gender discussion with NO aphids

A place for discussions that don't fit elsewhere.
User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

gender discussion with NO aphids

Postby a different guest » Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:24 pm

Here ya go TB - a thread for this.

Now I don't know how you can say power doesn't rest with white males (if indeed that is what you were saying). Look around. Who are the political leaders? Indeed who are most politicians? Who are the religious leaders? Who are captains of industry? Who are the judiciary?

All these decision makers influence (overtly and subtly) our society.

But women ARE doing something about it - go to a toddler playgroup and note that girl toddlers are encouraged in their "assertive" behaviour, while the same behaviour in boy toddlers is reprimanded as being "aggressive".

:)

TB

Postby TB » Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:26 pm

Hi ADG, thankyou for finding a refuge for me to hide in. Are you sure you want to speak with me? It seems I am self indulgent and have too much time on my hands.
Now I don't know how you can say power doesn't rest with white males (if indeed that is what you were saying). Look around. Who are the political leaders? Indeed who are most politicians? Who are the religious leaders? Who are captains of industry? Who are the judiciary

I not agree with conventional wisdom that says formal positions hold the real power. Often the real power sits behind the throne, the president, king , CEO etc are often puppet, being manipulated by others in their cabinte, board.
I also think that men and women wield different kinds of power and behave differently with it. Men are simpler and less able to read subtle social nuances as well as women do. They are physically stronger and have used physical strenth to settle differences between men, and intimidate women with physical and sexual dominance. Women, who biologically, have an immense responsibility in bearing children, had to find subtle ways to control male behaviour. I think they do this quite well, and very covertly, getting men to do many things that bring direct and indirect benefit to women. In the past this was food, shelter, protection from other males for them and their children.

Men traditionally have held formal positions in heirarchies, with the recent changes in contraception, women do not need to be as responsible with their sexual behaviour. At the same time the changes in attitudes to physical coercion, men are less able to physically dominate women (it still occurs, however I argue that it has lessened over the last 100 years and certainly 10,000 years.

One of the results is that women are pushing to get more of the formal positions in business, government in the same way that men have held this power. I am not sure that getting these positions is really adding to power for women.

They still have a big investment (thought less than 50 years ago) in wanting children and homes, and are trying to balance these often conflicting desires. If this is progress in giving power to women, how do we measure it? Do these women have more freedom to do what they want, when they want? A US president might have fulfilled some burning ambitions but he is no longer able to move about freely, travel as they please, and they behave depending upon what they think the voters want.

Women are getting more of this 'power' in these areas, even if it is too little and too slow for feminist activists. I suspect that many individual women are probably feeling more powerless than before. Not suprisingly so are many men. Men express their feelings about this differently, bottling them up whereas women tend to socialise this and demand that it get fixed.

The topic of gender equity is very emotive and judgemental. I do not think it is possible to analyse it objectively because some answers might mean giving up of some power or freedom.

I hope the above has given some idea of my point of view, seeing we have not had a meeting of our minds in previous posts.

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:17 pm

TB - it is the weekend here - so bear with me for a couple of days (although someone else might like to jump in?).
cheers
adg
Last edited by a different guest on Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:05 am

you seem to have some very quaint notions of gender and power TB. Perhaps your SES upbringing plays a part in forming your opinion?

You make some rather rash generalisations about the difference between men and women. I think that all people have aspects of "male" and "female" (for want of better terms) in them. And is not a civil society a civilising force unto itself rather than women somehow subtely behind the scenes "civilising" men (not to metion their "pwer behind the throne" aspect you mention). What you write sounds more like it came out of some 18C book rather than a person living in the 21st century.

As to gender equity - I hardly find it "emotive and judgemental" at all. But let's rephrase the term to "gender neutrality". Basically a persons life should NOT have boundaries placed upon merely because of what sex they were born.

Isn't that pretty simple and straighforward?

TB

Postby TB » Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:30 am

Hi ADG
Perhaps your SES upbringing plays a part in forming your opinion?

If you think that my views have been formed by the SES, would you agree that other social environments have also affected the way I think, for example my parents, schools, peers etc. Do you think that any of my views have any independence from outside influences? If it affected me, has it formed what you think as well? In my opinion I have been strongly affected by my environment, as have you.
I think that all people have aspects of "male" and "female" (for want of better terms) in them.

Are you talking about physical traits or behavioural? I would say the two are very strongly linked yet we still have some who demonstrate extreme male behaviour (eg aggression), others female, quite a few that display some of both, and some where even the biology is blurred, the so called intersex.
And is not a civil society a civilising force unto itself rather than women somehow subtely behind the scenes "civilising" men (not to metion their "pwer behind the throne" aspect you mention). What you write sounds more like it came out of some 18C book rather than a person living in the 21st century

Do you not agree that there are informal positions of power? Regardless of gender I see situations today in business, politics and families where there is informal power as well as formal. You seem to think that this sort of thing stopped in the 18th Century, but I would guess it has existed since human society became formalised. Would it help my case if I gave you some examples?

Basically a persons life should NOT have boundaries placed upon merely because of what sex they were born.

Do you mean this comment literally? Are you suggesting we raise daughters/sons and ignore the biology of gender specific puberty, and not offer them identity as either becoming men or women? An illness like prostate cancer affects men only and I would suggest that we need some clear boundaries on who is at risk. Unless you meant this comment in a vague principled sense (making it harder to discuss), I disagree with it. Overcoming biology is a harder ask than even cultural sexism although science has made some tentative advances in gender reassignment.
Do you know cases where societies live in this way, where people are seen just as humans without any distinctions on gender?

Isn't that pretty simple and straighforward?

It is, but you do not seem to be offering either logic or evidence to support your opinion, or counter mine. Can I assume that you are NOT trying to justify on this basis, but using intuition to support your views? Can I also ask if you are stating how you think things ARE or the way you would like to be?

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:00 am

Do you think that any of my views have any independence from outside influences?


They should - it's called thinking for yourself. :)

Are you talking about physical traits or behavioural?


Behavioural. I refer you to my slightly tongue in cheek post about how mothers react to their toddlers behaviour depending whether it is a boy or a girl.

And you think "aggression" is "male"? Ever seen a mother protecting her children? Or, come to think of it, a woman in a 4WD after that last parking spot! *g*

Do you not agree that there are informal positions of power?


Well I know that Janette Howard is John Howards sounding board - but hey, they think like peas in a pod.


An illness like prostate cancer affects men only and I would suggest that we need some clear boundaries on who is at risk.


Pedantry CAN be taken to extreme you know.

I bring my children up to be human beings. I expect the same from them regardless of their sex. I encourage them to follow their interests. I expect them to care for others. Regarding "gender specifics" in puberty - I would have thought any decent sex ed curriculum would cover changes expected for BOTH sexes. IN fact I really don't understand your point. Are you suggesting, for example, that boys shoulnd't be informed about the menstrual cycle?

Why do you think "biology" is so over-riding? Are we dumb beasts or people?

TB

Postby TB » Mon Nov 15, 2004 1:01 pm

Hi ADG, forget about reason, lets go with gut.
They should - it's called thinking for yourself

And I do, no one tells me what is right and wrong, I tell them
And you think "aggression" is "male"? Ever seen a mother protecting her children? Or, come to think of it, a woman in a 4WD after that last parking spot! *g*
You are right, its about time the world admitted to this. Women do have issues with anger and brutality, how can we fix this?

Well I know that Janette Howard is John Howards sounding board - but hey, they think like peas in a pod.
Quite right too, better he gets himself a diving board next time.
IN fact I really don't understand your point. Are you suggesting, for example, that boys shoulnd't be informed about the menstrual cycle?

Who needs a point, understanding is fascist, they're both silly, stay with feelings. Yes we should protect boys from things that cause aggression.
Why do you think "biology" is so over-riding? Are we dumb beasts or people

Who says beasts are dumb, how would you like to eat dog food? Biology is just mans excuse for messy sex, I think fairy tails are the way to go.

I like your style better, lets stay with this.

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:08 am

now i think you are starting to be silly - but perhaps you have played at being silly all along? *g*

I would eat my dog food - no Pal farts in my house, I cook my own.

TB

Postby TB » Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:48 pm

ADG
now i think you are starting to be silly - but perhaps you have played at being silly all along?

You sure are a deep one. Had me going for a while. Good exercise.


Return to “Miscellaneous”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests