RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   
  Topic: Feminism, Discussion on feminism and concepts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,11:15   

As Louis notes, this is an important topic. As there are a number of concepts associated with feminism and given the apparent strong feelings and lengthy posts the topic can engender, I felt that it would be useful to remove the topic from the bathroom wall and give it a place where the comments don't get muddled or lost in other social discussions.

I freely admit that I'm a n00b on this subject and apparently lack even the basic vocabulary (so I've discovered in reading a few blogs) to accurately articulate some of the concepts. I'm hoping that by creating this place for discussion, folks who are not all that knowledgeable about the subject can read for clear reference and post questions. In other words, I'm hoping that this becomes a place where the signal to noise ratio on the concepts surrounding feminism can remain high.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,12:00   

Good oh. Whilst I'm all in favour of this, I have one problem: no resident expert. I'm certainly not one, I've read a few books and....well that's about it. We need, and I feel dirty for saying this, a social scientist of some relevant species!

I'm happy to try to blunder though any questions we all might have though.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,13:42   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 03 2011,18:00)
Good oh. Whilst I'm all in favour of this, I have one problem: no resident expert. I'm certainly not one, I've read a few books and....well that's about it. We need, and I feel dirty for saying this, a social scientist of some relevant species!

I'm happy to try to blunder though any questions we all might have though.

Louis

Ok, now I suspect I'm going to get burned in some way for what I'm going to say, but:

There are no more "experts" on Feminism at Pharyngula than there are here. A bunchload of opiniated commenters at best. Just like here, go figure.

And in fact, I would posit that we have a few, if not experts, at least directly concerned persons here (Kristine, Monica, most of all Khan, who if not an academical expert, has been dealing with feminism and misogyny for a long time).

I would wager that AtBC is probably one of the best places to start this discussion/workshop. Why? Well, we've all known each others (and been friends) for years and have always been able to find compromises to our views, in the form of differing, yet not so separated opinions. We've (well mostly you guys) managed to change some people's minds, we've always shown respect where it's due, and foremost, we are not aggressive assholes (most of the time).

Now, I would suggest we invite experts on the subject to actively help this discussion stay in touch with reality. Ophelia Benson would be a good choice. She has very good expertise on feminism. What about Bluharmony? Different strokes. Abbie would be great too, and so would Rebecca Watson. Paula Kirby as well, and why not Stephanie Zvan. Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

Short of a panel of "experts" like this one, I can only see this discussion as us regulars sharing our views on the subject (which, in the end, is not that bad either).

Can I have a last smoke before the firing squad?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,13:49   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 03 2011,13:42)
Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

No worries. We need more chickadees around here anyways.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,13:55   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 03 2011,12:00)
Good oh. Whilst I'm all in favour of this, I have one problem: no resident expert. I'm certainly not one, I've read a few books and....well that's about it. We need, and I feel dirty for saying this, a social scientist of some relevant species!

I'm happy to try to blunder though any questions we all might have though.

Louis

I don't believe that discussion boards are required to have resident experts. Let me consult my friend who happens to be an expert in Internet Etiquette and Dark Places research. Nope, no such requirement according to her. She admits this is likely because everyone speaking on the internet is an expert as well as good looking...

On a serious note, I'm hoping that given the number of folks who read this site, one or two will have some value, if not expert, contributions. Here's hoping.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,13:57   

Why does this subject suddenly give me a stomach-ache?

I am not convinced, as Catherine McKinnon once asserted, that there is a generic "condition of being woman" that unites all women everywhere on the planet. If someone "does not have the vocabulary," then GOOD! because it changes every decade anyway!

Remember how, in the 1990s, if a woman had a young son, he was referred to by the "sisterhood" as "The Oppressor"? How self-styled feminists ragged on each other for having male children? Nowadays, someone like me gets into a fight with Bitch, PhD. and the gaggle at Feministe because if you're a woman and you're not enthralled by children, or don't particularly like being around them (guilty, moi!;), and certainly don't think that they belong in the bar or at the X-rated film, you "are not really a feminist" and "it is just like being racist." What BS!

No feminists these days seem to recognize how corporations are using people's children to 1) teach them to pester their parents to buy crap that the kids don't need or even want, and 2) scare parents to death about exaggerated "threats."

Where is feminism today? It doesn't even exist anymore. Not as I understood it!

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:03   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 03 2011,13:49)
 
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 03 2011,13:42)
Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

No worries. We need more chickadees around here anyways.

GOD NO!

Chickadees happen to be one of the most territorial passerine species and some of the most violent birds! Couldn't we attract some...say...turtle doves?

(/nerd off)

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:05   

The reason I'd like someone who actually knows something about feminism to participate (and I have no biases about who, not sure I know any academic feminists, plenty of feminist academics mind you) is because I know enough to know that the sociology/social science around the subject is real, valuable and worth using.

That's it, nothing more sinister than that.

Dear old Feynman once said to a fellow dinner guest:

Quote
On the contrary, it's because someone knows something about it that we can't talk about physics. It's the things that nobody knows about that we can discuss. We can talk about the weather; we can talk about social problems; we can talk about psychology; we can talk about international finance... so it's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!

   Statement (1965), when told that nobody else at the table he was dining at knew anything about physics and thus they could not talk about it, quoted in Handbook of Economic Growth (2005) by Philippe Aghion and Steven N. Durlauf


So we can all flap our lips joyfully about this because we have no real knowledge about it. I'm not talking now about experience, we've all got that to greater or lesser extents and in varying ways, I'm talking about not having to rehash old ground.

For example, having to explain the concept of privilege would be much easier if we had some people about to check the explanation was a good one. Just like, I'd hope, a discussion about chemistry would at least involve some reference to someone that knew something. Otherwise we'd get five valent carbons everywhere....eurgh!

My point is there are facts to be known, relevant empirical data to discuss and reinventing the wheel sounds like less fun to me than discussing this seriously does. So yes, feel free to invite someone who knows something, that was kind of my point!

Louis

P.S. Pharyngula: Erm, how is it relevant to this discussion? Please stop. You're eroding what little faith I have in humanity.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:12   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 03 2011,18:57)
Why does this subject suddenly give me a stomach-ache?

I am not convinced, as Catherine McKinnon once asserted, that there is a generic "condition of being woman" that unites all women everywhere on the planet. If someone "does not have the vocabulary," then GOOD! because it changes every decade anyway!

Remember how, in the 1990s, if a woman had a young son, he was referred to by the "sisterhood" as "The Oppressor"? How self-styled feminists ragged on each other for having male children? Nowadays, someone like me gets into a fight with Bitch, PhD. and the gaggle at Feministe because if you're a woman and you're not enthralled by children, or don't particularly like being around them (guilty, moi!), and certainly don't think that they belong in the bar or at the X-rated film, you "are not really a feminist" and "it is just like being racist." What BS!

No feminists these days seem to recognize how corporations are using people's children to 1) teach them to pester their parents to buy crap that the kids don't need or even want, and 2) scare parents to death about exaggerated "threats."

Where is feminism today? It doesn't even exist anymore. Not as I understood it!

There are certainly "feminisms" from what I can tell, i.e. different schools of thought, so I would hardly want to lump them all together.

I'd share your lack of conviction regarding a "generic condition of womanhood", the idea seem preposterous to me at face value.

I don't know much about the rest, except that I'd bet there are feminists who know about/campaign against the corporate thing you mention. I DO know there are a hell of a lot of straw feminists out there who are claimed to have said the most remarkable things, and then turn out not to have. To balance that I also know that there are a lot of loons out there. Hence why I think it's probably better to pick an idea, a concept or a...a...errrm...a thing and use that as a leaping off point.

How about a definition of what "feminism" is? Own words or link to an unobjectionable reference?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:12   

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 03 2011,14:03)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 03 2011,13:49)
   
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 03 2011,13:42)
Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

No worries. We need more chickadees around here anyways.

GOD NO!

Chickadees happen to be one of the most territorial passerine species and some of the most violent birds! Couldn't we attract some...say...turtle doves?

(/nerd off)

I thought you said you were married?



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:15   

If we're inviting experts, I'd recommend Elizabeth Wood (full disclosure, she's a personal friend), but I know she's currently swamped.

She's a great voice on the Sex Positive side of feminism.

(If you're not familiar with the term or its significance, Wikipedia, From Whence All Wisdom and Knowledge is Derived is as good a place to start as any. Fair warning - Feminism is quite a tangled web.)

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:17   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 03 2011,13:42)
Now, I would suggest we invite experts on the subject to actively help this discussion stay in touch with reality. Ophelia Benson would be a good choice. She has very good expertise on feminism. What about Bluharmony? Different strokes. Abbie would be great too, and so would Rebecca Watson. Paula Kirby as well, and why not Stephanie Zvan. Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

Hmmm...there is a certain irony in the sexist assumption of female authority on the subject. Or maybe it's only sexist if we assume that ALL women or experts.

See! This is what I'm talking about; I don't even know the parameters of this concept!

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:21   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 03 2011,13:57)
Where is feminism today? It doesn't even exist anymore. Not as I understood it!

I'll be frank and say that since I know so little about the subject, I'd be really fascinated to know what you understood feminism to be, Kristine. Two main reasons:

1) You had an understanding.

2) I respect the thought you put into your statements given the comments you've made on other subjects.

If nothing else, it would give me a place to start.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:26   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2011,19:15)
If we're inviting experts, I'd recommend Elizabeth Wood (full disclosure, she's a personal friend), but I know she's currently swamped.

She's a great voice on the Sex Positive side of feminism.

(If you're not familiar with the term or its significance, Wikipedia, From Whence All Wisdom and Knowledge is Derived is as good a place to start as any. Fair warning - Feminism is quite a tangled web.)

Ahhhh sex positive feminism, my favourite kind!

I wonder why!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:31   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 03 2011,14:12)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 03 2011,14:03)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 03 2011,13:49)
     
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 03 2011,13:42)
Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

No worries. We need more chickadees around here anyways.

GOD NO!

Chickadees happen to be one of the most territorial passerine species and some of the most violent birds! Couldn't we attract some...say...turtle doves?

(/nerd off)

I thought you said you were married?

I am, but that does not prevent me from a) appreciating the loveliness of other women and b) creating a nerdy mixed-metaphor.


;)

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:34   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2011,14:15)
If we're inviting experts, I'd recommend Elizabeth Wood (full disclosure, she's a personal friend), but I know she's currently swamped.

She's a great voice on the Sex Positive side of feminism.

(If you're not familiar with the term or its significance, Wikipedia, From Whence All Wisdom and Knowledge is Derived is as good a place to start as any. Fair warning - Feminism is quite a tangled web.)

"Sex positive feminism", "privileged", "cis", "het"...(Sigh)...I clearly have a lot of reading to do.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:43   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 03 2011,14:12)
How about a definition of what "feminism" is? Own words or link to an unobjectionable reference?

Louis

I'll say that from what I've read, feminism to me means:

A perspective that women should be treated with the same type of regard and behavior as men in similar situations.

Don't know if that's accurate, but that's the impression I've gotten so far.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,14:49   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 03 2011,14:15)
If we're inviting experts, I'd recommend Elizabeth Wood (full disclosure, she's a personal friend), but I know she's currently swamped.

She's a great voice on the Sex Positive side of feminism.

(If you're not familiar with the term or its significance, Wikipedia, From Whence All Wisdom and Knowledge is Derived is as good a place to start as any. Fair warning - Feminism is quite a tangled web.)

Yes, great suggestion. To Obi-Wan you listen! :)

And I don't think anyone needs any special vocabulary other than the willingness to call a spade a spade. For example:

Feminism is not equal to Female Chauvinism.

Want to know what I am bothered by? The fact that women are outperforming men in colleges and universities (particularly in the African-American community), and the fact that, as the workplace becomes more feminized and men lose their earning power, women seem to be more frustrated with, and thus become more willing to dump, men. Where else was that happening until relatively recently? Afghanistan. Believe it or not, women were being educated in that country and running around in miniskirts, while the men eschewed education and acquired weapons - and you see what happened after the Soviets invaded.

I don't think feminism ever was popular for the girly-girl set, and yet they make the loudest noises about "oppression." Well, I cannot imagine anything more oppressive than divorce and fighting for custody, then being a single mom in this society, and being attacked by other moms about you-aren't-breastfeeding, or is-your-kid's-food-organic, to-yoga-or-not-to-yoga, etc. I worked with so many single mothers before that became more or less the norm, as it seems to be now - low-income, African-American women on their own, and they were the heirs to exhaustion. But now corporations have figured out a way to turn parental anxieties into Kindergarten Pilates Workshops! And now, young people are occupying Wall Street because everyone is flipping poor!

I now see things more in terms of social class than in terms of race or gender equality. As a first-generation college graduate, I had and have nothing in common with the white female privileged, entitled trust fund brats who made my various workplaces into backstabbing living hells.

Robin, don't worry about the vocabulary. Whatever the subject is, chances are, George Carlin also talked about it and said it more plainly! :D

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,16:03   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 03 2011,12:49)
Feminism is not equal to Female Chauvinism.

The problem is that female chauvinists won't give up the 'feminist' title without a fight. I like the terminology of Christina Hoff Sommers, who distinguishes between 'equity feminism' and 'gender feminism'. Her taxonomy seems to have caught on.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4362
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,17:09   

Feminists - Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em! :)

/Flame off




--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,19:53   

I just want to love all those neglected men out there...

...while being absolutely faithful to every one of them.

Is that asking too much? :D </Unbearablelightnessofbeing>

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,20:34   

I'm afraid that I'm not qualified, beyond being the proud owner of the proper plumbing, to speak on this subject.  I am one of those women who actually enjoys well-intentioned chivalry (opening doors, pulling out chairs, offering an arm, etc.) from members of the opposite sex.  I have NEVER been made to feel that this behavior from men is because they consider me to be "weak" or "inferior", primarily because I'm taller than the average guy and physically and mentally strong for EITHER sex.  I think it's sweet, not insulting, and I appreciate the gestures.

I have also never experienced on-the-job discrimination.  I was paid the same or more (yes, we compared wages) as my male counterparts and have always been encouraged to pursue positions of greater pay and authority by the higher ups.  My former career path (the shipping business) was pretty well male dominated and my current (child welfare social work) is female dominant, just so you know.

I HAVE been on the receiving end in the private sector (car dealers and car mechanics, in particular, assuming I'm an idiot because I'm a woman) and this mostly just amuses me because I can call their bluff and know that are just macho assholes trying to take advantage of somebody they presume to be weak.

I know that there are problems.  I know that MANY women have not been as lucky as I have.  But I don't get my knickers in a twist (HA!) when somebody uses "bitch" or "cunt" or some guy hits on me.  It just rolls off my back like water off a duck.  Does my lack of outrage make me a gender traitor?  Apparently some would say so.  Shrug.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,06:08   

Well one thread that seems to be emerging is "feminism as an othering force". In other words people are treated by some self proclaimed feminists as "other" if they don't comply with some stated/unstated set of standards (a One True Feminism if you will).

That, I think is the first hurdle to overcome. Robin mentioned a minimal definition of feminism above, here's another from the Wiki.

Quote
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. Its concepts overlap with those of women's rights. Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles. Feminists are "person[s] whose beliefs and behavior[s] are based on feminism."


I think it's vital to acknowledge that there are a huge number of ways to be a feminist and one doesn't have to follow every literal word of every feminist that has ever lived or spoken.

So to use three examples taken from Kristine, Lou and Wolfhound, I don't think that having a sex-positive/porn-friendly approach to feminism means you are not a feminist. I don't think that not liking kids or focussing more on the (equally important IMO) class issues people face means you are not a feminist. I don't think that appreciating basic, well intentioned courtesy/chivalry or not getting bent out of shape about pleasant come ons makes one not a feminist. I think all roads lead to Rome as long as we agree that Rome (equality) is our destination.

And the term "gender traitor", sorry but I HATE it. It strikes me as a means to censor debate, stifle opposition and generally end discussion. I'm not a fan even in the most extreme of circumstances, for example Phyllis Schafly with her "pull the ladder up after me" attitude. I think the term "clueless, bigoted hypocrite" does nicely for her! On the subject of terminology, would it also be okay to reserve terms like "misogyny" for, you know, actual misogyny, and not common-or-garden sexism? I don't mind using the word when it fits, but its overuse is diluting its potency. I understand the sensitivity and need to hammer the opposition with a hobnailed boot, but there's enough to hammer them on frankly.

Anyway, is the definition of feminism above sufficiently non-controversial to include everyone? Does everyone agree that that is the working definition we will use for the purposes of discussion? That way we can all talk about the same thing and not have one person talking about Andrea Dworkin's concept of feminism and another talking about Tristan Taormino's.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,07:00   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 04 2011,12:08)
Well one thread that seems to be emerging is "feminism as an othering force". In other words people are treated by some self proclaimed feminists as "other" if they don't comply with some stated/unstated set of standards (a One True Feminism if you will).

That, I think is the first hurdle to overcome. Robin mentioned a minimal definition of feminism above, here's another from the Wiki.

 
Quote
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. Its concepts overlap with those of women's rights. Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles. Feminists are "person[s] whose beliefs and behavior[s] are based on feminism."


I think it's vital to acknowledge that there are a huge number of ways to be a feminist and one doesn't have to follow every literal word of every feminist that has ever lived or spoken.

So to use three examples taken from Kristine, Lou and Wolfhound, I don't think that having a sex-positive/porn-friendly approach to feminism means you are not a feminist. I don't think that not liking kids or focussing more on the (equally important IMO) class issues people face means you are not a feminist. I don't think that appreciating basic, well intentioned courtesy/chivalry or not getting bent out of shape about pleasant come ons makes one not a feminist. I think all roads lead to Rome as long as we agree that Rome (equality) is our destination.

And the term "gender traitor", sorry but I HATE it. It strikes me as a means to censor debate, stifle opposition and generally end discussion. I'm not a fan even in the most extreme of circumstances, for example Phyllis Schafly with her "pull the ladder up after me" attitude. I think the term "clueless, bigoted hypocrite" does nicely for her! On the subject of terminology, would it also be okay to reserve terms like "misogyny" for, you know, actual misogyny, and not common-or-garden sexism? I don't mind using the word when it fits, but its overuse is diluting its potency. I understand the sensitivity and need to hammer the opposition with a hobnailed boot, but there's enough to hammer them on frankly.

Anyway, is the definition of feminism above sufficiently non-controversial to include everyone? Does everyone agree that that is the working definition we will use for the purposes of discussion? That way we can all talk about the same thing and not have one person talking about Andrea Dworkin's concept of feminism and another talking about Tristan Taormino's.

Louis

I agree wholefuly with all this. Good basis for a great discussion!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,07:26   

Small aside, regarding Louis' "don't look at the form, look at the substance" (paraphrasing). I am right now commenting on Stephanie Zvan's latest post at FTB. They wonder wether to "out" Franc Hoggle and release his real name publicly following his blog posts and comments. I think they shouldn't, and have expressed my views in clear and detailled ways.

But all the commenters are focussing on are personal feuds between diferent commentors/bloggers. Thus may lie some of the problems we've encountered at some point in EGate. I would most enjoy if this thread didn't go down that path.

But who am I to judge, in the end...

Just sayin'

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,08:32   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 04 2011,06:08)
That, I think is the first hurdle to overcome. Robin mentioned a minimal definition of feminism above, here's another from the Wiki.

   
Quote
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. Its concepts overlap with those of women's rights. Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles. Feminists are "person[s] whose beliefs and behavior[s] are based on feminism."


I think it's vital to acknowledge that there are a huge number of ways to be a feminist and one doesn't have to follow every literal word of every feminist that has ever lived or spoken.

As usual, I like what you wrote, Louis, and agree for the most part. I'm going to climb up on a soapbox for a moment though and complain about one thing in this concept that I disagree with:

Equality

I disagree with the use of this term. I know that the implication of the term as used by most folks in the context of feminism is impartiality. Personally I'd prefer to use that term. For me the issue is that (and I think both Kristine's and Wolfie's, to say nothing of Louis', comments illustrate this) people are not equal and in general we do not see ourselves as equal. Is it any wonder that few people treat each of us equally?

As organisms we have a highly detailed ability to analyze the world around us and a very quickly divide things into categories of "like" and "not like". I really feel it's unreasonable to then complain when we do this automatically when categorizing men and women. The part (for me at least) where I think feminism kicks in is the assessment people then make about how these two categories of people should be treated in given situations.

And personally, I think it's appropriate to treat the two categories of people differently depending on the situation because the two categories are not equal. Of course, even within the two categories there are a number of inequalities - some men are shorter (like me) than others; some women have blue eyes vs brown.

The problem, as I see it, is that for whatever reason many people (and I think mostly men in this case, but I don't know) have attached assumed attributes to each category and then interact with those two categories based on those attributes when in reality those attributes are either skewed, misunderstood, or outright don't actually exist for the majority of members. I'm sure that most of the inappropriate behavior has been leveled towards women, but I don't really think that what the women actually wanted in those cases was to be treated equally with the men. Rather, I bet most of them would have preferred to be treated as individuals who may or may not have fit certain preconceived attributes, thus preferring that the behavior be made without considering those attributes at all.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,08:37   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 04 2011,12:26)
Small aside, regarding Louis' "don't look at the form, look at the substance" (paraphrasing). I am right now commenting on Stephanie Zvan's latest post at FTB. They wonder wether to "out" Franc Hoggle and release his real name publicly following his blog posts and comments. I think they shouldn't, and have expressed my views in clear and detailled ways.

But all the commenters are focussing on are personal feuds between diferent commentors/bloggers. Thus may lie some of the problems we've encountered at some point in EGate. I would most enjoy if this thread didn't go down that path.

But who am I to judge, in the end...

Just sayin'

1) I'd really rather peoples' focus on this thread wasn't the eternal dramatics of other blogs/interwebs places. I can't insist on that of course, but thread creation for soap opera discussions isn't banned here as far as I'm aware.

2) Not a fan of outing in general, as discussed previously.

I will say this though, if someone has a genuine and specific reason to believe that a person poses a serious threat to another person or people in general, then yes, I think outing is ONE method that can be used.

I think it is the tool of last resort though. If you know that person's identity then you have the means to contact them, if you can contact them personally you can tell them to knock whatever it is off. If they persist you can tell them to knock it off emphatically and mention that you view what they are doing as harassment (if it is). If they still persist then there are still more steps before outing. Outing is a bit of a nuclear option for a first resort.

Whether or not Hoggle deserves it? I don't know enough to say. I've deliberately paid as little attention as possible to the pathetic drama.

I'll mention one thing though, I am getting fucking tired of the soap operas though. I might become.....sarcastic. ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,09:00   

Quote
I'll mention one thing though, I am getting fucking tired of the soap operas though. I might become.....sarcastic. ;-)


No! Don't! Don't you fucking dare!!!

This was just an aside to try and target what the problem is in this talk. And now that I come to realize it, yes, it's very stupid of me to say "don't bring outside feuds in this discussion, as I just did".

Almost Pythonesque...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,09:42   

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 04 2011,13:32)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 04 2011,06:08)
That, I think is the first hurdle to overcome. Robin mentioned a minimal definition of feminism above, here's another from the Wiki.

   
Quote
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. Its concepts overlap with those of women's rights. Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles. Feminists are "person[s] whose beliefs and behavior[s] are based on feminism."


I think it's vital to acknowledge that there are a huge number of ways to be a feminist and one doesn't have to follow every literal word of every feminist that has ever lived or spoken.

As usual, I like what you wrote, Louis, and agree for the most part. I'm going to climb up on a soapbox for a moment though and complain about one thing in this concept that I disagree with:

Equality

I disagree with the use of this term. I know that the implication of the term as used by most folks in the context of feminism is impartiality. Personally I'd prefer to use that term. For me the issue is that (and I think both Kristine's and Wolfie's, to say nothing of Louis', comments illustrate this) people are not equal and in general we do not see ourselves as equal. Is it any wonder that few people treat each of us equally?

As organisms we have a highly detailed ability to analyze the world around us and a very quickly divide things into categories of "like" and "not like". I really feel it's unreasonable to then complain when we do this automatically when categorizing men and women. The part (for me at least) where I think feminism kicks in is the assessment people then make about how these two categories of people should be treated in given situations.

And personally, I think it's appropriate to treat the two categories of people differently depending on the situation because the two categories are not equal. Of course, even within the two categories there are a number of inequalities - some men are shorter (like me) than others; some women have blue eyes vs brown.

The problem, as I see it, is that for whatever reason many people (and I think mostly men in this case, but I don't know) have attached assumed attributes to each category and then interact with those two categories based on those attributes when in reality those attributes are either skewed, misunderstood, or outright don't actually exist for the majority of members. I'm sure that most of the inappropriate behavior has been leveled towards women, but I don't really think that what the women actually wanted in those cases was to be treated equally with the men. Rather, I bet most of them would have preferred to be treated as individuals who may or may not have fit certain preconceived attributes, thus preferring that the behavior be made without considering those attributes at all.

Robin,

No one with a functioning nervous system has ever said that, on average, women have every specific trait identically equal to that of men or vice versa. I confidently predict I would find having a baby quite challenging.* What people are saying is that, as you mention, women and men should be by and large treated equally. I.e. women are of equal worth as men, should be granted equal access to opportunity as men etc. And of course, vice versa.

The definition used in Wiki that I quoted above makes it very clear in the first sentence what sort of equality feminism is aimed at. It's not aimed at rewriting biology.

The word "equality" doesn't imply just equality of type, and impartiality has its connotations too. For example, impartiality implies objectivity. Feminism is not necessarily impartial, in fact in certain circumstances it can and should be deliberately partial, i.e favouring women to redress a specific inequality. Neither can feminism, as a subset of social science, be utterly objective. There is, for example, going to be a degree of subjective experience applied in deciding which school of feminism one adheres to. It's not as simple and clear cut as we might like. There are ideological waters to navigate here. I think this semantic quibble is at best simply wrong, and done away with by the first sentence of the quoted definition.

Answer me this, since the claim that men and women are possessed of equal traits (i.e. equality of type) is such an obviously untrue claim, men can't have babies for example, why even attribute it to feminism?

And I suppose this is one of the questions that really interests me in any discussion about feminism: why these objections?

I don't mean to pick on you personally Robin, or anyone here for that matter, but I am genuinely interested in the objections to feminism that have arisen in just one page of this thread.

Why am I interested, well before Carlson has hysterics and accuses me of wanting to call everyone misogynists, I'll tell you: Because they were/are exactly the same objections I had. They were/are MY knee jerk objections. So I'm not being sanctimonious, I'm being selfish! Biiig difference! Hee hee.

Why do we...well okay to be strict I'm not sure anyone but me has/had them...why did/do I have these very simplistic, actually quite hostile objections to a straw feminism that is contradicted by a quick read of what is actually there?

If I'm coming across as mean, I apologise for that is not my intention. I'm genuinely curious as to why this subject causes suspiciously simplistic objections from intelligent people. Me included. I think it's possibly an important hurdle to discussion on the topic. Perhaps if we can understand this we'll understand other things. I guess I just don't know. Indulge me this navel gaze.

I'm not saying this is the case here for anyone, even me perhaps, but I'll make an analogy. Look at Forastero on the other thread. He chucks out technical sounding claims but it is abundantly clear his objections are not technical or intellectual, they are ideological or personal. The form those objections take is dressed in pseudo-intellectual garb to pass superficial scrutiny. Semantic or philosophical quibbles can be innocent and valuable, but they aren't always. Complaints about exclusion can be true, but they aren't always. Painting with a broad brush can represent reality, but it doesn't always. All together with a few other things....well that rings alarm bells. That's rarely an innocent combination. It instantly makes me think of my post signature. If and when I catch myself doing these things I try to think about how I am fooling myself. So given that the objections I've had are identical to the objections raised here by yourself and others, how, if this is the case, am I/have I been fooling myself and why?

Is it clear what I'm trying to do with this?

Louis

* Where's the foetus going to gestate? In a box?

--------------
Bye.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,10:08   

I can only morn that the poor quality of tard at UD has left you all with too much time on your hands.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,10:23   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 04 2011,09:42)
* Where's the foetus going to gestate? In a box?

In the Jesus shaped hole in your soul.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,10:32   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 04 2011,09:42)
Answer me this, since the claim that men and women are possessed of equal traits (i.e. equality of type) is such an obviously untrue claim, men can't have babies for example, why even attribute it to feminism?

And I suppose this is one of the questions that really interests me in any discussion about feminism: why these objections?

I don't mean to pick on you personally Robin, or anyone here for that matter, but I am genuinely interested in the objections to feminism that have arisen in just one page of this thread.

Why am I interested, well before Carlson has hysterics and accuses me of wanting to call everyone misogynists, I'll tell you: Because they were/are exactly the same objections I had. They were/are MY knee jerk objections. So I'm not being sanctimonious, I'm being selfish! Biiig difference! Hee hee.

Why do we...well okay to be strict I'm not sure anyone but me has/had them...why did/do I have these very simplistic, actually quite hostile objections to a straw feminism that is contradicted by a quick read of what is actually there?

If I'm coming across as mean, I apologise for that is not my intention. I'm genuinely curious as to why this subject causes suspiciously simplistic objections from intelligent people. Me included. I think it's possibly an important hurdle to discussion on the topic. Perhaps if we can understand this we'll understand other things. I guess I just don't know. Indulge me this navel gaze.

I'm not saying this is the case here for anyone, even me perhaps, but I'll make an analogy. Look at Forastero on the other thread. He chucks out technical sounding claims but it is abundantly clear his objections are not technical or intellectual, they are ideological or personal. The form those objections take is dressed in pseudo-intellectual garb to pass superficial scrutiny. Semantic or philosophical quibbles can be innocent and valuable, but they aren't always. Complaints about exclusion can be true, but they aren't always. Painting with a broad brush can represent reality, but it doesn't always. All together with a few other things....well that rings alarm bells. That's rarely an innocent combination. It instantly makes me think of my post signature. If and when I catch myself doing these things I try to think about how I am fooling myself. So given that the objections I've had are identical to the objections raised here by yourself and others, how, if this is the case, am I/have I been fooling myself and why?

Is it clear what I'm trying to do with this?

Louis

* Where's the foetus going to gestate? In a box?

First, a clarification - I didn't say anything about objecting to feminism. I said I dislike using the term equality in that context. It's a semantic thing with me, nothing more.

I fully agree that women and men should be treated as having the same type of brains and thought capability all other characteristics being neutral and/or unknown. That is to say that two qualified (on paper) candidates for a job, one a man and one a woman, should both be given the same exactly level of consideration based on the job qualifications and requirements and not initially evaluated as one having a penis and one having a vagina (unless the job calls for one or the other of course).

When I noted the assumption of attributes for one category over the other, I was thinking about things like assuming that the category "women" includes the attribute of "emotional". I think that is a false assumption and that assuming such about "all women" as a category falls under the category of sexism and I disagree in principle with that thinking. This isn't to say I'm not guilty of sexism in other ways; I'm sure I'm ignorant and assume things about people based on their sex that just are not true. But in principle I try not to evaluate people based on sex.

So in answer to your question, I wasn't trying to attribute equality of traits to feminism specifically - it's just that based on some things I've read the concept of what constitutes "equality" isn't equal.


* It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,10:42   

This entry from Wiki rather sums up my issue with the term equality:

Quote
"Feminism makes claims for a rebalancing between women and men of the social, economic, and political power within a given society, on behalf of both sexes in the name of their common humanity, but with respect for their differences."[32] When feminism and related words began being widely used in the 1890s in Europe and the Western Hemisphere and continuing into modern times, the terms' relationship to equality was often unclear. "Then, as now, many parties used the terms polemically, as epithets, rather than analytically; then, as now, the words were not used by everyone to mean the same thing. And, as the study of their history reveals, they referred far more often to the 'rights of women' than to 'rights equal to those of men.' This is a subtle but profound distinction. Even then the vocabulary of feminism connoted a far broader sociopolitical critique, a critique that was woman-centered and woman-celebratory in its onslaught on male privilege."[33]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....quality

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,10:43   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 04 2011,15:08)
I can only morn that the poor quality of tard at UD has left you all with too much time on your hands.

Ah but this could bring real disagreement. And who doesn't want that?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,10:43   

Robin,

Bugger, was I wrong again? Twice in one lifetime. This is becoming a habit.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,11:43   

BTW, does adhering to the principles of feminism mean I have to objectify both men and women equally. Because I really don't want to do that.

Oh wait...nevermind...



:p

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,13:03   

An acquaintance in a former circle had a male->female sex change. I was only around for hir preliminary "testing of the waters" (nails, hair, etc.), but it really brought home to me how differently I respond to men and women, generally speaking.  Yes, we are all individuals (they all shouted together), and individuals'  interactions are all unique, but I think there is a certain common experience history in growing up boy or growing up girl.  Kind of like growing up straight or gay, city mouse or country mouse, and so on...

Talking about the nebulous concept of equality is an interesting excersize, I suppose, but what specific concrete pragmatic and so on examples can one point to?

Like I said, I think I'm coming from "Of course we're all equal, aren't we past that yet?", but I may be deluding myself.

eta this book: http://www.amazon.ca/Debatin....5313845 gets 5 fnkstars for balance and thoughtful discussion; contributions range from McKinnon to pornfem Lisa Palac.

Bought it, read it, lent it, lost it. :-(  From now on I'm putting RFID's in all my books.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,13:41   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 04 2011,13:03)
Talking about the nebulous concept of equality is an interesting excersize, I suppose, but what specific concrete pragmatic and so on examples can one point to?

Like I said, I think I'm coming from "Of course we're all equal, aren't we past that yet?", but I may be deluding myself.

Here' an example of why I have difficulty with the term "equal".

When Dan O'bannon wrote the script for Alien, he envisioned the role of Lt. Ripley being played by a man. He explicitly wrote scenes with Ripley as a man in mind (most of which were cut). However, he also explicitly didn't give any characters first names in his script feeling that it was important that the sex of the character make no difference from a casting perspective. However, since the implied premise of the alien's life cycle is one of rape and since the Ripley overcomes such a violent force and situation was such a powerful message, Ridley Scott felt that Ripley should be a woman. Interestingly, Scott not only scripted and filmed a sex scene to give Weaver's Ripley more femininity, his first ending had Ripley killed. The movie ran too long to keep the sex scene and test audiences hated the bleak ending with no survivors.

The long and short of it is, Ripley as a man would not equal Ripley as a woman. It is a completely different situation/story just by changing the sex of the main character. Would it still be a good story? Sure. Would it be equivalent? Probably. Would it would not be equal? No.

Just sayin'...

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,20:00   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 04 2011,10:08)
I can only morn that the poor quality of tard at UD has left you all with too much time on your hands.

Not me! I just walked up to a guy bigger than me at my library and told him to

1) not to have more than two people at a computer (our policy)
2) not to use the words (which he subsequently proclaimed) "I'm going to kick her white cracker ass" in my library
3) that I was sorry that I touched him (yes, I pulled away his earphone from his ear when he refused to acknowledge me when I whirled upon my heel after hearing the "kick white cracker ass" comment) but that this was his first warning and that we don't use that language in our library.

He said he was leaving, and he left. His friends later roughoused and laughed at me as they left, but I just fixed them with a stare.

Power is complicated. He was a man and much bigger than me. But he was not white and I am. He was not in a position of authority, and I am. Plus, when I went back to the desk and told other staff what happened, I announced, "I wonder if people know I can look up their names and records from their computer reservations?" and did so. Yes, his friends turned and looked at me when I did that, and yes, I wrote down their names (I usually greet assholes pleasantly by name the next time I see them in the library), and yes, I told staff that I had no problem using a little fear with patrons who roughouse, raise their voices, use profanity, and especially threaten the librarian, which happened to me.

Was this sexual harassment? You're darn tootin'! My point is, feminism seems to have turned into wringing one's hands. I don't have time for that. It does not help me.

I have a job to do. Feminism should help me to do that. If it does not, then screw it - I'm calling myself "liberated" from now on.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,23:16   

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 03 2011,12:03)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 03 2011,13:49)
     
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 03 2011,13:42)
Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

No worries. We need more chickadees around here anyways.

GOD NO!

Chickadees happen to be one of the most territorial passerine species and some of the most violent birds! Couldn't we attract some...say...turtle doves?

(/nerd off)

Either one is better than a bunch of old cockatoos and turkeys.

 Present company excepted, of course

ETA: and loons!  Can't forget the loons.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2011,12:53   

Offered with no further comment.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2011,02:03   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 05 2011,10:53)
Offered with no further comment.

Louis

and immediately below on that very page:
 
Quote

More in Commentators »
Ads by Google


Why Men Lose Attraction
10 Ugly Mistakes Women Make That
Ruins Any Chances Of A Relationship
CatchHimAndKeepHim.com


--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2011,11:09   

And NOW we know why Our Very Own Dear Louis just luuuurvs PZ's gang sooooo much!  Turncoat bastard!*

Molly Award

*congrats**

** you wanker

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2011,11:44   

Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 06 2011,17:09)
And NOW we know why Our Very Own Dear Louis just luuuurvs PZ's gang sooooo much!  Turncoat bastard!*

Molly Award

*congrats**

** you wanker

I'm sure glad we don't practice guilt by association around here.

Congrats, Louis!*





*You jerk-off!



:p

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2011,15:24   

Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 06 2011,16:09)
And NOW we know why Our Very Own Dear Louis just luuuurvs PZ's gang sooooo much!  Turncoat bastard!*

Molly Award

*congrats**

** you wanker

Heyyyyyy baby, don't worry baby, there's room for more than one blog/forum in my heart*. She's got nothing on you baby, it's a one time thing.

Not sure how I got that to be honest. Bit of a shock. But I don't luuuurve PZ et al soooo much, I just don't hate them. I lurve some of them, just like I lurve some of you.

Louis

*Not much, it's a cold and blackened thing.

ETA: I won't be wearing my OM, it changes nothing. I will still take the piss and agree/disagree as is my want.

--------------
Bye.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2011,21:28   

If a Molly Award is the miniskirt of the internet, then Louis owes us all a shimmy in drag. :)

Call it gender reparations. Just don't horn in on my Ann Miller act, you show-off you.

BURN HIM HE'S A WITCH! And thus I pass the (sequined) mantel.

And behave yourself in my frakkin' library! :D

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,03:02   

1) OH NOES I AM TEH WITCH! DON'T BURN ME , BRO!

2) Will Drag-Shimmy at earliest opportunity.

3) Behave in your library? Ma'am yes, ma'am!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,08:50   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 04 2011,23:16)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 03 2011,12:03)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 03 2011,13:49)
       
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 03 2011,13:42)
Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

No worries. We need more chickadees around here anyways.

GOD NO!

Chickadees happen to be one of the most territorial passerine species and some of the most violent birds! Couldn't we attract some...say...turtle doves?

(/nerd off)

Either one is better than a bunch of old cockatoos and turkeys.

 Present company excepted, of course

ETA: and loons!  Can't forget the loons.

How 'bout boobies?









Oh c'mon! Blue Footed!! This is a classy thread people!

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2011,08:54   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 06 2011,21:28)
If a Molly Award is the miniskirt of the internet, then Louis owes us all a shimmy in drag. :)

Call it gender reparations. Just don't horn in on my Ann Miller act, you show-off you.

BURN HIM HE'S A WITCH! And thus I pass the (sequined) mantel.

And behave yourself in my frakkin' library! :D

Heh heh! She said "horn"! Heh heh...



(/butthead)

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,16:24   

Wow. *thumbs up*

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,12:59   

So this is just stunning to me.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10118
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,13:53   

ALRIGHT SHUT UP AND LISTEN COS I'M TALKING. I'M HEAR TWO TRIVIALIZE YOUR SENSATIVE ISSUE.

SRSLSY, WAHT IS RONG WITH IT?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2011,12:59   

Chicks, man. Go figure.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2011,16:16   

For this "right," suffragettes marched. And I don't think this was meant as Spinal Tapesque satire. :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2011,17:07   

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 14 2011,14:16)
For this "right," suffragettes marched. And I don't think this was meant as Spinal Tapesque satire. :p

Well it's nice to know there are no gender barriers to insipid fluff reporting.

You're AmusedChild, aren't you.

Anyway it was probably a weather balloon reflecting swampgas from Venus. (FLASH)

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2011,12:51   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 14 2011,17:07)
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 14 2011,14:16)
For this "right," suffragettes marched. And I don't think this was meant as Spinal Tapesque satire. :p

Well it's nice to know there are no gender barriers to insipid fluff reporting.

You're AmusedChild, aren't you.

Anyway it was probably a weather balloon reflecting swampgas from Venus. (FLASH)

Funny thing - I get taken for a guy on YouTube all the time. :p

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2011,13:00   

So who is more bashful, men or women? :D

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,01:02   

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 07 2011,06:50)
 
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 04 2011,23:16)
   
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 03 2011,12:03)
       
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 03 2011,13:49)
           
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 03 2011,13:42)
Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

No worries. We need more chickadees around here anyways.

GOD NO!

Chickadees happen to be one of the most territorial passerine species and some of the most violent birds! Couldn't we attract some...say...turtle doves?

(/nerd off)

Either one is better than a bunch of old cockatoos and turkeys.

 Present company excepted, of course

ETA: and loons!  Can't forget the loons.

How 'bout boobies?




Oh c'mon! Blue Footed!! This is a classy thread people!


Boobies! Yes! Of course!

Boobies are good, blue-footed or tan-lined.

Old coots favor boobies.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,02:57   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 16 2011,07:02)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 07 2011,06:50)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 04 2011,23:16)
   
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 03 2011,12:03)
         
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 03 2011,13:49)
           
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 03 2011,13:42)
Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

No worries. We need more chickadees around here anyways.

GOD NO!

Chickadees happen to be one of the most territorial passerine species and some of the most violent birds! Couldn't we attract some...say...turtle doves?

(/nerd off)

Either one is better than a bunch of old cockatoos and turkeys.

 Present company excepted, of course

ETA: and loons!  Can't forget the loons.

How 'bout boobies?




Oh c'mon! Blue Footed!! This is a classy thread people!


Boobies! Yes! Of course!

Boobies are good, blue-footed or tan-lined.

Old coots favor boobies.

I once saw this couple of Great Tits.

One had a worm in its beak to feed its newly hatched youngs.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,08:37   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 16 2011,00:57)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 16 2011,07:02)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 07 2011,06:50)
   
Quote (sledgehammer @ Nov. 04 2011,23:16)
     
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 03 2011,12:03)
         
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 03 2011,13:49)
             
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 03 2011,13:42)
Apologies if that makes me look like I think only women can be experts on Feminism, but that would at least limit the risk to attract "faux-feminists"...

No worries. We need more chickadees around here anyways.

GOD NO!

Chickadees happen to be one of the most territorial passerine species and some of the most violent birds! Couldn't we attract some...say...turtle doves?

(/nerd off)

Either one is better than a bunch of old cockatoos and turkeys.

 Present company excepted, of course

ETA: and loons!  Can't forget the loons.

How 'bout boobies?




Oh c'mon! Blue Footed!! This is a classy thread people!


Boobies! Yes! Of course!

Boobies are good, blue-footed or tan-lined.

Old coots favor boobies.

I once saw this couple of Great Tits.

One had a worm in its beak to feed its newly hatched youngs.

I'm heron ya! I'll quit tit now.
Nevermore, quoth the raven.
Gulls just wanna have fun.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,11:28   

Hello. I'm a Darwinian feminist.  Can define that a bit later. For now - can anyone tell me how to attach PDF's?? This is my protoblog, though it needs updating. My Webpage

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 26 2011,19:50

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,11:30   

That link doesn't work sorry. Will read the thread.

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,12:29   

Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 17 2011,11:30)
That link doesn't work sorry. Will read the thread.

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Wait...a feminist, a student of evolutionary theory, and an actor? C'mon...isn't that like sodium and water or matter and anti-matter?

:p

Welcome to the After the Bar Closes! Glad to have you here!

I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.

ETA fixed smiley

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,14:27   

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 17 2011,12:29)
Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 17 2011,11:30)
That link doesn't work sorry. Will read the thread.

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Wait...a feminist, a student of evolutionary theory, and an actor? C'mon...isn't that like sodium and water or matter and anti-matter?

:p

Welcome to the After the Bar Closes! Glad to have you here!

I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.

ETA fixed smiley

Quote
Wait...a feminist, a student of evolutionary theory, and an actor? C'mon...isn't that like sodium and water or matter and anti-matter?

:p


Ha, yes a bit. Especially the feminist and evolutionist bit.

Quote
Welcome to the After the Bar Closes! Glad to have you here!

I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.

ETA fixed smiley


Thanks

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,14:46   

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 17 2011,12:29)
Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 17 2011,11:30)
That link doesn't work sorry. Will read the thread.

http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Wait...a feminist, a student of evolutionary theory, and an actor? C'mon...isn't that like sodium and water or matter and anti-matter?

:p

Welcome to the After the Bar Closes! Glad to have you here!

I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.

ETA fixed smiley

Wow, I'm having some trouble getting to grips with the board layout.  

Quote
I have a question regarding your blog - what are Darwinian gender studies? I've never heard of that, but it sounds interesting. I freely admit I've only skimmed a bit on your blog thus far, so if you've covered that question somewhere I apologize - I'll likely get to it eventually as your blog looks interesting.


DGS is a term I use as I have struggled with Darwinian feminist in the past.  There is already a great deal of work that one could label DGS; the work of David Buss for instance.  I sometimes prefer it because my interest is in sexual selection and the way men and women make their way through life wanting essentially the same things from an evolutionary perspective (to survive and procreate) but have different proximate strategies to those ultimate goals. I see the study of women as meaningless without also studying men - and their offspring, and traditionally feminism is the study of women only. The term feminism has a huge amount of political baggage too. Like someone said further up the thread, its a bit of a tangled bank.

If its possible to attach pdfs though I could post a couple of the most recent papers on DGS/darwinian feminism/feminist darwinians.  There is a paper by Buss and Schmitt on my blog re EP and feminism which is current too.  

I wrote this in response to the thread and questions re a feminist expert - apols for length.  Will be better to just respond to individuals after getting this out of the way..!



I am not a feminist in the orthodox sense. For one,  I am a Darwinian feminist, and as such represent everything orthodox feminism stands against  - biological determinism, male superiority, female passivity -  (I know that Darwinism doesn't stand for any of these things, but most feminists still do  unfortunately.)

The first problem with defining feminism (which today means 2nd wave feminism – a very different movement from the  1st wave) is that any feminist will tell you that there is not one feminism – but many feminisms; Marxist feminism, socialist feminism, post-modern feminism, standpoint feminism, black feminism to name a few. The multiplicity of standpoints in feminism represents female intrasexual competition to me as a Darwinist, but feminists themselves struggle with this idea, as  it appears to be at odds with a utopian sisterhood.

One thing they do seem to be able to agree on is that patriarchy is the enemy. Each has slightly different conceptions of what patriarchy is, but all agree that it is a socially constructed phenomena which is enforced by socially constructed notions of sex and gender which equate to male supremacy and female inferiority and that the dismantling of patriarchy is central to the metafeminist project.

The only feminist excpetion to this rule is liberal feminism (alla Betty Friedan - see Falaudi's Backlash for what radical feminists think of her) who do not advocate social revolution (the over throwing of a patriarchy for a matriarchy) but social improvements for all.  To this end they are generally labelled conservative feminists – see critcs of Christina Hoff Sommers (the conservative meant to be a pejorative, especially in the UK) or just antifeminists. Evolutionary psychologist Anne Campbell is a feminist Darwinian, as is Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (though I think she prefers 'distaff darwinian'; evolutionary philosopher Helena Cronin is also a feminist darwinian. (See hopefully soon to be attached paper by Vandermassen re the distinction between feminist darwinians and darwinian feminists.) My phd is going to be in the evolutionary origins of patriarchy – I won a place at Durham this year but funding fell through so I'm back as an independent for the moment.

So, I am probably a specialist in Darwinian feminism and Darwinian gender studies, though I'm not PhD level. I have studied a lot of orthodox feminist theory along the way, but I am a rationalist not a construtivist and so would probably be labelled antifeminist by an orthadox feminist, even though my interests are in examining evolution via a female perspective and better understanding female dilemmas within the context of sexual selection, etc.
Nice to be here by the way.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,15:11   

Hello Verbena, and welcome to AtBC!

After reading a couple of your posts, I have to say your input here will be highly appreciated. Thanks a lot for participating, drinks on the house, bathroom (and its wall) easy enough to find...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,15:19   

I wonder whether "The Patriarchy" is in fact a consequence of evolution -- in the strictly biological sense -- or a deliberate (conscious, free-will, w.h.y.) perpetuation of social choices by those traditionally in power.

I guess the question is how did the power originate in the first place, which is more a parallel to abiogenesis than evolution.

Or not.  Just brainstorming.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,15:24   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2011,15:11)
Hello Verbena, and welcome to AtBC!

After reading a couple of your posts, I have to say your input here will be highly appreciated. Thanks a lot for participating, drinks on the house, bathroom (and its wall) easy enough to find...

Quote
Hello Verbena, and welcome to AtBC!

After reading a couple of your posts, I have to say your input here will be highly appreciated. Thanks a lot for participating, drinks on the house, bathroom (and its wall) easy enough to find...


Thanks. So what's with the 'after the bar closes' side forum? Is this just for late night boozy chats??

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,15:28   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 17 2011,15:19)
I wonder whether "The Patriarchy" is in fact a consequence of evolution -- in the strictly biological sense -- or a deliberate (conscious, free-will, w.h.y.) perpetuation of social choices by those traditionally in power.

I guess the question is how did the power originate in the first place, which is more a parallel to abiogenesis than evolution.

Or not.  Just brainstorming.

Quote
I wonder whether "The Patriarchy" is in fact a consequence of evolution -- in the strictly biological sense -- or a deliberate (conscious, free-will, w.h.y.) perpetuation of social choices by those traditionally in power.

I guess the question is how did the power originate in the first place, which is more a parallel to abiogenesis than evolution.

Or not.  Just brainstorming.


Well...one of my hypotheses is of patriarchy as a human 'lek'.  An culture for men to compete with other men - what happens when women enter the lek? They have to compete roman rules, just like the men - or can the lek be feminised?? How to bloody test it!

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,16:35   

AtBC is right here, the most active part of the forum, as the other sections are more a collection on informations regarding the evolution-religion debate at large and other parallel subjects. IOW, this is where the fun is!

I gave a few thoughts about DGS, and it is a fascinating field. Exemples of different models are present in nature, such as lion prides being patriarchal but still having the females do the heavy work of hunting and providing for food, in contrast with hyena prides which are matriarchal. I think to understand the patriarchy in humans, we'd have to go way back in time, when hominids started socializing. Males hunt, females care after the offsprings. I once read a study linked to this that provided a few "inherent" differences between male and female behaviors in everyday life due to these very early "roles" in hominid groups. Will try to track down the study if I can find it (it was about 15 years ago)...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,17:11   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2011,14:35)
AtBC is right here, the most active part of the forum, as the other sections are more a collection on informations regarding the evolution-religion debate at large and other parallel subjects. IOW, this is where the fun is!

I gave a few thoughts about DGS, and it is a fascinating field. Exemples of different models are present in nature, such as lion prides being patriarchal but still having the females do the heavy work of hunting and providing for food, in contrast with hyena prides which are matriarchal. I think to understand the patriarchy in humans, we'd have to go way back in time, when hominids started socializing. Males hunt, females care after the offsprings. I once read a study linked to this that provided a few "inherent" differences between male and female behaviors in everyday life due to these very early "roles" in hominid groups. Will try to track down the study if I can find it (it was about 15 years ago)...

Is Man The Hunter a fact or an assumption? I can't remember where I read it but there was some question a while back whether women joined in the hunt. Was there great sexual dimorphism in our early history or was it... er... bred for, later?  And did the technology/tools of the time (spear throwers, e.g.) even the field? I dunno.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,17:19   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 17 2011,17:11)
I can't remember where I read it but there was some question a while back whether women joined in the hunt.

I think this is what you are referring to.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2011,17:19   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 17 2011,23:11)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2011,14:35)
AtBC is right here, the most active part of the forum, as the other sections are more a collection on informations regarding the evolution-religion debate at large and other parallel subjects. IOW, this is where the fun is!

I gave a few thoughts about DGS, and it is a fascinating field. Exemples of different models are present in nature, such as lion prides being patriarchal but still having the females do the heavy work of hunting and providing for food, in contrast with hyena prides which are matriarchal. I think to understand the patriarchy in humans, we'd have to go way back in time, when hominids started socializing. Males hunt, females care after the offsprings. I once read a study linked to this that provided a few "inherent" differences between male and female behaviors in everyday life due to these very early "roles" in hominid groups. Will try to track down the study if I can find it (it was about 15 years ago)...

Is Man The Hunter a fact or an assumption? I can't remember where I read it but there was some question a while back whether women joined in the hunt. Was there great sexual dimorphism in our early history or was it... er... bred for, later?  And did the technology/tools of the time (spear throwers, e.g.) even the field? I dunno.

To be honest, I think there must have been some factor that led to the patriarchal construct of human society (not all of it, there are native tribes in south-east Asia that are matriarchal). Sexual dimorphism might be a factor, but maybe there are other underlying reasons. As you so wisely put it, I dunno, either...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,04:28   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2011,17:19)

Quote
I gave a few thoughts about DGS, and it is a fascinating field. Exemples of different models are present in nature, such as lion prides being patriarchal but still having the females do the heavy work of hunting and providing for food, in contrast with hyena prides which are matriarchal. I think to understand the patriarchy in humans, we'd have to go way back in time, when hominids started socializing. Males hunt, females care after the offsprings. I once read a study linked to this that provided a few "inherent" differences between male and female behaviors in everyday life due to these very early "roles" in hominid groups. Will try to track down the study if I can find it (it was about 15 years ago)...


The phylogenetic line can give a lot of insight into mating strategies as the theory of matri/patrilocality in proto-species is thought to be fundamentally linked to mating strategies manifest in contemporary species, including humans.  Patrilocality is thought central to theories of male resources control, male alliances and female vulnerability to oppressive sociocultural practices ( see Smuts, 1995). Lion females live in their natal groups which is more matriarchal. The males are basically just there to protect offspring from rogue males, they get mating rights for this, but its a pretty short, brutal life compared to the females.  (I'm not a lion specialist, so this is a laymans opinion!)

Quote
Is Man The Hunter a fact or an assumption? I can't remember where I read it but there was some question a while back whether women joined in the hunt. Was there great sexual dimorphism in our early history or was it... er... bred for, later?  And did the technology/tools of the time (spear throwers, e.g.) even the field? I dunno.


In our history? How far back? Sexual dimorphism is I think thought to be driven by sexual selection. Ridley hypothesises sexual division of labour is to be one of the reasons homo sapiens success over other hominid species. Hunting and gathering targets 2 specializations which results in the group being bigger than the sum of its parts and enables food sharing and cooperation. Calories provided by female gathering form the majority of calories in contemporary h/g societies, men hunt for meat (which is more perishable that gathered food so must be consumed quickly and so food sharing and trade takes place). Food sharing - the way humans indulge in it - is unique  among primates which have strict dominance hierarchies.

I don't doubt that some women have hunted, but I don't recall reading anything which stated that this was the norm and the men gathered. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.  The sexual division of labour occurs universally in the most egalitarian of societies.   Anthropologists tend to agree that hunter-gatherers are less sexist than agriculturalists. In the Ache and Hadza hunter-gatherers, males are keen hunters and  appear relatively more sexually permissive society than the Hiwi and the !Kung who are intermittent hunters and are less permissive.

I'm not sure what you mean about technology and tools.  What field did they even – between men and women? Not that I'm aware.  Female autonomy and leadership in 'primitive' egalitarian societies such as hunter-gatherers has always been a hot topic for feminists. The late Marxist feminist anthropologist Eleanor Leacock tried to assert that she had found such societies (17th century Montagnais Native Americans and among the Iroquois), but the evidence for this has been found to be spurious. Women can and do exert influence in their own realms in such societies, but don't generally gain formal political power over group decision-making, though they can informally via kin, etc. A good example of the lack of formal power is seen in marriage arrangements where “in many societies free partner choice for women is virtually unknown or severely constrained. Marital alliances are negotiated by parents or male relatives. Although women may informally make their preferences known, it is often basically men who decide upon the marriage options of not only their mates, but their daughters, sisters, and nieces.” (Low 1987).

Dunno if that makes any sense. I'm trying to write a blog piece at the same time!

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Cubist



Posts: 349
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,05:41   

My guess for how the patriarchy got started, lo, these many centuries ago: Way back when, long before the advent of Civilization, brute physical force was the major factor (or perhaps only one of them? pretty damned important, either way) which determined who got their way in a conflict between (proto-)human and (proto-)human. Since male humans tend to have more brute strength than female humans, it therefore follows that male humans would get their way a rather large percentage of the time. Thus, females would tend not to have much influence over how things are run, simply because their relative deficit in brute physical strength would keep them from having as much influence as they might otherwise have.
In addition, (proto-)humans just didn't have most of the knowledge and technology we moderns do, so they tended to die younger and for a larger range of reasons than we moderns do; this means keeping the population up would be a primary concern for whatever societies (proto-)humans might have managed to create at that time. And it just so happens that male humans are largely expendable, as far as maintaining-stable-population is concerned. If half the male population of Tribe X suddenly dies, and at the same time, half the female population of Tribe Y suddenly dies, which tribe is going to have a more-severe, longer-lasting drop in its total population? As a consequence, early (proto-)human tribes that protected their females better would tend to endure longer than tribes which weren't as good about protecting their females. I think this is how the "women and children first!" deal got started in the first place.
In other words, I think "traditional gender roles" are a fossilized (sociocultural) leftover from those long-past days when those roles had a positive effect on how long a culture might endure. Things have changed since then; in particular, contemporary environmental conditions are no longer the same as those which originally made traditional gender roles actively adaptive. But since traditional gender roles were actively adaptive, those gender roles were passed down from generation to generation, and are still being passed down even now.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,05:57   

It seems indeed that sexual dimorphism in hominids was even more obvious at the time of Australopithecines, probably (but that's just my gut-feeling) in response to sexual selection pressure.

Here is an interesting (yet short and clear) paper extract mentioning it, with a size/weight comparative table:

Linky

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,08:27   

Heres a link to a recent paper by David Buss and David Schmitt - EP and Feminism

(I have permissions to dissemminate it)

Buss and Schmitt

Also a paper by Darwinian Feminist Griet Vandermassen
A Tale of Male Bias and Feminist Denial Just click on the download link and its free. Griet also wrote Who's Afraid of Charles Darwin

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2011,10:21   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 17 2011,15:19)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 17 2011,17:11)
I can't remember where I read it but there was some question a while back whether women joined in the hunt.

I think this is what you are referring to.

Ha ha ha! Even when I was 19 thought this was hilarious!

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,17:59   

Hi, wanted to add this link http://www.epjournal.net/filesto....525.pdf
"A review of Alan R. Rogers, The Evidence for Evolution in 100 pages". University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2011" bt not sure where to put it on the 'wider' board - sorry, a newbie so still finding my feet.

I have noticed though that I've had a bit of traffic from this site to my proto-blog. Please feel free to ask me any questions or give feedback (positive or negative). I'm developing my voice, but it's not there yet!

There aren't many Darwinian feminists about, we're a pretty rare species, so any feedback is great. (also want to tred carefully here - humans are funny, especially online!)

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4484
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,19:55   

Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 17 2011,11:28)
Hello. I'm a Darwinian feminist.  Can define that a bit later. For now - can anyone tell me how to attach PDF's?? This is my protoblog, though it needs updating. My Webpage

You can post a link to a PDF hosted elsewhere. There's currently no provision for file upload here.

The board layout is a fairly out-of-the-box Ikonboard BB, software circa 2002. There are snazzier packages, but this one has a number of customizations, such as providing an RSS feed, that were/are unusual in BB software.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,20:59   

Several cross-cultural studies using the Human Area Relation Files have found that the sexual division of labor is driven by the demands of child care. The proximate biological issue is nursing infants. It is NOT strength, or stamina.

But, if you have medically made pregnancy selective, and have technologically (or socially) made nursing optional, the the biological basis for the sexual division of labor is gone. We are currently renegotiating that social contract (with various sides occasionally on strike).

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,16:19   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 26 2011,20:59)
Several cross-cultural studies using the Human Area Relation Files have found that the sexual division of labor is driven by the demands of child care. The proximate biological issue is nursing infants. It is NOT strength, or stamina.

I agree. When it comes to the principles of natural selection men and women differ little  - it’s under the principles of sexual selection that the differences begin to become manifest and these are all to do with procreation, not survival. As I'm sure you're all aware.

From the perspective of evolutionary theory, feminism can be categorised as the study of the conflict between the sexes – intersexual conflict – with a particular interest in proximate mechanisms of how men oppress women and how this oppression can be countered.

At the moment I’m wrestling with the idea that females (on averge) pay a proximate price (in quality of life as males attempt to control female choice) for possessing the ultimate advantage (in fertility terms  with women being the more fecund of the sexes, contrary to popular opinion!) Not that it needs be this way, as the West demonstrates.

Anyone seen this before? It’s quite entertaining.
Is there anything good about men?

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2011,17:55   

Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 29 2011,14:19)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 26 2011,20:59)
Several cross-cultural studies using the Human Area Relation Files have found that the sexual division of labor is driven by the demands of child care. The proximate biological issue is nursing infants. It is NOT strength, or stamina.

I agree. When it comes to the principles of natural selection men and women differ little  - it’s under the principles of sexual selection that the differences begin to become manifest and these are all to do with procreation, not survival. As I'm sure you're all aware.

From the perspective of evolutionary theory, feminism can be categorised as the study of the conflict between the sexes – intersexual conflict – with a particular interest in proximate mechanisms of how men oppress women and how this oppression can be countered.

At the moment I’m wrestling with the idea that females (on averge) pay a proximate price (in quality of life as males attempt to control female choice) for possessing the ultimate advantage (in fertility terms  with women being the more fecund of the sexes, contrary to popular opinion!) Not that it needs be this way, as the West demonstrates.

Anyone seen this before? It’s quite entertaining.
Is there anything good about men?

Anecdote.

I've spent fairly long periods of time relying on my spouse for financial support.

She just says "Well, you'd do it for me."

I have a hard time not saying "That's different. I'm the man."

:-/

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2011,11:01   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 29 2011,17:55)
Anecdote.

I've spent fairly long periods of time relying on my spouse for financial support.

She just says "Well, you'd do it for me."

I have a hard time not saying "That's different. I'm the man."

:-/

Do you feel bad about that? I don't think that you should*. There is one Hell of a difference between an emotional response and a considered one.



*I am assuming that you don't try to justify it to be wrong for a woman to financially support her spouse.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2011,19:26   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 30 2011,09:01)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 29 2011,17:55)
Anecdote.

I've spent fairly long periods of time relying on my spouse for financial support.

She just says "Well, you'd do it for me."

I have a hard time not saying "That's different. I'm the man."

:-/

Do you feel bad about that? I don't think that you should*. There is one Hell of a difference between an emotional response and a considered one.



*I am assuming that you don't try to justify it to be wrong for a woman to financially support her spouse.

No, I think we're in this together.

But it seems there's some programming that says I'm supposed to be The Provider. I've described not working as feeling unmanned.  

I understand cognitively that that's just silly, but that understanding hasn't reached the effective level yet. Dunno why not.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,01:08   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 30 2011,17:26)
I understand cognitively that that's just silly, but that understanding hasn't reached the effective level yet. Dunno why not.

It's an image that has been part of the cultural background for all of our lives. A meme on steroids if you will.

On a separate but related note, one of the things I find the most frustrating when discussing feminism (or any question regarding privilege really) is the refusal of the privileged to acknowledge that privilege. The illusion of being self made seems awfully important to people.

I was born a male in a patriarchal society, part of the local ethnic majority, in a stable family living in a middle class neighborhood with a low crime rate and given access to free education. To claim that I'm a "self made man" is laughable.

I don't know where I'm going with this. Don't mind the personal non sequitur and I'll just enjoy the papers that have been posted.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,01:49   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 26 2011,19:55)
You can post a link to a PDF hosted elsewhere. There's currently no provision for file upload here.

I've checked and I can't post Griet's papers as they are copyrighted by the university. I can post abstracts and extracts though so will when I get the time.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,01:59   

Quote (dnmlthr @ Dec. 01 2011,01:08)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 30 2011,17:26)
I understand cognitively that that's just silly, but that understanding hasn't reached the effective level yet. Dunno why not.

It's an image that has been part of the cultural background for all of our lives. A meme on steroids if you will.

On a separate but related note, one of the things I find the most frustrating when discussing feminism (or any question regarding privilege really) is the refusal of the privileged to acknowledge that privilege. The illusion of being self made seems awfully important to people.

I was born a male in a patriarchal society, part of the local ethnic majority, in a stable family living in a middle class neighborhood with a low crime rate and given access to free education. To claim that I'm a "self made man" is laughable.

I don't know where I'm going with this. Don't mind the personal non sequitur and I'll just enjoy the papers that have been posted.

I'm not sure that is is cognitively silly.  I would think its more likely a cultural meme with roots in the gene.  In our evolutionary history, a man who couldn't provide for his family would be at a fittness disadvantage to those that could, or risked being cuckolded by better 'providers'. Its not that women can't provision for themselves - most of the stable calories comes from gathered food in hunter/gatherer societies. Hunting and meat do have a higher status though. Male to female food provisioning is a big deal.  

Again though, this isn't how it ought to be - especially not in the West where the government provisions for male and female alike. It's probably just an echo of a voice from our ancestry.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,13:20   

Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 30 2011,23:59)
(snip) Its not that women can't provision for themselves - most of the stable calories comes from gathered food in hunter/gatherer societies. Hunting and meat do have a higher status though. Male to female food provisioning is a big deal.  

Again though, this isn't how it ought to be - especially not in the West where the government provisions for male and female alike. It's probably just an echo of a voice from our ancestry.

Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Protein content? Or because the men do it? Or because killing is associated with removing threats?

Chicken, meet egg.  (?)

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,14:04   

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Quote (Verbena @ Nov. 30 2011,23:59)
(snip) Its not that women can't provision for themselves - most of the stable calories comes from gathered food in hunter/gatherer societies. Hunting and meat do have a higher status though. Male to female food provisioning is a big deal.  

Again though, this isn't how it ought to be - especially not in the West where the government provisions for male and female alike. It's probably just an echo of a voice from our ancestry.

Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Protein content? Or because the men do it? Or because killing is associated with removing threats?

Chicken, meet egg.  (?)

Bit of both, but mostly it appears - because men do it.  Definitely a bit of a sexual doule standard going on. This paper is a good overview. For those who don't have access, I will post some snippets.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,14:08   

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,14:08   

HTML here.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,14:11   

Vandermassen's target article is here.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,14:15   

Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:08)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I don't know about being more risky. An unarmed woman is at a greater risk from a predator than a group of armed men.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,14:19   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 30 2011,19:26)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 30 2011,09:01)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 29 2011,17:55)
Anecdote.

I've spent fairly long periods of time relying on my spouse for financial support.

She just says "Well, you'd do it for me."

I have a hard time not saying "That's different. I'm the man."

:-/

Do you feel bad about that? I don't think that you should*. There is one Hell of a difference between an emotional response and a considered one.



*I am assuming that you don't try to justify it to be wrong for a woman to financially support her spouse.

No, I think we're in this together.

But it seems there's some programming that says I'm supposed to be The Provider. I've described not working as feeling unmanned.  

I understand cognitively that that's just silly, but that understanding hasn't reached the effective level yet. Dunno why not.

I feel it too.


Makes no sense? Absolutely.

Try and stop it? Betcha can't.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,14:44   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 01 2011,12:19)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 30 2011,19:26)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 30 2011,09:01)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 29 2011,17:55)
Anecdote.

I've spent fairly long periods of time relying on my spouse for financial support.

She just says "Well, you'd do it for me."

I have a hard time not saying "That's different. I'm the man."

:-/

Do you feel bad about that? I don't think that you should*. There is one Hell of a difference between an emotional response and a considered one.



*I am assuming that you don't try to justify it to be wrong for a woman to financially support her spouse.

No, I think we're in this together.

But it seems there's some programming that says I'm supposed to be The Provider. I've described not working as feeling unmanned.  

I understand cognitively that that's just silly, but that understanding hasn't reached the effective level yet. Dunno why not.

I feel it too.


Makes no sense? Absolutely.

Try and stop it? Betcha can't.

Fortunately I have in-laws and a step-daughter in frequent need of assistance, so I still get to be The Man sometimes. :-)

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,14:51   

Quote (Verbena @ Dec. 01 2011,14:15)
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:08)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I don't know about being more risky. An unarmed woman is at a greater risk from a predator than a group of armed men.

While that might be true, there are now and where then few animals that viewed humans as prey. There was (and still is) far more danger facing most large prey. Elephants, rhinos, whales, hippos, buffalo, etc. represent deadly opponents when threatened.

This isn't to say that herbivores didn't present a problem for gatherers as well. Clearly they like many of the same plant food we do. But the incidents of gatherers facing large herbivores seems to be less than than the hunters that put themselves in such situations.

Of course, there are some other elements to consider. Division of work was not discrete in a number of hunter-gatherer societies; men and women both gathered when plants/berries/nuts were abundant and women and men both hunted when the prey herds were near - the women contributing by tracking. So I don't know who black and white that celebration of hunting was in all societies, but there certainly was some.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2011,15:32   

Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:51)
Quote (Verbena @ Dec. 01 2011,14:15)
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:08)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I don't know about being more risky. An unarmed woman is at a greater risk from a predator than a group of armed men.

While that might be true, there are now and where then few animals that viewed humans as prey. There was (and still is) far more danger facing most large prey. Elephants, rhinos, whales, hippos, buffalo, etc. represent deadly opponents when threatened.

This isn't to say that herbivores didn't present a problem for gatherers as well. Clearly they like many of the same plant food we do. But the incidents of gatherers facing large herbivores seems to be less than than the hunters that put themselves in such situations.

Of course, there are some other elements to consider. Division of work was not discrete in a number of hunter-gatherer societies; men and women both gathered when plants/berries/nuts were abundant and women and men both hunted when the prey herds were near - the women contributing by tracking. So I don't know who black and white that celebration of hunting was in all societies, but there certainly was some.

I respectfully disagree. We still have highly attuned anti-predation instincts, which tells us that in the EEA, predation was a signifcant threat. Once homo sapiens made the step to making throwing weapons and began to hunt collectively, we may have reduced that threat slightly and that over vast amounts of time, even hunting some species to extinction (including other proto-humans!) but predation in primitive cultures is still a high mortality risk - and this includes other humans, especially rogue males.

The Vandermassen paper is very good at uncovering the bias and wishful thinking that has permeated many past social and social anthropological studies.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,01:01   

Quote (Verbena @ Dec. 01 2011,15:32)
[quote=Robin,Dec. 01 2011,14:51] [quote=Verbena,Dec. 01 2011,14:15]

Hi Everyone,

Having lived in africa for most of my life I can tell you that there is no advantage between man and woman in surviving in the savannah.
A pack of lions would easily kill even the strongest man.
I would see no advantage at all in being a man in a crocodile attack.
Snakes would bite both without hesitating and both would have equal chance of dieing.
A Hippo running at 60Km/h would flatten man/woman alike.
Incidentely the highest number of deaths today is linked to Hippos. And yes mostely are women but only because it is the womans job to go get the water from the river or wash clothes.

The only advantage I can think of is when technology comes into play. Things like heavy armour, bows, heavy swords and the like would might put a woman at a disadvantage. I say might because it would depend on the upbringing.

Lastly the example of lions is quite interesting as the females are the ones that do all the work. They hunt and take care of young. They are less heavy than male lions but have developed teamwork as a tradeoff for muscle power.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,01:22   

Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:08)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I'd think that it's because hunting provides high protein food that gathering can't supply (except when nuts & legumes are in season).

There's also fishing of course, but maybe that was a also male role in hunter gatherer societies.  On the other hand, that role might have waited until after the invention of beer.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,01:22   

Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:08)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I think that it really depends on alot of variables. Which are being assumed.

One is the type of prey, I really can't immagine ancient man (without any even primative tecnology like stone point spears) picking dangerous prey. So let's say for hunting bunnies I would see no difference between man and woman.
And even with technology one would tend to catch easy stuff. Like older or wounded animals. Nobody would want to go attack a pride of lions for meat.

Another variable is the type of tacitcs strategy used: hunting in packs has advantages and would alow for hunting larger animals with lower risk. On the other hand hunting alone also confirs advantages depending on the type of prey. Specialisation would occur if these strategies are continued for long times.

Gathering exposes you to a whole lot of other threats as you become a target by exposing yourself. The bush is full of critters that can't wait for you to come out of your cave. That's why harvesting probably was a good idea. You could gather in a controled safe area.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,07:54   

Quote (Verbena @ Dec. 01 2011,15:32)
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:51)
Quote (Verbena @ Dec. 01 2011,14:15)
 
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:08)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I don't know about being more risky. An unarmed woman is at a greater risk from a predator than a group of armed men.

While that might be true, there are now and where then few animals that viewed humans as prey. There was (and still is) far more danger facing most large prey. Elephants, rhinos, whales, hippos, buffalo, etc. represent deadly opponents when threatened.

This isn't to say that herbivores didn't present a problem for gatherers as well. Clearly they like many of the same plant food we do. But the incidents of gatherers facing large herbivores seems to be less than than the hunters that put themselves in such situations.

Of course, there are some other elements to consider. Division of work was not discrete in a number of hunter-gatherer societies; men and women both gathered when plants/berries/nuts were abundant and women and men both hunted when the prey herds were near - the women contributing by tracking. So I don't know who black and white that celebration of hunting was in all societies, but there certainly was some.

I respectfully disagree. We still have highly attuned anti-predation instincts, which tells us that in the EEA, predation was a signifcant threat. Once homo sapiens made the step to making throwing weapons and began to hunt collectively, we may have reduced that threat slightly and that over vast amounts of time, even hunting some species to extinction (including other proto-humans!) but predation in primitive cultures is still a high mortality risk - and this includes other humans, especially rogue males.

The Vandermassen paper is very good at uncovering the bias and wishful thinking that has permeated many past social and social anthropological studies.

While I don't wholly disagree with Vandermassen or your assessment, I think there's some disconnect here. Humans have been apex predators for well over a million years. The moment we gained tool making skills we were pretty much off the menu of most other animals. A lone, naked human is a pretty weak target to be sure, but by and large we tend to clump in groups. Even when we are nomadic we travel in groups.

That said, if you have links to information on predation in primitive cultures as a high mortality risk, I'd be interested in reading about it. I've just never seen any indication that predation was a major factor in human mortality.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,08:23   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 02 2011,01:22)
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:08)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

I think that it really depends on alot of variables. Which are being assumed.

One is the type of prey, I really can't immagine ancient man (without any even primative tecnology like stone point spears) picking dangerous prey. So let's say for hunting bunnies I would see no difference between man and woman.
And even with technology one would tend to catch easy stuff. Like older or wounded animals. Nobody would want to go attack a pride of lions for meat.

Another variable is the type of tacitcs strategy used: hunting in packs has advantages and would alow for hunting larger animals with lower risk. On the other hand hunting alone also confirs advantages depending on the type of prey. Specialisation would occur if these strategies are continued for long times.

Gathering exposes you to a whole lot of other threats as you become a target by exposing yourself. The bush is full of critters that can't wait for you to come out of your cave. That's why harvesting probably was a good idea. You could gather in a controled safe area.

Early humans hunted large game. There's no speculation in this. There are plenty of records of this in fact - from paleolithic bone tools and jewelery to cave paintings and even isotopic tooth enamel analysis. This was not a recent feature. Tool use allowed our ancestors to hunt mammoths. Evidence shows that Homo erectus hunted large prey with stone tools.

http://www.ecotao.com/holism....lis.htm

I won't argue that our most distant ancestors - such as the Australopithecines - were likely more preyed upon in some frequency, but when our ancestors entered the hunter-gatherer phases that pretty much ended. My previous statement was based on that context - in hunter-gatherer societies, the threat came from hunting, not from being prey.

BTW, my family hails from South Africa and I've spent a good deal of time in the dark continent. Welkom Vriend!

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
k.e..



Posts: 2883
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,08:41   

Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,22:08)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 01 2011,13:20)
Okay, so why do hunting and meat have higher status?

Because hunting and attaining meat is generally more risky than gathering, requires skills that usually require more practice and teaching, and had a low enough success rate that those who were successful were often celebrated.

WELL RUB ME IN DEAR FAT ($15 a pound)  AND THROW ME TO THE WOLFZ.

Seriously now, the average female of the human species can pull a 0.223" trigger so where's teh argument?



......I think I'm in love.

Nothing like old fashioned values.



When the summers lasted longer
And the men and beer were stronger
...etc.



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
k.e..



Posts: 2883
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,09:00   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 02 2011,09:01)
[quote=Verbena,Dec. 01 2011,15:32]
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 01 2011,14:51)
[quote=Verbena,Dec. 01 2011,14:15]

Hi Everyone,

Having lived in africa for most of my life I can tell you that there is no advantage between man and woman in surviving in the savannah.
A pack of lions would easily kill even the strongest man.
I would see no advantage at all in being a man in a crocodile attack.
Snakes would bite both without hesitating and both would have equal chance of dieing.
A Hippo running at 60Km/h would flatten man/woman alike.
Incidentely the highest number of deaths today is linked to Hippos. And yes mostely are women but only because it is the womans job to go get the water from the river or wash clothes.

The only advantage I can think of is when technology comes into play. Things like heavy armour, bows, heavy swords and the like would might put a woman at a disadvantage. I say might because it would depend on the upbringing.

Lastly the example of lions is quite interesting as the females are the ones that do all the work. They hunt and take care of young. They are less heavy than male lions but have developed teamwork as a tradeoff for muscle power.

I was in far northern Mozambique a couple of years ago and there were a couple of rogue lions eating their way through the local population.

Their prey, I'm guessing Disney movie goers or Impala whichever you fancy, were sadly in decline due to the encroachment of the Apple iPhone.

Villagers who would normally starve if they didn't go and cultivate the cassava root at bush plots with huts outside their village were at the mercy of these beasts particularly if they responded to the call of nature at the wee hours of the morning.

One unfortunate baby of around 6 months had her mother eaten whole next to her  only leaving the hands and skull on her way to the lavatory. The lioness must have been practicing sustainability.

A couple of locals who fancied themselves as Snoop Doggy Hemingways blew the bejezeezus out of the pair with a Winchester Elephant gun.

My point?

Inuits have ATMs get over it.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,09:08   

yeah my next door neighboor dances with ghosts and has a cell phone.  i heard you can facebook tom brown and get a reservation for a walkabout

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,12:31   

Buddy had a '59 Impala but it got eaten by a telephone pole.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2011,19:21   

Sorry, just stopped in looking for the Feminism thread.  Where did it go?

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2011,09:41   

Did someone mention Fausto-Sterling and sexual dimorphism in this thread? I'm looking but can't see it, but that might just be becasue I'm dim/in a hurry.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2012,05:16   

Currently reading Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominence by Stephen Goldberg (2nd edition!)  http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Men-Rule-Theory-Dominance/dp/0812692373 and Baumeisters long awaited book based on this talk [ http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumei....men.htm ]
suitably called...Is there Anything Good About Men? http://www.amazon.co.uk/There-A....537410X

Have some issues with both - not least Goldberg's nutty conception of evolutionary theory (pp17/8) [he did originally write it in 1973 but the it's still in the 'new' edition of 1994 - long after The Selfish Gene, so it's pretty unforgivable in a scholarly sense that he has just plain ignored contemporary data.  I also have issues with Baumeister setting up straw men  (am in discussions with him at the moment re this but if anyone else cwould be prepared to help me see the wood for the trees, I'd be grateful) Will set out the issues later if so..

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2012,05:19   

Forgot to add

... but basically the argumenst are interesting and robust, with a few major flaws!

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2012,08:11   

Hi, check out my new darwinian gender studies cartoons!
/My Webpage

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2012,09:22   

Quote (Verbena @ Jan. 23 2012,08:11)
Hi, check out my new darwinian gender studies cartoons!
/My Webpage

Heh! I like 'em, particularly the Fallacy Ahead.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2012,12:58   

Quote (Verbena @ Jan. 23 2012,06:11)
Hi, check out my new darwinian gender studies cartoons!
/My Webpage

I've been wondering for a while now just how much in the way of behaviour, or attributes (besides the naughty bits), is innately male or female, and how much is arbitrary/social/historical.

Women accused of "acting like a man" -- Thatcher springs to mind -- maybe they're just acting like the diversity of people can, now that they have slightly more liberty to do so, rather than being programmed to "act like a lady".

??

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2012,12:50   

I've been wondering for a while now just how much in the way of behaviour, or attributes (besides the naughty bits), is innately male or female, and how much is arbitrary/social/historical.

Women accused of "acting like a man" -- Thatcher springs to mind -- maybe they're just acting like the diversity of people can, now that they have slightly more liberty to do so, rather than being programmed to "act like a lady".

??[/quote]

illustration - Jill & John

the link leads to a compact illustration of average sex differences (and similarities) found in pan-cultural studies (wouldn't let me embed the pic sorry!)

Of course environment affects behaviour - the term evolutionary is basically re everything at the intersection of environment/biology.

Women in high power positions (that are typically held by men - another pan -cultural phenomenon) need to play a mans game as a matter of survival.  This is because their biggest threat comes from men; a states biggest threats come from other men; patriarchy's biggest threat comes from other patriarchies.  Women's influence in lower level politics can be more persuasive: see this link

Why patriarchy - why men, and not say, a matriarchy? Men stand guard against other men, not against women. The threat comes from men, not women.    All female head of states learn this lesson very quickly - from Thatcher to Golda Meir. Politics is a deadly game.  

Men tear each other to pieces to attain power. A woman asking men to be more 'feminine' isn't going to cut it. Alls fair in love and war - which just about covers everything.

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2012,12:55   

Another way to look at it is if humans were a completely female species, a caste of big brutish (and probably infertile) females would evolve to do the kinds of dangerous work men  do

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2012,15:39   

Quote (Verbena @ Jan. 25 2012,10:55)
Another way to look at it is if humans were a completely female species, a caste of big brutish (and probably infertile) females would evolve to do the kinds of dangerous work men  do

I guess in an environment with limited resources,  competition between tribes would be more common than co-operation. :-/

The extreme, and modern case of that being all the nations on the planet.  

It may be that extending our definition of who's in the tribe, and being to plan farther ahead than the next harvest/generation, was the idea behind "If mankind is to survive, we shall require a substantially new way of thinking."

Or not. Maybe the tension/competition will just always be part of our existence.  Especially since in just about every walk of life, the parameters are decided by the most aggressive participants.  In short, some people just like to fight.  

My sister printed a T-shirt for me for Christmas: "I'm not 'Bossy'. I just have a better idea."


eta: Elaine Morgan's been raked over the coals a lot, but one thing I think she got right was pointing out there's a difference between curiosity and aggression, viz: wondering if there's food over the next hill -- or life on other planets -- is a different kind of energy from wanting to steal the nearest tribes' wives, or nuke/enslave the planet in the name of the Queen/God.  Isn't it?  

Are there sub-divisions of resource acquisition and risk-taking?

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2012,15:47   

How often do you get the "Yeah, but Darwin was a man!" trope?

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2012,07:26   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 25 2012,21:39)
Are there sub-divisions of resource acquisition and risk-taking?

Sexual Strategies Theory

This includes inclusive fitness stuff and various other stuff

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2121
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2012,08:44   

Quote (Verbena @ Jan. 26 2012,05:26)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 25 2012,21:39)
Are there sub-divisions of resource acquisition and risk-taking?

Sexual Strategies Theory

This includes inclusive fitness stuff and various other stuff

Saved in favourites under "sciency stuff" with ERV and others. Thanks, V!

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2012,11:48   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 26 2012,14:44)
Quote (Verbena @ Jan. 26 2012,05:26)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 25 2012,21:39)
Are there sub-divisions of resource acquisition and risk-taking?

Sexual Strategies Theory

This includes inclusive fitness stuff and various other stuff

Saved in favourites under "sciency stuff" with ERV and others. Thanks, V!

Just come across these videos of David Buss and Richard Dawkins in conversation - part of a series here

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2012,00:31   

Quote (Verbena @ Jan. 26 2012,03:55)
Another way to look at it is if humans were a completely female species, a caste of big brutish (and probably infertile) females would evolve to do the kinds of dangerous work men  do

The term 'Brutish' has some interesting overtones other than just being large and a risktaker. It also assumes someone who is not very articulate or sensitive etc. Would the drones have these secondary characteristics as well?

It must be a tough job teasing out what is environmental and what is caused by genes.

Like most modern liberal parents, I was surprised how quickly my son went from baby blob to 'male' and my daughter to 'female' with very little influence.

Actually, to be honest I thought that kids were born blank slates, instead, at least for our kids they were born with their current personalities and I feel that all we can do as parents is to try to encourage the good and discourage the bad

  
Verbena



Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2012,02:28   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 31 2012,06:31)
Quote (Verbena @ Jan. 26 2012,03:55)
Another way to look at it is if humans were a completely female species, a caste of big brutish (and probably infertile) females would evolve to do the kinds of dangerous work men  do

The term 'Brutish' has some interesting overtones other than just being large and a risktaker. It also assumes someone who is not very articulate or sensitive etc. Would the drones have these secondary characteristics as well?

It must be a tough job teasing out what is environmental and what is caused by genes.

Like most modern liberal parents, I was surprised how quickly my son went from baby blob to 'male' and my daughter to 'female' with very little influence.

Actually, to be honest I thought that kids were born blank slates, instead, at least for our kids they were born with their current personalities and I feel that all we can do as parents is to try to encourage the good and discourage the bad

Yeah it does. I was thinking of ants - female soldier ants - when I wrote that, if that helps.

You can't tease out what caused by genes and what is environmental. There is no dichotomy. Here's a vid about epigenetics

Also this book is great The Blank Slate

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
  122 replies since Nov. 03 2011,11:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < [1] 2 3 4 5 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]