neither are harmful, but at least the former is more likely to have positive side effects.)

If we can't cut the cultural reasons for competitiveness, and we can't wait until human labour is completely worthless, then the other alternative is to prevent there being such great differences in personal productivity. If we were to introduce a swingeing tax bracket above £180,000, say, then anyone earning such ridiculous sums would simply work part-time. Because all super-rich people would have the same income, they would compete with the amount of free time that they had, and that, most probably, would set the example for the rest of society.

I'm not sure that this would work; the super-rich don't gain their money through waged labour as the rest of us do, but from the revenue generated by ownership of property. Also, it's naive to think that increasing the leisure time of the ruling class would somehow cause leisure to filter down to the lower orders; the Victorian aristocracy were far more leisurely than their contemporary proles, yet the proles worked in quasi-slaves for up to fourteen hours a day. Despite our modern pretensions of classlessness, the majority have never followed the rich so neatly as that.

 

[Akka]

This is where TraitorFish - and you probably - won't like me much: To me, this is about sex, and I do not hit women (unless they're running at me with a knife yada yada...), but, most of the time, I will hit back if a guy hits me.

I suppose this is a bit of the traditional chivalry, and that is perfectly fine with me. I like to act this way, and I will continue to act this way, and I will expect and encourage others to act this way, because I think sexually dimorphic differences in humans - both appearancewise and behaviorally - are not only natural, but, in the long run, good.

Hey, you know, I actually like that there IS difference between men and women (that was my first post in the thread), and if you go and admit openly it's arbitrary, I can at least appreciate the honesty.
As long as you don't try to enforce this double standard when someone defend himself against an agressor who happens to be a woman... I don't see it as a good thing (because I consider it harmful at large to let a-holes get away with being a-holes) but that's not something that will keep me awake at night ^^