Rebutting the Straw Men/Owning up when "it's a fair cop, guv.

Hi Yonic, thanks for answering. Yes, it is interesting about the nature vs nurture thing. I do agree that a lot of the 'girls are like this, boys are like this' is bullshit (which i was able to disprove with my own massive sample of one son and one daughter!) and I think a lot of stuff happens without us even realising (see the end of this post)!

But im not sure about it being 100% nuture either. For example, didn't they observe chimpanzee teaching their young how to extract termites from their nests. The young male and female chimps behaved completely differently with the girls really concentrating and picking it up quite quickly, and the boys arsing around and taking longer to learn it.

Now obviously I understand that we are not chimpanzees (!!!) and that the above doesn't prove anything about the differences between males and females. But, given we did evolve from that sort of animal, I don't think it's beyond the realms of all possibility to suggest that some differences may be a bit more inherent than others? Plus when you think about how different men and women are on a purely physical level, it doesn't seem all that outrageous to think that there may be more perhaps subtle general differences in our brains etc.

I think the problem comes when people start putting values on those differences and saying that one characteristic is 'better' than another.

Or people say that someone cant do this, or be like that, simply on the basis of their sex eg. Men may be physically stronger than women in general, but that doesn't mean that all women have to be be meek and mild, or that a woman couldn't train so she becomes stronger than most men. Or women may naturally be more 'caring' (no basis for this whatsoever, just using it as an example now) but that doesn't mean that a man couldn't work in a nursery if that was what he wanted to do?

Meh, I do feel a bit a fraud posting ins feminist thread now when, despite my best efforts, yesterday my 3 year old DS announced with great authority that 'pink is for girls and blue is for boys and boys can't like pink'!

Good links puffins

Some potentially helpful reading, for people who are interested.

Schrödinger's Rapist

Straw man (apologies for it being wiki)

Quote mining, happens a lot with Dworkin and similar feminist writings to "prove" that all feminists think something they patently don't, in order to formulte straw man arguments which are impossible to refute, due to them being incorrect in the first place. (again wiki)

Definitions of a range of logical fallacies not just those which are endlessly brought up about feminists and feminism.

Hope they help

I think there is some nature - but I think that there's more overlap than there is difference. I don't think that given a certain behaviour you could say with any certainty or accuracy whether that was a man or a woman, but that you can say on a population level that men are more likely to 'x'

I do think that having more testosterone or more oestrogen makes you behave in a different manner given the same stimuli - just as I behave differently given more or less sleep or more or less alcohol, however I also think that nurture can do a lot more damage, or a lot more good than nature, so you can't use hormone levels as an excuse for bad (or good) behaviour.

I also think that attributing behaviour to someone's sex contributes to the problem - boys not writing because we hear teachers saying that boys are slow to write, so no-one works hard enough with them on it early on. Girls who are continually congratulated on their pretty dress, so feel that's the important thing about themselves etc.

Sure, and I can see why you have drawn that conclusion. Is it worldwide, the difference between male and female speeding tickets? I'd also argue it's socialisation that men drive more and feel more confident (over confident???) behind the wheel - " women drivers" and "one careful lady owner" being common memes.

See, I'm all about refuting the "stubborn refusal" part above

Yonic I don't agree that the fact women on the whole tend to be less violent or on the whole tend to not drive at excessive speed or when drunk is just down to socialisation. I can't prove this theory but we are all (or most of us) are told not to do these things.

...as it cannot be proved, my working hypothesis is 100% nurture. I would not stick to this stubbornly if I felt it was proved wrong, however, which may happen one day, of course.

"to be this complete refusal to believe that women and men are different in anything much further than a very basic physical level. "

Just responding to this point from Stannis in case she stops by - as I'm off to bed

Stannis, on this, it is my genuine belief that all non-physical differences between men and women are socialised. It's not a stubborn refusal, I would be open to experiments that showed otherwise but it seems a hypothesis impossible to prove either way - all people are socialised according to their presenting sex and even experiments on barely socialised newborns are done by socialised researchers who often talk more softly to a baby girl or whatever.

I accept that we cannot prove whether it is nature, nurture or some of each that contributes to gender difference

Also agreeing here.

With Lass, I mean.

Eh?

Another one adding my agreement.

I would say that if I did the tea run at work and handed you a cup of tea, and you didn't say thanks, instead of mentioning that it bothered me I would wait until the next person said thanks and say 'oh isn't it nice to know that not everyone is ungrateful!' I would be being passive aggressive. I would also accept various other terms you might like to throw at me!

I agree Lass.

"Passive-aggressve" obviously.

Can I say I think this and the thread in Chat and the "I'm not a feminist but..." thread also in Chat are useful and worth having.

(And can I also say I've never been sure what "straw man" or "pass overaggressive" mean)

What most people are doing is repeating things they have heard said under the banner of feminism. Many a mickle makes a muckle.

I'm glad to hear that things are challenged. I don't see it happening so much, but I am glad to take your word for it.

I am very willing to say that there are many feminists I disagree with on certain issues. There are also issues I don't know much or anything about. There are also parts of feminist theory that I would disagree with. I think most of the people on here would say the same. If I agree with Yonic on many issues (just using you as an example as you're the last post while I'm writing this) we could probably find a bunch of things we outright disagree on or admit to not knowing enough about to have a real discussion.

But there are also a bunch of things that I personally hear repeatedly that are widely believed but I think are false. This is different to the things I have genuine issues with. Whether we have 1 thread or 2 is pretty equal in my opinion. It could work either way. I think the OP was just interested in the myths. I don't think it's about not being willing to engage.

I am a feminist and I do challenge the views of feminists all the time. I have done so on this thread. And other feminists challenge my views.

I am not annoyed that other feminists make me look bad. I am worried and sad that the way mass internet interaction is happening is leading to a lot of harmful anti social behaviour from all sorts of people, including feminists.

I worry and reflect a lot on my own online behaviour and wonder what impact I am having on myself and other people.

Ms, again it isn't true that feminists don't challenge each other. For example, There was a long thread about the PIV/rape quote and most posters disagreed strongly with it.

It's a long time ago and it was more disgusting than disturbing, but thanks to you both for your sympathy. It is appreciated.

The issue I have is that, in my opinion, people do horrible things because they are twats. It is needlessly unfair to blame men, in any capacity, for specific acts of violence. It's like being suspicious of everyone who lives in London because there is a higher rate of crime there.

It isn't all feminists that come up with some of the more appalling views, but it is only the non feminist identifying people that will challenge them. I don't understand why you aren't annoyed about those feminists that make you all look bad. There's seemingly no attempt to moderate or mitigate the views of the mass. That's why you are all getting it in the neck on the other thread.

LEM, no.

This would be a straw man.

ME: I believe Christmas is important.
YOU: But Santa isn't real! He can't possibly deliver presents to all those children in one night. And reindeers can't fly.
ME: I never said Santa was real. You are making a straw man argument. I said Christmas was important.

Actually, I do not think men are more genetically predisposed to commit sexual assault. I believe socialisation accounts for the difference in crime figures.