the paddling pool

Sex is a social construct though - prior to the 18th century, women's reproductive organs were understood to be essentially the same as men's, but inverted. The idea that men and women were diametrically opposite (more moral, natural etc) came in the 18th century, for social and political reasons to do with men asserting power (see Thomas Laquer, Making Sex).

I wonder if the idea that women think differently also stems from then.

Fascinating thread, just what is needed. Thank you Eats and Alameda. I've already learned a lot.

I should be asleep but really want to ask a question about accepting the analysis, rather than living by it. What if every woman - and man, for argument's sake -accepted the analysis in principle but continued to live their life as currently. Is it necessary that some people put the principles into practice? And, can that be only a minority or, for the patriarchy to be truly overthrown, would a majority of people need to put the principles into practice?

On the cleaner comments, I'm a bit confused too (it's a recurring theme, believe me!) I've got no problem with clients using the words 'my lawyer' about me. Can someone explain again what the issue is with me describing the lovely man who comes to clean my house as 'my cleaner'?

"Race is not a concrete physical reality in terms of sciuence. Science divides humans into 4 categories based on discernible physical differences. Every other difference is socially constructed."

So the rather flat face and slanted eyes of Central Asian peoples is "socially constructed"? What about the pitch-black skin, prominent nose, and large mouth & lips of the African people? Does RadFem ideology say they are also not physical differences?

"For example, Italians at one time used to be seen as black. Now many/most people would see them as white. A clear illustration that race is socially constructed"

"Italian" isn't a race. It is a nationality.

The only thing your statement above illustrates is that some people don't know what the word "race" means.

Mooncup - I'm not saying men think better than women. I'm saying they think differently, which really isn't a controversial statement.

Few women think like men (and are ostracised by other women?) and few men think like women (and are thought gay?) but there is definitely a clear median around which the dots congregate.

Autism is now investigated as "extreme male brain", which I find fascinating. Explanation and interesting comparison of male vs female brain in this document.

Race is not a concrete physical reality in terms of sciuence. Science divides humans into 4 categories based on discernible physical differences. Every other difference is socially constructed.

For example, Italians at one time used to be seen as black. Now many/most people would see them as white. A clear illustration that race is socially constructed.

Beach - Earlier on the thread it was said that of course there are reproductive differences. What posters are talking about if any other differences are innate.

I would think race is a concrete physical reality rather than a social construct.

Of course males and females are different. Females carry and birth babies is the fundamental difference.

But reality changes. A century ago lots of people said that women weren't capable of abstract thought, but they were drawing a false inference - the reason women seemed less intelligent than men to many people at the time was that they had had limited educations and hadn't been trained in abstract thought.

I have never seen a small boy breastfeeding a doll but not saying it can't happen. I've certainly seen DD play with DS's train set.

I'm not saying children don't imitate adults. They do. I'm not saying girls will only play with dolls and boys will only play with cars, either.

I think sex and gender are being used here as though they are the same thing.

Sex = female/male

Gender = feminine/masculine

Or certainly that is how they are used in feminist analysis.

Sex = concrete biological reality

Gender = social construct (in the way that race is considered a social construct).

My 2yo dd is already aware of girls and boys being different. She keeps asking for the 'pretty pink cup', or she wants the pink trousers/top/dress. This is nothing I have done, in fact I really encourage her to like other colours and not go for pink all the time. It's other people around us that have exposed her to the stereotype. Our cm is very good at making sure there is no distinction between toys at her house, same as at our house. But she is given toys/clothes from other friends and family where it is handed over saying 'I thought she'd like the pretty pink one' or 'she seems like a girly girl so I got her pink', so our house is filled with pink tat because it would be cruel to take away something she ahs been given and wants. I seem to spend all my time encouraging her to play with 'boys toys' and she resists everything because it's not pretty and pink :(

I agree that we should not encourage stereotyping (as in boys are strong, girls are weak so boys should play football and girls should stay home and learn to knit) but denying the differences between the male and female of our species is a step too far. It is not the reality.

Cote - have you never seen a small boy pretending to breastfeed a doll? Or a little girl putting together a complex train layout?

Also, you haven't addressed the point about boys and girls being treated differently from birth, which has been supported by several experiments.

Beachcomber - I think they were only given these toys to play with. Cars and trucks to girls and dolls for boys. The point wasn't even whether these are gender-specific toys but what they did with them: Girls gave their trucks names, tucked them into bed, treated them as friends. Boys crashed their dolls into each other and threw them across the room as projectiles. Changing the toys around didn't seem to affect what kids do with them.

There was also another experiment with monkeys where male monkeys prefer boys' toys and female monkeys (like girls) didn't seem to have a preference.

I have a boy and a girl, and there is definitely a difference in the way they see the world and the way they act within it.

Cote - quite a lot of feminists (like me) believe that on a population level there may be some differences between boys and girls, but that there is much more variation within sexes than between them. And that it is important not to encourage stereotyping, which tends to have an oppressive effect on children's lives.

Cote, I think I have explained that in follow up posts already above i.e, that some RadFems think there isn't and some do - but that they do agree that gender is largely socially constructed. And i have given examples to explain this

You said, in your list:

"gender is socially constructed... RadFems thus want to get rid of gender."

That sounds to me like you (and RadFems in general) think that there is no innate difference between girls and boys. Otherwise, how can you say gender is a social construct and how can you possibly think you can get rid of it?

Cote - I didn't argue that boys and girls are exactly the same. I argued that it is almost impossible to know if they are. I worked with under 5's when I was much younger and kids are smart. They see the world around them, they know there are boys and girls toys, colours and ways of behaving. Whether some is innate or not I don't know.

And there was someone on FWR in 1 thread who knew a lot about the psychology of children's play who explained that children have schemas (I think?) that children follow in play. Sos ome children are into throwing, catching, etc and the form of play they do will follow this schema. Sorry can't remember it properly to explain it, but it made sense to me and seemed to be a much better academic explanation than some "research".

Were these boys and girls who had been flown in from another planet or were they boys and girls who had been exposed to patriarchal socialisation, gender roles and stereotypes?

Why do you think the patriarchy is relevant to investigating whether there are innate differences to boys and girls? There are quite a few experiments on this subject.

I remember one, where boys given just dolls to play with were crashing them into each other, and girls given just cars & trucks were naming them and putting them to bed.

I agree with you with the pink/blue colours and frankly the whole princess thing makes me want to scream, but it is not a realistic or even rational position to claim that gender is a social construct, and without these social influences, girls and boys would be exact the same.

yy Eats, if we lived in a gender neutral society we would see clearly difference based on biology alone without any bias.

Thats fine Cote. We all think different things here. Just wanted to say that there is some dispute amongst RadFems about whether there are innate differences between men and women - apart from the obvious reproductive differences. Some think there are, some think they are not. But stuff like pink is for girls is different from this, as the "rules" about what is girls stuff and boys stuff changes over time.

It wasn't that long ago in the UK that pink was seen as a boys colour. So RadFems can think gender is largely socially constructed, but that there are innate differences.

Personally, I don't know if there are innate differences or not and I think it is almost impossible to be sure under patriarchial society. Lots of experiments show that people treat the same baby very differently depending on whether they are told the baby is a girl or boy. So this stuff goes very deep. But without patriarchy we would know more about whether there are innate differences.

Re Eats' list:

1. That patriarchy oppresses women and that the solution is to overthrow patriarchy - YES
2. That Het relationships are an important part of day-to-day oppression of Het women - NO, NOT ALWAYS OR NOT EVEN IN MOST RELATIONSHIPS (IME)
3. Being anti porn and anti prostitution as a result of recognising that these are basically society sanctioned abuse of women. NO, BECAUSE I AM FOR FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
4. That sex is a biological fact that can not be changed. YES.
5. That gender is socially constructed - at a simplest level - girls are brought up to like pink and want to be princesses and boys to be noisy and fight. And that gender controls and sets limits on what we all do and thus is not a good thing. RadFems thus want to get rid of gender. NO. YOU ARE ACTUALLY MOSTLY WRONG WITH THIS. NUMEROUS EXPERIMENTS HAVE SHOWN GIRLS AND BOYS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT (I CAN ELABORATE IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED).
6. That you analyse overall behaviour e.g. women being involved in prostitution, but you don't criticise individual women for this. YES.
7. That PIV sex places women at harm through greater risk of STD's and unwanted pregnancy and that PIV is a male centric form of sex. NO. IN FACT NOT JUST NO BUT QUITE WEIRDLY WRONG. PIV SEX IS... SEX. IT IS HOW OUR SPECIES PROPAGATES. WE HAVE EVOLVED OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS SUCH THAT PIV SEX FEELS GOOD. WE LIKE IT. IT IS NOWHERE NEAR ALL ABOUT THE MAN.
8. That you are pro women. Yes men have negative things happen to them, but rafeminism is about women. YES.
9. That you don't just talk about radfeminism but that you do things in your real life to help girls and women - campaigning, volunteering, etc. YES.

So, it's no surprise that I'm not RadFem.

I did that test and got the label Liberal Feminist (100%). Also Libertarian (74%) and Radical Feminist (50%), surprisingly.

"we have to find a way through it" - just find that speaks to me more. Thanks for your example of rape crisis centres though Mini That makes a lot of sense.