Brilliant Margaret Atwood memoir review

"Observable patterns, trends or tendencies within exist within particular groups.
These do not equate to either necessary or sufficient conditions for membership of that group."

They do in terms of social categorisations tho. IE we don't use gametal or chromosomal tests to distinguish sex in social situations, rather typical associations.

So hormones do influence gendered behaviour? You’re getting warmer!

Violence is linked to testosterone levels. Testosterone is a sex hormone.

Sex is real. Gender is illusion.

Observable patterns, trends or tendencies within exist within particular groups.

These do not equate to either necessary or sufficient conditions for membership of that group.

For it to be possible to observe that 'Group A tends to Y' there has to have been an organising priciple constituting Group A before, and independent to, Y.

Does that help you to understand? It's often easier to see the wood for the trees in that sort of algebraic form.

Women here recognise behaviours typical of sex, and think gender is a pile of shite, but there goes Hows with some fast hands switcheroo of words (don't take up close up magic mate, you'd be crap at it going by this!), gender switched out for sex as and where it suits Hows and not at all accurately reflecting previous posters points.

Should we get the unicorn out?

Really? I didn't notice you disputing our fellow commenter up thread who insisted typical gendered behaviours exist…. as they do. Just ask all the GC's on MN claiming violence is a 'man problem' hence the necessity for private spaces. Are you suggesting male violence & other typically sexed behaviours is an "invented as a new system for authoritarians to use to exercise control"?

Great article. Thanks for sharing. I agree that the last point is powerful.

I used to be 💯 ‘nurture’ with regard to females being socialised from birth to be enablers of other’s comfort at the expense of their own (and included in that the expectation that all women should follow suit - ergo, male comfort reigns).

I have come around to entertain some level of ‘nature’ being at play, due to the common phenomenon of have no more fucks to give following estrogen levels plummeting during menopause. Counter to this, however, is the compelling argument that having played ‘primary carer’ for intimate partners pre children, having cared for actual children, when those children grow up and become independent, women aren’t willing to return to (or sustain) the primary carer role for intimate partners.

I think the reason why women go along with sex work, surrogacy and accepting trans identified males into female only provision is primarily about preservation.

Oh stop lying. I never said it's a job that should exist. The reality is it exists regardless so it may as well be regulated for women's safety. Only the deluded think they can wish it away.

Nonsense, the whole idea of 'gender' is at its root and of its essence conformist.

It was invented as a new system for authoritarians to use to exercise control, and taken up enthusiastically by the advertising industry as a way to sell stuff.

Eurgh, everyone knows prostitution isn’t ‘sex work’. Everyone feels sorry for prostitutes because they’re letting dirty lonely scum bags use their body everyday and it’s the absolutely worst job for mental health. I think people don’t want to stigmatise the individual women like they used to, but only a creepy man would think prostitution is a job that should even exist in a civilised society.

I'd rather have incorrectly "stereotyped" the repeated misogyny Hows displays as male, than be pro-prostituting women like Hows is.

Still think he's a bloke though😂

I'm just quoting the research which says it's comparatively safer for women so don't shoot the messenger.

Oh look Coh thinks anyone who doesn’t agree with him/her must be man!
So much for anti stereotyping…

No it's not better for women. It's worse it's so much worse. I've lived somewhere wear it is legal and it still ruins women's lives. I've read so much absolute horseshit from you but this takes the cake.

I agree but it's a matter of the lesser of evils in terms of safety & exploitation. Ultimately the real solution is working towards societal economic security & prevention of other risk factors.

Oh look Hows is pro-prostituting women.

I remain unsurprised by him.

I know a lot of teenaged girls who would absolutely not fit this description of women! Kindness is not a common trait at a secondary school, but conformity is ruthlessly enforced.

I love Margret Attwoods writing, nothing has ever affected me as much as the hand maids tale. Completely changed my view of women’s rights, in that I didn’t have one before, and after reading that I most definitely did.

"Surely it is forcing people into gender conformity that Stock objects to, the idea that there is a very limited set of strictly stereotyped rules for presenting and everyone has to pick one, labelled 'masculine' or 'feminine' (neither anything to do with the person's sex) and stick to it."

Trans women like cis women aren't a monolith as they exhibit a spectrum of female typical behaviours. Just like cis women they aren't all 1950's sex bots. That gendered behaviours are interchangeable between the sexes is the epitome of gender non conformity.

The reality is that a regulated sex industry continues to treat women as units of consumption whose bargaining rights degrade with use, and the consumer rights of the male paying customer are prioritised.

Sex work being considered as work is just a view that asserts it is a legitimate form of labor, deserving of rights, protections, and legal regulation similar to other industries. This is supported by arguments that it allows for better public health outcomes, legal recourse for workers, and protection from stigma which isn't to be confused with a justification for its existence. The reality is a regulated industry is better for women than an unregulated one.

I’m waiting for a capitalised IE, but I think he’s stopped using them. 😞

Surely it is forcing people into gender conformity that Stock objects to, the idea that there is a very limited set of strictly stereotyped rules for presenting and everyone has to pick one, labelled 'masculine' or 'feminine' (neither anything to do with the person's sex) and stick to it.

And force other people, usually women, who don't conform, and who stick with sex, to abandon their own rights in favour of the conformists.

Instead of the old 'wear what you want, do what you're good at, act responsibly' aspiration.

women's kindness and conformity are basic instinctive survival instincts.
without it women are (used to be) hounded out of the safety of the community leaving them unable to raise their children.

Great article, especially the real love for Attwood’s writing.

I don’t think Stock is saying that women are programmable robots, or that prostitution doesn’t arise from economic desperation. She’s looking at the women who define prostitution as ‘sex work’ and defend it as a non-economically driven choice.

Ooh, someone figured out how to use italics!