Lets get this out into the open: MRAs

[Phrossack]

"Stop being such a guy." conveys about the same thing.

I can't say I've ever heard that phrase. Is it said to men or to women?

 

[Tarquelne]

I can't say I've ever heard that phrase. Is it said to men or to women?

Women. (Note the edit. Not widespread so far as I know.)

 

[Phrossack]

Women, by upbringing, are traditionally taught quite a bit about basic responsibility and enduring things. They're valuable characteristics for a helpmeet. Very "sellable."

For men, those subjects may be skipped in favor of extra machismo lessons. Hmm ... I might even argue they're antithetical to machismo as it's commonly expressed.

What do you mean by "basic responsibility and enduring things"? It's pretty vague, and isn't just about everyone who isn't spoiled rotten taught basic responsibility and to endure "things?" I mean, you're making it sound as if parents tell their daughters to clean the dishes and endure beatings and tell their sons to drink Brawndo, lift weights, and shave their heads with chainsaws.

FWIW, my whole life I haven't been expected to do stereotypically masculine things, but I have been expected to be considerate and do household chores.

 

[Tarquelne]

... Doublemint, doublemint, doublemint gum!

 

[Tarquelne]

What do you mean by "basic responsibility and enduring things"?

Seeing lots of little tasks though. Getting stuff done. Being the one who is blamed if it isn't.

Putting up with stuff.

Boys are supposed to get a lot of each. Some do. For others, there's entitlement.

It's pretty vague, and isn't just about everyone who isn't spoiled rotten taught basic responsibility and to endure "things?"

It's a question of degree.

I mean, you're making it sound as if parents tell their daughters to clean the dishes and endure beatings and tell their sons to drink Brawndo, lift weights, and shave their heads with chainsaws.

Sounds like a very traditional household. The daughters also need to learn to cook.


Remember, please, I'm talking about tendencies and tradition.

But so far as anecdotes go...

FWIW, my whole life I haven't been expected to do stereotypically masculine things, but I have been expected to be considerate and do household chores.

The words "stereotypically" and "but" in that sentence are telling.

 

[Phrossack]

Seeing lots of little tasks though. Getting stuff done. Being the one who is blamed if it isn't.

Putting up with stuff.

Boys are supposed to get a lot of each. Some do. For others, there's entitlement.

It's a question of degree.

You're still shying away from giving any examples or evidence, instead making very vague and groundless generalizations.

Sounds like a very traditional household. The daughters also need to learn to cook.


Remember, please, I'm talking about tendencies and tradition.

Do you have any examples of this? Any at all? Every household I know of expects the boys to do chores as well as the girls. Wash dishes, mow the lawn, do laundry, take out the trash, help with cooking, everything.

The words "stereotypically" and "but" in that sentence are telling.

No, they really aren't.

Do you have any proof for your assertions?

 

[Tarquelne]

You're still shying away from giving any examples or evidence, instead making very vague and groundless generalizations.

What's with the forum today? I offered a few examples of what I mean, which is what you asked for. "What do you mean by..."

If you want to know the meanings of the words, use a dictionary. If you want a completely all-inclusive explanation, give me a spare year or two and I'll write a book if I feel like it.

Or, better yet, ask better questions or simply request further clarification rather than complaining, accusing, and whining that my answers are insufficient.

Do you have any examples of this? Any at all?

No, I made it all up. I've never even heard of anyone bending girls toward domestic service while boys are groomed to rule petty dictatorships. All through history there has been no sexism in child rearing. Whew!

Every household I know of expects the boys to do chores as well as the girls. Wash dishes, mow the lawn, do laundry, take out the trash, help with cooking, everything.

See!? No sexism.

No, they really aren't.

Gosh, if only I supported my statements as well as you do, I wouldn't have wasted your time with your last three posts.

Now, given your flat contradiction, I understand your earlier post in mentioning stereotypically male behaviors and chores is - and this is the cool part - actually proving their non-existence! Though in a way I don't comprehend.

The "but" - rather than signalling some sort of exception setting you away from the norm or expectations - must have just been a typo.

Do you have any proof for your assertions?

No, none at all. I forgot that I had to have "proof" to join the discussion and at this point simply don't feel like gathering documentation for something I consider sufficiently well known and/or clear.

Yet in this thread I won't post anymore unless I can do so with all the links, certified statements, or tell-all videos that you've used. Fair's fair.



Why, on the internet, does it sometimes take so long to say "I'm not talking to you!!"

(Ah! Because we have to make it clear we're not reading anymore either...)

Any other answers, not being mine, must include a 2 page bibliography, 2 personal examples, and a link to a wiki article.

 

[Phrossack]

rant

rant

Christ, you're pissy. All I did was point out that you made vague generalizations with no evidence. I'm not personally attacking you.

You began by asserting that girls, unlike boys, are raised to be responsible, skilled, and useful, while boys are trained to be spoiled, irresponsible, useless brats. I challenged this assertion and requested evidence. You responded by getting angry, pretending the burden of the proof lay on me to prove that your assertion was wrong, making more vague generalizations without evidence, and claiming that I'm being too lazy to use a dictionary. This despite the fact that I wasn't asking you to define words, but was rather asking you to clarify on your vague wording. You literally said, and I quote,

Women, by upbringing, are traditionally taught quite a bit about basic responsibility and enduring things. They're valuable characteristics for a helpmeet. Very "sellable."

For men, those subjects may be skipped in favor of extra machismo lessons. Hmm ... I might even argue they're antithetical to machismo as it's commonly expressed.

In paragraph one, you assert that women are taught about "basic responsibility and enduring things." What responsibilities they have, and what things they ought endure, aren't even hinted at.

In paragraph two, you asserted that men are allowed to skip these undefined subjects in favor of "machismo lessons," a phrase which can be interpreted in a million different ways. Again, you left this undefined.

I challenged these two assertions. You eventually defined part of para one by using my examples of chores (which, incidentally, I brought up because here they were being done by men!) as things women are expected to do. Yet you didn't defend the assertion with evidence.

You did not attempt to define "machismo lessons," so the phrase here means different things to different people. I mean, you probably don't actually think that manliness entails shaving heads with chainsaws and drinking Brawndo. More importantly, however, you made no attempt to defend your assertion that men merely goof off rather than do any chores or behave responsibly.

In an argument, when one of your assertions is challenged, you're expected to either prove it or drop it, especially when the burden of the proof lies on you. In this case, it arguably does lie on you, since, at least in my country and in this day and age, boys are expected to do housework and chores and be responsible like anyone else.

Now, if you're right, it should be easy to pull out a study or article or two or ten that finds that girls are raised to be responsible and handy around the house, while boys are expected not to help out and to be irresponsible.

If you succeed at this, I will agree that this is bad and that boys ought to be raised to do the same chores and be just as responsible as girls and just as often. In my extended family, everyone is raised that way, and my family isn't exactly known for being a militantly feminist bunch of people who reject traditional norms. It also doesn't raise any eyebrows that our boys do laundry or cook or do dishes and are expected to clean up after themselves.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yup. I'll take the credit for some of that.

I do actually agree with you, here. (If only I weren't so lazy in thought and deed, I might, might, have written something similar.)

But it will never catch on, I think.

Let's print the T-shirts anyway, though.

Not a t-shirt campaign. A Seuss-like childrens' story:

If your room is messy
Be a bee! Be a bee!
For a bee (don’t you see)
Is most definitely
The most excellent crea-
ture to be.

For the bee is esteemed
For how diligently
(Which really just means
With how much energy)
It collects on its knees
The ingredients need-
ed to sweeten honey.

Be a bee, for the bee
Has a secret, you see:
As it so busily
(And so buzzily)
Completes its duty
It enjoys the pansy
And the rose and the he-
liotrope and lily.
For the flowers are free
With their perfumery.

If your room is messy
Be a bee! Be a bee!
Put things more tidily,
But enjoy all the swee
tness as well. Be a bee!

Now you're just encouraging us to lead brief, sexless lives of toiling purely for the good of the community until we die.

As soon as the youngsters discover these other characteristics of bees, they will be well-exercised in being flexible about adopting roles, and they will be able, should they wish, to adopt the role of whatever creature represents a long-lived, over-sexed, non-communitarian.

Spoiler :

Donald Sterling?

 

[Yeekim]

I think that in developed nations, patriarchy now continues to operate mostly through minute, scarcely-noticable, notions and assumptions. But these notions and assumptions are nevertheless numerous and collectively, they silently condition our thinking in ways that generally tend to work to the advantage of men.
/a really long post/
What does feminism need to get past this remnant of patriarchy? Time, scrutiny of minute particulars and creativity.

First, I should say that I really do appreciate the effort you've taken to answer in such a lengthy and thoughtful manner.
I agree that there exist a number of "minute and scarcely noticeable notions and assumptions" - but I would also claim that this is just what they are: minute and scarcely noticeable. We shouldn't be confusing what is at best an echo of patriarchy (or remnant, as you called it) with the thing itself, especially given what you also touched upon: that these notions and assumptions are not at all universally beneficial to men and harmful to women.
What actually conditions our minds to more: a minute and hardly noticeable linguistic relict, or constant high-pitched assertions of women being at a perpetual disadvantage and having to swim against the tide?

I am not saying we shouldn't challenge these relicts or seeking to replace them - I very much agree we need but time, scrutiny and little bit of creativity to overcome them - but that they shouldn't be credited with undue influence.

 

[Gori the Grey]

First, I should say that I really do appreciate the effort you've taken to answer in such a lengthy and thoughtful manner.
I agree that there exist a number of "minute and scarcely noticeable notions and assumptions" - but I would also claim that this is just what they are: minute and scarcely noticeable. We shouldn't be confusing what is at best an echo of patriarchy (or remnant, as you called it) with the thing itself, especially given what you also touched upon: that these notions and assumptions are not at all universally beneficial to men and harmful to women.
What actually conditions our minds to more: a minute and hardly noticeable linguistic relict, or constant high-pitched assertions of women being at a perpetual disadvantage and having to swim against the tide?

I am not saying we shouldn't challenge these relicts or seeking to replace them - I very much agree we need but time, scrutiny and little bit of creativity to overcome them - but that they shouldn't be credited with undue influence.

I’m going to start with a simple answer to your question: numerous minute and hardly noticible linguistic relics condition our minds much more than do high-pitched assertions of women being at a perpetual disadvantage. The numerous tiny assumptions which govern how we process information, and of whose operation we are not even ordinarily aware, are much more powerful than any overt assertion that can be directly sized-up for the claim it is making, considered consciously, countered, and even isolated for future ignoring.

Yeekim, I’m going to point out two things that you’ve done. You may have done them deliberately, or you may have been unconscious of having done them.

First, I have made the claim that these “minute and scarcely noticible assumptions” are numerous, and that collectively, and on the whole, they tend to grease the skids for men and apply a drag on women. My metaphor was a man and woman running a race, he on well-mown grass and she through waist-high grass. No individual blade of grass would slow her down, but collectively, they do. You have reduced “numerous” to “a number” and then to “a.” Individual instances of this linguistic effect are hardly noticible, but collectively they still disadvantage women to a considerable degree.

Second, having reduced the numerous drags on women to a scarcely noticible linguistic relict (because I gave an example), you contrast that with high-pitched assertions of women being at a perpetual disadvantage. “High-pitched” is serving here as a term of diapprobation; these “high-pitched” assertions are a bad thing. But one gender tends to have higher-pitched voices than another. If this negative “high-pitched” gravitates toward one gender more than the other, it is toward women, carrying along with it its slight negative charge. If “high-pitched” is perjorative, when an actual woman, in an actual office meeting, makes her actual counter-proposal to something a man said, in her actually higher-pitched voice, it’s just that shade easier to be dismissive of her “high-pitched” assertion.

Do men make low-pitched arguments? No. In a reverse of the “be a woman” lacuna, here the absence of a fixed formulation favors men. Men just make assertions; women make their (therefore dismissible) high-pitched assertions.

Instead of numerous, maybe I should have said innumerable. These things are all around us. They condition our thinking without our realizing they are doing so. They generally tend in the direction of disadvantaging women.

Let me start thinking of what the creative escape from this one might be.

 

[Farm Boy]

I can't say I've ever heard that phrase. Is it said to men or to women?

Women. (Note the edit. Not widespread so far as I know.)

fwiw, I've heard this one too, but it's been directed at men. Generally when they're interacting with women and not slipping on the appropriate communication style. Sometimes used as a backhanded, "stop thinking with your dick," or "stop being stubborn and just agree." Which kinda smells of, "if you were reasonable, instead of a guy, you'd have figured out how to get along properly by now in this situation." Which then reeks of the counterpoint, "calm down and think rationally." Which gets leveled at both genders as a sort of "man up" in addition to sometimes just being necessary. If not always terribly helpful.

 

[Tarquelne]

BTW:

I've seen studies ... well, maybe it was "a study" ... showing that the biggest difference in how the genders reason is that men are much more likely to claim to be using "pure logic", or to criticize someone for being illogical, than women.

I blame Star Trek.

Though perhaps its more likely that men tend to feel that arguing with anything less than pure logic isn't manly. (We've all seen the Aristotle muscle-posters.)

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, don't guys comparatively suck at both self-reflection and emotive cooperation(which might explain some difference)? Or was that a 'study' too? I can't remember if it was that Venus/Mars stuff that was trendy in the 90s.

 

[Narz]

Well, don't guys comparatively suck at both self-reflection and emotive cooperation(which might explain some difference)?

Lol, they certainly didn't include me & my ex in that 'study'.

 

[Tarquelne]

Well, don't guys comparatively suck at both self-reflection and emotive cooperation(which might explain some difference)?

(The phrase "emotive cooperation" sounds like something from a fad.)

Sure it could - they're also not traditionally considered manly.

Well... there's the sophisticated version of "manly," which is pretty much equivalent to "mature." Then there's the more common, macho version, which is pretty much equivalent to being the hero in a viking saga. Emotive cooperation and self-reflection may be part of the former, but not the latter. Not until after the dragon's stolen the ring and the hero has a long stretch of down-time that needs filling up. (Err ... which could easily be filled with "brooding" rather than "self-reflection." (The difference is that one makes you a lot more likely to punch the first person who speaks to you. "Brooding," clearly, is better suited to a saga.)

There's nothing inherent to the chromosomes preventing anyone from being good at them. It's just a matter of training and culture.

But I dunno if guys really lack either. I don't know about you, but I've often come across a group of grizzled fishermen, say, or high-school wrestlers, discussing their dreams and desires, and gently encouraging each other to either pursue them, or share their troubles at achieving them.

Yeah, it's not easy to picture women doing that either, as a rule. But it's more frequent in girl's books than boy's books, which I find totally convincing.

 

[Farm Boy]

And hormones have no impact on this, you would posit it's 100% cultural?

 

[Tarquelne]

And hormones have no impact on this, you would posit it's 100% cultural?

100% is a sucker's bet.

But I think with the present data the cultural/training/upbringing influence so dominates that we just can't see whatever small influence hormones actually have.

There were studies that explicitly tested for something "feminine," and women did better. But then tests were done that concealed what was being tested, and differences went away. As if women simply tried harder when they knew it's a "feminine" trait being tested, or men didn't try as hard.

Men tend to be more variable in IQ, and I think at different ages there are small advantages - sometimes men, sometimes women. But IIRC the differences could be very easily explained by all sorts of "nurture" factors rather than "nature" ones.

Nature probably has some role, but it seems rather minor.

This may be due to intelligence (in it's many facets) being fundamentally an "emergent" phenomena. Men and women have some significant differences in brain structure, but IIRC they (scientists) have some clue as to what areas men use on tests or tasks compared to women. Sometimes different areas, but little or no difference in the results.

What differences are due to biology is a fascinating question, but since differences between individuals are far greater than differences between the genders, there's not much practical use in considering the gender differences*. OTOH, there can be quite a bit of harm. (My favorite is still the belief that thinking too much will make a woman's womb shrink. JHC, that's imagination!)


*There's a school of thought that girls and boys learn rather differently, and that it's rooted very much in biology. Boys tend not to hear as well, IIRC, and their eyesight very quickly focuses on movement. This would argue that boys should be toward the front of the class and are more prey to visual distractions. (Though more attracted by good visual aids.) I can't remember at all if any real differences were found in school performance that could be traced to purported biological differences.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Where's Cheezy when you need him?

 

[El_Machinae]

And hormones have no impact on this, you would posit it's 100% cultural?

There was a hilarious study with women and testosterone. Women who got injected with testosterone would play economic games more fairly. Women who thought they got injected with testosterone played more jerkishly.