WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2016, 04:17 PM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
@Metazoa Zeke

You do seem to have a problem to seize the importance of interdisciplinarity which of course predate gender studied, but was exploited and championned by it allowing it to become more mainstream. You should also know that history frequently works from a conclusion (what we see know) and then seek to explain how it got there. That's why history isn't a science. Sociologie also uses a similar method. We observe a phenomenon, for exemple a pay gap between men and women working full time and we search for explanation. As such its not really working from a conclusion, its working from an observed phenomenon and an hypothesis (discrimination, sexism?) and then trying to find an explanation.

You have me confused with your exemple of the gender wage gap. You do realise that in Canada and United States men do earn around 20% more than women when we look at the average earnings of full time, year around workers? I haven't seen a single serious statistical reasearch that showed that men and women were earning the same amount of money (or within a 5 to 10% braket to be generous) unless you are referring only to men and women with the same job, same working experience, same academic background, but that's only one facet of the wage gap (one that was thankfully closed in the 70's). Even in such situation some studies still show that 30% (so about 7%) of that gap is still unexplained by hours of work, experience or carrier choices (http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/gradua...tion.pdf). I would also add that carrier choices, time spend devoting to ones family and general attitudes toward work is far from being exempt of sexist influence and thus does require stern critique. That's why the most active/prolific branches and school of thought of feminism these days are those critical of gender roles at large.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
20-03-2016, 06:38 PM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
(20-03-2016 04:17 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @Metazoa Zeke

You do seem to have a problem to seize the importance of interdisciplinarity which of course predate gender studied, but was exploited and championned by it allowing it to become more mainstream.

I have a problem with it being useless, seeing as you mentioned other fields which explain it.

(20-03-2016 04:17 PM)epronovost Wrote:  You should also know that history frequently works from a conclusion (what we see know) and then seek to explain how it got there. That's why history isn't a science. Sociologie also uses a similar method.

In correct. History starts buy finding a item of interest and then looking for evidence to see what it is, A.K.A not starting from the conclusion http://www.williamcronon.net/researching/

History does in fact use a method the same as the scientific method. Now there is a difference in using what is already known to find the evidence for something new. Again to use science. You can use the assumption that evolution is true while doing research on fossils, however evolution was already proven true. Same goes with history. So history may not have the same name, but the method used for historical research is similar.

(20-03-2016 04:17 PM)epronovost Wrote:  We observe a phenomenon, for exemple a pay gap between men and women working full time and we search for explanation. As such its not really working from a conclusion, its working from an observed phenomenon and an hypothesis (discrimination, sexism?) and then trying to find an explanation.

No it is stemming from a conclusion. Time and time again economist have been disproving the pay gap for years.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/19/gender...economist/

https://www.aei.org/publication/new-bls-...rs-worked/

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/the-gender-pa...nable-myth

(20-03-2016 04:17 PM)epronovost Wrote:  You have me confused with your exemple of the gender wage gap. You do realise that in Canada and United States men do earn around 20% more than women when we look at the average earnings of full time, year around workers?

Earn is the right word, now the question is why? Think of this, women tend to take up jobs like nursing, librarians, and school teachers. Men take jobs like construction worker, coal miner, and trash collector. Guess which pays more? That's right, the jobs that will end up kill you if you are unlucky.






(20-03-2016 04:17 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I haven't seen a single serious statistical reasearch that showed that men and women were earning the same amount of money (or within a 5 to 10% braket to be generous) unless you are referring only to men and women with the same job, same working experience, same academic background, but that's only one facet of the wage gap (one that was thankfully closed in the 70's).

You seem to have disproven the pay gap yourself by mentioning the factors of why it is false. On earning more, see my example above, a school teacher will not make as much as a crab fisher.

To add, did you know women earn more than men in their 20's? I wonder why

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ecade.html

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/au...tudy-finds

Funny also seeing as how on average today women tend to have kids around their late 20's early 30's

Fancy that.

(20-03-2016 04:17 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Even in such situation some studies still show that 30% (so about 7%) of that gap is still unexplained by hours of work, experience or carrier choices (http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/gradua...tion.pdf).

Your link didn't work, so if I don't address anything the source said I apologize.

Now the problem is the conclusion you have. Economist say we don't know, gender studies says sexism. Now this reminds me of the god of the gaps, just replace god with sexism.





This video give an idea that new evidence shows why there is even a small gap.

(20-03-2016 04:17 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I would also add that carrier choices, time spend devoting to ones family and general attitudes toward work is far from being exempt of sexist influence and thus does require stern critique.

Stern critique of what exactly? It isn't sexism it comes down to freedom.





In the video if you skip to 2:13 it will explain that the more freedom a society has, the more gender roles show up.

So is it the work of sexism, or freedom? Keep in mind america and canada have much more freedom than china

(20-03-2016 04:17 PM)epronovost Wrote:  That's why the most active/prolific branches and school of thought of feminism these days are those critical of gender roles at large.

I think I will let this photo speak for me

[Image: tumblr_nmf3h0uCIN1r31ad5o5_r1_500.jpg]

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 08:30 PM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2016 08:49 PM by epronovost.)
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
@Metazoa Zeke

None of your exemple «disprove the pay gap» in fact they simply mention the pay gap is not caused in majority by sexual discrimination, but is mostly caused by hours of work and career choices. On this we both agree. Discrimination, while still potentially existing, doesn't have that much direct impact. If there were no social pressure for women to take care of their children more than men either by working less hours (but still full time) or taking extended leave of abscence we could say that it doesn't have a sexist origin. Then, we could talk about this weird coincidence that work area dominated by women are less paid than those dominated by male (excluding those with inherent danger like fishing, lumber industry). Could this also explain some the current wage gap? If such is the case, then this is blatantly a form of sexism inherited from our phalocratic past and it seems to be the case (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.12....14.4.75). Still, Perry comes to the same conclusion then the paper I presented. The gap of 20% is 2/3 due to structural forms of sexism (women taking time off for the family more than men or working in lower pay jobs) while the 6% left is down to discrimination. This represent on average about 3000$ per year. If having a vagina cost you 3000$ a year, that's a bit too much to ignore.

If «freedom» correlate strongly with the strength of gender role it's because your vision of «freedom» is flawed and only takes into account the influence of the Great Powers (Legislative, Judiciary, Executive, Media, Religions and Academia). If you jugulate or destroy the capacity of the Great Powers to influence individuals, Micro Powers (familly, friends, teachers, cultural background, traditions, social norms, etc.) will reign free and without strong critique or counter influence. Since tradition and social norms are micro powers, if no power has the capacity to challenge them, they remain intact and reproduce. If you prevent the Academia to challenge social norms, you will see a surge in religious fervor. If you prevent tradition to challenge the judiciary, jurisprudence looses a lot of its basis and judges and juries loose a portion of their independance and freedom of action. Thus «freedom» from the Greater Powers is not «true freedom» since other factor still push you into a specific direction. You are still ruled/influenced/manipulated/formed by power outside of your control and will, making your freedom of choice (when it comes to career and social organisation of your family life) largely illusory. You are simply reproducing a social norm. Social determinism, while not all powerful like some marxist would like to believe, isn't impotant either and far from there. A lot of our behavior, wishes and desire found their trace purely in social construct and interaction. In resume, gender roles are a form of tyranny exercised by the society on individual that need to be challenged sometimes by governements, academia or other.

PS: as for your stats for men vs women pay gap at age 20 to 30, it seems to not be very true in my country at least according to those stats, but its true the gap is a little bit less important. (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/20...2-eng.htm)
PPS: As for Ayaan Hisri Ali, this could have been a nice inspirationnal poster if only that quote wasn't frothing with the fallacious reasonning that questionning «small» sexism problem in the West prevent in any fashion to adress problem over sea. Ayaan mostly used that quote in the context of fighting islamism, her ennemy of choice so to speak.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 12:04 AM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
(20-03-2016 08:30 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @Metazoa Zeke

None of your exemple «disprove the pay gap» in fact they simply mention the pay gap is not caused in majority by sexual discrimination, but is mostly caused by hours of work and career choices. On this we both agree.

All I can disagree with is the name. Using pay implies that women are paid less, earn however make sense in the context of the narrative. Other than that yes

(20-03-2016 08:30 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Then, we could talk about this weird coincidence that work area dominated by women are less paid than those dominated by male (excluding those with inherent danger like fishing, lumber industry). Could this also explain some the current wage gap? If such is the case, then this is blatantly a form of sexism inherited from our phalocratic past and it seems to be the case


Well the dangerous ones I mentioned are pretty much the ones males dominate.

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-...ccupations

There is a reason for this.

First this goes into the differences in males and females when it comes to taking risk.

Males are more willing to take jobs that will end their life than females would, which is why males make up a majority of work place deaths.

[Image: menwomenfatalities.jpg]

Now this of course comes down to risk. Now when it comes to who is more risky it all comes down to the situation at hand. For example females will take a higher risk when it comes to money. Men will take a higher risk when it comes to their lives.

You can say that is socially constructed, but I will get to the socially constructed claim in a bit.

(20-03-2016 08:30 PM)epronovost Wrote:  (http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.12....14.4.75). Still, Perry comes to the same conclusion then the paper I presented. The gap of 20% is 2/3 due to structural forms of sexism (women taking time off for the family more than men or working in lower pay jobs) while the 6% left is down to discrimination. This represent on average about 3000$ per year. If having a vagina cost you 3000$ a year, that's a bit too much to ignore.


There is one problem with the paper you cited and it is the fact that it came out in the year 2000. Now I can't speak for the year 2000, but 16 years is a long time when it comes to things like pay or women in the work place.

Now as the video "Gender activist dismayed by this new reason for the wage gap" It explains that the gap has been shrunk by men over working. This is what the latest data says. So what, do you want to stop men from over working?


(20-03-2016 08:30 PM)epronovost Wrote:  If «freedom» correlate strongly with the strength of gender role it's because your vision of «freedom» is flawed and only takes into account the influence of the Great Powers (Legislative, Judiciary, Executive, Media, Religions and Academia).

I think you misunderstood the video. Take into account how america has a lot more freedom of choice than china. You can make your own decisions and legally no one can stop you in america. In china they are heavily censored. So in america women have the freedom of choice to either be a career woman or a mom. Many choose to be a mom. What is the problem with that? You can ask dads to do it, but dads for the most part are not inclined to take care of offspring. There are many biological and some social reasons for this. One such example is how women are more likely to respond to a babies cry than a man.

http://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-rele...ants-cries

(20-03-2016 08:30 PM)epronovost Wrote:  If you jugulate or destroy the capacity of the Great Powers to influence individuals, Micro Powers (familly, friends, teachers, cultural background, traditions, social norms, etc.) will reign free and without strong critique or counter influence.

News flash, they do rain free. You don't have to do any gender stereotype if you don't want to. A woman in america can be the bread winner and a male can take care of the kids, and no one can stop them at all. That is in fact freedom. To want to change things is fine, however the problem is that there are no laws forbidding it. This is freedom.

The problem that freedom is about opportunity, the chance to do whatever you want in life. For example, women now dominate fields like biology. Why? Because they have the freedom to. Why can a man be a nurse? Because he has the freedom to. Demanding that we get rid of how people teach their kids is not freedom. If someone wants to teach their kids to follow gender roles so be it, if they want to be gender neutral in their childraising, so be it. That is what freedom is.

(20-03-2016 08:30 PM)epronovost Wrote:  Since tradition and social norms are micro powers, if no power has the capacity to challenge them, they remain intact and reproduce.

Some people have traditions, some don't. And what do you mean by social norms. It is a social norm for a man to treat a woman right. Now the problem with challenging these things is that many western countries have many traditions. Again if you want to be something out of the norm, go right ahead, no one is stopping you.

(20-03-2016 08:30 PM)epronovost Wrote:  If you prevent the Academia to challenge social norms, you will see a surge in religious fervor.

Modern academia is not trying to challenge social norms, but make them. And newsflash they already have. They even have obama saying that women only make 77 cents for every mans dollar and the 1in5 women will be raped on campus. The problem is that as shown before, modern academia has a liberal bias, and not a good one. In fact getting rid of this bias would improve scientific research in general.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/16/fixing...ve-academi


(20-03-2016 08:30 PM)epronovost Wrote:  If you prevent tradition to challenge the judiciary, jurisprudence looses a lot of its basis and judges and juries loose a portion of their independance and freedom of action. Thus «freedom» from the Greater Powers is not «true freedom» since other factor still push you into a specific direction.

Like what exactly? Females not going towards stem? This is incorrect because women do dominate fields like biology.





And are you suggesting when we only have true freedom? Again we have freedom of choice here. All females I know can choose whether or not to be a stay at home mom or a scientist.


(20-03-2016 08:30 PM)epronovost Wrote:  A lot of our behavior, wishes and desire found their trace purely in social construct and interaction. In resume, gender roles are a form of tyranny exercised by the society on individual that need to be challenged sometimes by governements, academia or other.

This is incorrect. Are the differences between the brains of men and women incorrect? The answer is no.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/7/2241.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755553/


Even preference in toy type isn't a social construct.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755553/





Now I am not denying that social factors do play a role, we are after all a social species, so it was bound to happen. However saying that it is only socialization is just as wrong as saying biology is what determines everything in us.


(20-03-2016 08:30 PM)epronovost Wrote:  PS: as for your stats for men vs women pay gap at age 20 to 30, it seems to not be very true in my country at least according to those stats, but its true the gap is a little bit less important. (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/20...2-eng.htm)

Your link didn't work Undecided

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 06:43 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2016 06:47 AM by epronovost.)
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
@Metazoa Zeke

Nota bene: It seems that I do hae some problems with mos of my links which either end in dead end or simply don't pop up properly. I will try to figure out the issue.

The problem is that you don't «choose» to raise your kids to follow gender norms, they are systematically exposed to it thanks to vicarious observations or direct teachings. You cannot raise a child without gender role in our society (yet). Your exposition can be more or less important or challenged. A parent «choice» to raise is child to follow gender roles isn't a choice for the child. It's imposed on him and actualy reduce his ability to choose and develop a specific sets of skills in favor of another. Reducing the choices and abilities of your child to meet your expectation of them based on their gender isn't freedom. That's a textbook exemple of reducing someone freedom. No, you should not be free to raise your child unimpeded in such way not more than you should be free to raise your child unimpeded to hate Jews, be homophobic or simply be an asshole. In resume, yes men and women are free to choose their future on paper, but cultural expectation, gender roles and other factor influence those choices making false choice at best. Using the same line of reasonning we could say that one chooses to be poor and we both know that's a pretty insulting form of bullshit.

Can people challenge or even go strait against gender roles norms? Of course they can and it's great! Do most people challenge them? Absolutly not. Do most people let themselves, consciously or unconciously, be manipulated by them at least in part? Yes they do and that's the problem. Gender roles affect very negatively men and women and are directly responsible for things like 20% lower salaries for adult full time working women, lower representation of women in traditionnal spheres of powers (Academia, governement, business executive board, magistrature, media editorial, organised crime), disparity in child education and support, segregation of sexes in social setting, etc.

In the fight against Micro and Major Powers both are able to reverse their position. There isn't a «good» power and a bad one. Yes the Academia challenges social norms and yes it does help create some too. Their interactions are very complex and fluid, not to mention what academia is actually made off can vary from one author to another. As for the nature vs nurture debate we both agree on the fact that both play a massive role in our upbringing and neither should serve as an excuse to justify inequality. This would consist in an appeal to tradition or to nature and both are fallacious argument. No, it's not better that women play with certain toys or do certain jobs (like taking care of their children) no matter if its mostly due to nature or nurture or a mix of both (which I think is the case). Mothers aren't better for child upbringing than a father. Actually if it could be influenced and have equal contact with both it would probably produce a child with more nuance and varied interest thus more healthy and productive in our type of society (not to mention that the gender role of exclusive mother is also responsible for the birth of much of the sexism in our society). Yet, mother devote much more time, energy (and thus money) to their children than fathers which then results in fragilised financial situation for women and poorer familly ties for men (especially in case of divorse).

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 10:55 AM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
(21-03-2016 06:43 AM)epronovost Wrote:  The problem is that you don't «choose» to raise your kids to follow gender norms, they are systematically exposed to it thanks to vicarious observations or direct teachings. You cannot raise a child without gender role in our society (yet). Your exposition can be more or less important or challenged. A parent «choice» to raise is child to follow gender roles isn't a choice for the child. It's imposed on him and actualy reduce his ability to choose and develop a specific sets of skills in favor of another. Reducing the choices and abilities of your child to meet your expectation of them based on their gender isn't freedom.

I see you missed my Gad Saad video. Take sweden for example. Sweden is the most gender neutral country in the world, in which they don't even use he and she as pro nouns, and yet boys still prefer masculine toys more and girls still prefer dolls.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...-5#/page-1

So how can sweden a country who is in fact the most gender neutral country, which has destroyed gender norms, have boy still prefer cars and girls still prefer dolls?

(21-03-2016 06:43 AM)epronovost Wrote:  That's a textbook exemple of reducing someone freedom. No, you should not be free to raise your child unimpeded in such way not more than you should be free to raise your child unimpeded to hate Jews, be homophobic or simply be an asshole.

For the sake of argument, let say that was true. Is taking ones freedom on how to raise ones child really going to achieve freedom? Is taking freedom the way from people really helping?

And let me tell you a story. My dad taught me that white people where evil as a child, and that white men are all of the worlds problems. However I don't except that. Why? Because I realized hating white people isn't the right thing to do. Also I am an asshole, nobody taught me how to be an asshole, I just happen to be. My family also used to be homophobic, but none of us care if people are gay anymore and don't hate people just because they are gay. And all of us were raised to dislike gay people, even my mom.

(21-03-2016 06:43 AM)epronovost Wrote:  In resume, yes men and women are free to choose their future on paper, but cultural expectation, gender roles and other factor influence those choices making false choice at best.

So are boys cultural expected to not go to college while women are?





Boys are more likely to drop out of high school and less likely to graduate college. Is this taught to men and boys?

Also you seemed forget the neurological differences I pointed out. As shown in the "Toy story: Why do monkey and human males prefer trucks? Comment on “Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children” I linked, it even shows that females that tend to prefer boys toys have been exposed to hormones that boys usually develop.

(21-03-2016 06:43 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Using the same line of reasonning we could say that one chooses to be poor and we both know that's a pretty insulting form of bullshit.

Well some people do "choose" to be poor. Now the thing is the don't want to be. You can choose something you don't want. This is not to say that people choose whether they are poor or not but consider this. If a man goes around doing nothing his whole life, not trying to get a job or anything, or being uncouth when he does have work, he will end up being poor for not doing the right thing. While some people might have been screwed over by the government and lost everything to them. He would have no choice in being poor. So if one makes the choices that will lead to him being poor, than we choose to be poor. If one goes through an unexpected situation that takes his money, or is born to a poor family, then they did not choose to be poor.

(21-03-2016 06:43 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Can people challenge or even go strait against gender roles norms? Of course they can and it's great! Do most people challenge them? Absolutly not. Do most people let themselves, consciously or unconciously, be manipulated by them at least in part?
Yes they do and that's the problem.

Do you ever ask why gender roles even exist? Maybe it comes down to the differences in men and women. It is also because it works. I am not even going to say the women must raise the kid and the man works, but if a man raise the kids and the woman works that in itself are gender roles. They work because it is the best strategy humans have so far. Again I don't think that it should be females who exclusively do it, or that parents should follow it if they don't want to. However many people see it works, so they follow the stereotypical gender norms, where one takes care and the other provides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differ...psychology

(21-03-2016 06:43 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Gender roles affect very negatively men and women and are directly responsible for things like 20% lower salaries for adult full time working women, lower representation of women in traditionnal spheres of powers (Academia, governement, business executive board, magistrature, media editorial, organised crime), disparity in child education and support, segregation of sexes in social setting, etc.

First women don't have lower salaries than men. Again this is back to the gender pay gap I have shown to be false. Women don't have a lower salary then men. A woman who works the same hours as a man in the same job is not payed less, as I have shown before. It comes down to things like hours worked, time off, over work, choices in jobs. Again as I have also posted, women in their early 20's out earn men. I have notice that this is in fact is not considered inequality. Hell some people believe women getting paid more than men is equality. In fact every study saying there is a gap in pay never seems to include hours worked between men and women.

[Image: atu-men-v-women-2010-640x315.png]

http://qz.com/149428/mens-overtime-hours...gap-alive/

And even when people acknowledge the now less than 7% difference, economist say I don't know, why gender and women studies tends to want to place sexism. Again it is like god of the gaps. Hell even the source you gave for the gender pay gap from economist was 16 years out of date. Which is why I said earlier almost no economist takes the pay gap seriously.

And in academia women are now dominating in population as I have shown before in the video I linked "The war on boys: have they been left behind?" In government there are important women, even one is running for president, and is winning the democratic nomination. Many women are also journalist, just ask buzzfeed. And for prision, sorry to say naturally women are less violent than men, and many who are more violent are the exception to the rule. But I would like to add on to this that women face shorter sentences for the same crime as men.

On the business you can say that men are more dominante in it, but as I asked before, why complain about female CEOs but not about having enough female coal miners and fishermen?





I would suggest you watch this in order to get an idea of what I am saying.

I also like to go back to the females in school. I would like to point out that when girls where lacking in school people came to help, which is good. However when boys are going through the same problem, nobody cares. Just wanted to point that out.

(21-03-2016 06:43 AM)epronovost Wrote:  In the fight against Micro and Major Powers both are able to reverse their position. There isn't a «good» power and a bad one. Yes the Academia challenges social norms and yes it does help create some too. Their interactions are very complex and fluid, not to mention what academia is actually made off can vary from one author to another.

And this comes to the problem. Academia today, specifically women's and gender studies, tend to work with an agenda to make women "equal" to men. How do you do that? Some say by paying men less, other say by making more women CEOs. However there is a problem with this. Choice. When you realize that women have a tendency to choose less dangerous jobs than men, and it is not socially constructed, a problem arises.

Let me use an example. In the fat acceptance movement, they teach men are socially constructed to like women with hour glass figures. However as shown in the video below, men, even blind men, show a preference to the hourglass figure than the other body types. Only time were it is not true is in times of famine, but that is because there will eventually be no choice but one body type.





Why did I bring this up? Because those in the fat acceptance movement don't want men to have a biological tendency to prefer hourglass figures over others, then it blows a hole in their agenda.

Same with gender studies courses, you can't complain about inequality in choices when those choices have in fact a large part in biology.

(21-03-2016 06:43 AM)epronovost Wrote:  As for the nature vs nurture debate we both agree on the fact that both play a massive role in our upbringing and neither should serve as an excuse to justify inequality.

First I would like to point that you did use social determinism. Social determinism as defined is:

"Social determinism is the theory that social interactions and constructs alone determine individual behavior (as opposed to biological or objective factors).'

and

"They would discount biological and other non-social factors, such as genetic makeup, the physical environment, etc. Ideas about nature and biology would be considered to be socially constructed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_determinism

So if you use nature vs nurture, you imply nature plays a part shows no social determinism.

Also what inequality? So far the inequalities have been first world problems, research taken out of context, and from studies made by people who started with the conclusion and tried to make evidence fit it.

Your implying the evidence I posted for biological factors which effect the choices between men and women as an excuse is wrong. In fact saying so is an excuse with iin itself, used in order to try to get rid of how biology can play a role in differences in men and at all.

(21-03-2016 06:43 AM)epronovost Wrote:  This would consist in an appeal to tradition or to nature and both are fallacious argument.

No, not once did I our the source I posted say that because of these natural differences then it is good. The appeal to nature fallacy is the fallacy in which one says something is good because it is natural, not explaining why something is natural.

(21-03-2016 06:43 AM)epronovost Wrote:  No, it's not better that women play with certain toys or do certain jobs (like taking care of their children) no matter if its mostly due to nature or nurture or a mix of both (which I think is the case).

Nobody said it was, we are explaining why women have a tendancy to do such things. As I have shown before, even in sweden, a country that has pretty much made every thing gender neutral, boys still choose toys like guns and cars and girls still choose dolls on average. So how is it even in countries were the even advertise boys playing with dolls and girls playing with cars, boys still mostly go for masculine toys and girls still mostly go for feminine toys?

(21-03-2016 06:43 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Mothers aren't better for child upbringing than a father. Actually if it could be influenced and have equal contact with both it would probably produce a child with more nuance and varied interest thus more healthy and productive in our type of society (not to mention that the gender role of exclusive mother is also responsible for the birth of much of the sexism in our society).

https://ocplmedia.od.nih.gov/nihradio/20...stein2.mp3

As explained females in our species are mammals, and are naturally inclined to be the care givers. To make it clear I am not saying women should always be the one to raise kids, I am explaining why women are more likely to do so.

On the gender roles causing sexism, that could be said if we were talking years ago, however america, canada, and many european nations have freedom of choice. Have you considered that women might just want to be mothers by their own choice? As shown before female mammals taking care of babies is something females are more likely to do than males. Don't get me wrong males too take care of their children, however they are not inclined to do it as much as females are. Also note I understand that some times it is switched, as I mentioned before many people have switched the bread winner and the one who takes care of children.

(21-03-2016 06:43 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Yet, mother devote much more time, energy (and thus money) to their children than fathers which then results in fragilised financial situation for women and poorer familly ties for men (especially in case of divorse).

Well this is the result of the choices people make. Some people agree for one to take care of the kids and the other go work. Now a days things have changed and the care giver will go back into work, even if it is only part time. Also this comes down to marriage, which is worst for men than women.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 01:06 PM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
(21-03-2016 06:43 AM)epronovost Wrote:  The problem is that you don't «choose» to raise your kids to follow gender norms, they are systematically exposed to it thanks to vicarious observations or direct teachings. You cannot raise a child without gender role in our society (yet). Your exposition can be more or less important or challenged. A parent «choice» to raise is child to follow gender roles isn't a choice for the child. It's imposed on him and actualy reduce his ability to choose and develop a specific sets of skills in favor of another. Reducing the choices and abilities of your child to meet your expectation of them based on their gender isn't freedom. That's a textbook exemple of reducing someone freedom. No, you should not be free to raise your child unimpeded in such way not more than you should be free to raise your child unimpeded to hate Jews, be homophobic or simply be an asshole. In resume, yes men and women are free to choose their future on paper, but cultural expectation, gender roles and other factor influence those choices making false choice at best. Using the same line of reasonning we could say that one chooses to be poor and we both know that's a pretty insulting form of bullshit.

I'm sorry, what?!

I have two boys, now aged 22 and 16 and I never raised them to think of toys as boys or girls toys, which was actually a day care trick. Yet, as young as two, both boys gravitated to Tonka trucks, hot wheels, trains (omg trains were huge in our house) and other things...one might clearly say were boys toys. They also loved Tinker Toys and blocks...my older son slept in a toy tent for a year too. He pretended to be naturalist. It was adorable.

Also, because the kids rarely asked for things -- we would seriously take them to toys r us and offer to buy them ANYTHING in the whole store (a scary proposition). I always worried a little...but really they'd pick out one or two small things that interested them -- usually something I'd never think to buy, like a model car or wood burning kit. But we'd let them go down any aisle they wanted (we never directed their choices) and they would breeze by pink aisles really quickly. They shiny glittery boxes didn't interest them at all.

We also didn't worry about age limits either. When my then 4 year old wanted a wood burning kit, we got it even though it said the child should be older. He did use it with my husband's supervision.

Now, it also should be noted that especially with my oldest, he wasn't allowed to watch television at all until he was 5 or 6. My younger child did watch some public television when he was small. So I can't say they influenced by television on a subconscious level either.

Going a little further, my older son's best friend when he was 3 or 4 was a neighbor girl -- when they'd play together she'd play with her dolls and he'd play with his stuff and somehow the dolls always needed to be rescued from a monster.

Also when I did work in a day care, I'd often the boys using a doll as a hammer or another tool. In college were did an informal study of kids playing. We had 10 boys in a room filled with mostly girl toys -- they played with them, but who knew Barbie could become a pretend gun.

The girls were brought into a similar situation, where mostly boy's toys were present and after looking around they just ignored them -- either playing with the few girl toys or playing something else -- ignoring all the toys. They organized themselves and pretended to shop. It's worth mentioning we didn't interfere and were only there to observe behaviors. Girls in general were much more quick to voice complaints, while boys seemed to better at just making due with whatever was there.

We also did noise studies. That was particularly fascinating. We learned that when girls and boys were together boys were louder. But when the boys were separated their noise level remained the same in decibels. But the girls holy crap...their noise level rose to 4x that of boys. I had a headache after that test.

The only place where it seemed the boys and girls both played was with the kitchen stuff. Both seemed to enjoy pretend cooking.

A final note, as a little girl I wanted a GI joe...desperately. Because Barbie truly needed a better boyfriend than ken. Laugh out load


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
21-03-2016, 01:25 PM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
(21-03-2016 01:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I'm sorry, what?!

I have two boys, now aged 22 and 16 and I never raised them to think of toys as boys or girls toys, which was actually a day care trick. Yet, as young as two, both boys gravitated to Tonka trucks, hot wheels, trains (omg trains were huge in our house) and other things...one might clearly say were boys toys. They also loved Tinker Toys and blocks...my older son slept in a toy tent for a year too. He pretended to be naturalist. It was adorable.

Also, because the kids rarely asked for things -- we would seriously take them to toys r us and offer to buy them ANYTHING in the whole store (a scary proposition). I always worried a little...but really they'd pick out one or two small things that interested them -- usually something I'd never think to buy, like a model car or wood burning kit. But we'd let them go down any aisle they wanted (we never directed their choices) and they would breeze by pink aisles really quickly. They shiny glittery boxes didn't interest them at all.

We also didn't worry about age limits either. When my then 4 year old wanted a wood burning kit, we got it even though it said the child should be older. He did use it with my husband's supervision.

Now, it also should be noted that especially with my oldest, he wasn't allowed to watch television at all until he was 5 or 6. My younger child did watch some public television when he was small. So I can't say they influenced by television on a subconscious level either.

Going a little further, my older son's best friend when he was 3 or 4 was a neighbor girl -- when they'd play together she'd play with her dolls and he'd play with his stuff and somehow the dolls always needed to be rescued from a monster.

Also when I did work in a day care, I'd often the boys using a doll as a hammer or another tool. In college were did an informal study of kids playing. We had 10 boys in a room filled with mostly girl toys -- they played with them, but who knew Barbie could become a pretend gun.

The girls were brought into a similar situation, where mostly boy's toys were present and after looking around they just ignored them -- either playing with the few girl toys or playing something else -- ignoring all the toys. They organized themselves and pretended to shop. It's worth mentioning we didn't interfere and were only there to observe behaviors. Girls in general were much more quick to voice complaints, while boys seemed to better at just making due with whatever was there.

We also did noise studies. That was particularly fascinating. We learned that when girls and boys were together boys were louder. But when the boys were separated their noise level remained the same in decibels. But the girls holy crap...their noise level rose to 4x that of boys. I had a headache after that test.

The only place where it seemed the boys and girls both played was with the kitchen stuff. Both seemed to enjoy pretend cooking.

A final note, as a little girl I wanted a GI joe...desperately. Because Barbie truly needed a better boyfriend than ken. Laugh out load

This has actually been studied before. Boys and girls are actually genetically predisposed towards favoring certain toys and activities over others.

This isn't to say that gender stereotypes are universally applicable. It's perfectly acceptable for girls to want to play with trucks rather than dolls, and children should be encouraged to play with whatever they like. But society is definitively not to blame for the genders' tendencies towards different activities - at least, not when it comes to children. There is an argument to be made regarding societal norms being an issue for women attempting to enter STEM fields, but it's only tangentially related to the point in hand.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
21-03-2016, 03:22 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2016 06:12 PM by epronovost.)
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
@Metazoa Zeke

Despite their best attempt, no Sweden (or other Scandinavian country) haven't completly erased traditionnal gender roles (they are getting there fast I will admit with joy). They are the closest to achieve it. You will also notice that Sweden and its neighbors have the following caracteristics. Their wage (or earning) gap between men and women is twice smaller. Men and women spent an almost equal time to the care of their children. They have no sexual segregation when it comes parental leave (it disregard the parent sex when assessing the time spent out of active employment). But, it isn't completly free of gender role since it still consume the same cultural product then us and does carry a baggage of sexism that isn't completly erased (affecting mostly older persons, while children will probably never face these issues). History doesn't disapear in two decades and neither are they cut from the world.

Mentionning that there is biological and sociological influence that guides strongly one sex to a certain role than the other is almost tautological. We both agree that those two influence exist and guide/influence our life choices and circomstances. The point I am trying to make is that those influence are affecting our «freedom» to choose. If factors either biological or sociological favor a choice over another, I can't say that this was purely MY CHOICE. It's as much my choice than a result of my circomstances. Biological and sociological influences explain largely why men and women make drastically different choice. The objective of my feminist school of thought is to abolish gender roles and criticise, elliminate and/or find ways to compensate for the biological and sociological influences that push men and women in a position instead of another. The idea is to offer men and women a real choice on how to organise/live their lives which without biological or sociological influence might very well be «a coin toss» on most things. The end goal is to produce a society where men and women are represently equaly (or at least 40/60 if you need to make some compromise) in all sphere of the society. This is what I, and my fellow transfeminist, consider equality of men and women. In my opinion, a society where there is a strong, visible and recognisable disparetees between men and women roles in society will necessarly develop a form of discrimination/inequality toward one sex depending on the specific field (exemple: women will be considered less apt for accounting, but men less apt at children care) or to more vast sphere of influence for exemple carring being a women occupation while ruling is a men one. Yes, it can and does involve going against mother nature and social convention at the same time.

To tackle your assertion that boys have higher drop out rates. Yes, I believe it's linked to traditionnal gender roles(but also some biological factor like attention span and linguistical abilities) since men, especially in the middle/low class, were never encouraged to reach high level of education to obtain high pay jobs and respectful status until the late 80's. With globalisation, these jobs are rarer, yet the cultural importance of the «hard worker men» is still vivid. As for your mention of it being pushed under the rug, As a teacher in both high school and college I can tell you this is pure bullshit. Here's a little exemple of the kind o thing that is published (http://www.education.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmi...e_an.pdf). Basically, a new program for public schools was written with this specifically in its objective (ir was a failure, but for completly unrelated reasons), programs of work-studies were developped, Sport concentration and parascolar activities became twice more common. It is treated very seriously and makes the head line about once every few month in my province. Thanks to the influence of feminism, girls do see and are encouraged to pursue higher study much more openly.

I hope this help clarify the situation a bit we are talking accross one another on several points. I am sorry for that.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 03:38 PM
RE: WTF Happened to the "Feminism" Movement?
(21-03-2016 03:22 PM)epronovost Wrote:  If factors either biological or sociological favor a choice over another, I can't say that this was purely MY CHOICE.

How is your biological makeup - that is to say, a rather substantial part of you - being responsible for the choices you make in any way impinging upon your freedom of choice?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: