Reasons for not moving right like young men

And going to the bingo is the same as being burned alive at your husband’s funeral #thesutteeshow

“They [sic] symbols and stereotypes ( and practices) may differ slightly between cultures and societies but the origins of the initial differentiation are just the same.”

Just a matter of time, then, until all cultures converge. I’m sure your degree will seriously impress the men who “inevitably” end up back in control.

The practice of women wearing high heels is a parallel to be found in our culture of course.

That's a good point. Chinese footbinding was mainly a preoccupation of elite men (since the majority of women were rural and only lightly bound, if at all, so as to enable physical work). But elite men either pretended or sometimes really did belleve that normal feet were unfeminine. An extreme example with many parallels.

@Carla786: where the money is big, the women are small. That’s the whole picture. Embroidering it with evolutionary just-so stories is a hobby for small minds.

Cultural resonance is the key phrase here. Culture is a function of power; it varies from place to place. In China, having bound feet once signalled femininity; in the Middle East and Africa, femininity requires circumcision. Neither of these procedures arise from biology. They are the product of cultures that measure women wholly by their price on the marriage-market, and so give women no option but to comply with their standards - and, indeed, to enforce them.

Symbolism and psychology, as you say, shape what humans see. But they change with the humans who are doing the seeing. Physiology, on the other hand, does not. Smudging the former into the latter is the oldest trick in the patriarchy playbook - but these days, it's a trick that persuades only the very young and the very naive.

Cultural resonance is the key phrase here. Culture is a function of power; it varies from place to place. In China, having bound feet once signalled femininity; in the Middle East and Africa, femininity requires circumcision. Neither of these procedures arise from biology. They are the product of cultures that measure women wholly by their price on the marriage-market, and so give women no option but to comply with their standards - and, indeed, to enforce them.

Symbolism and psychology, as you say, shape what humans see. But they change with the humans who are doing the seeing. Physiology, on the other hand, does not. Smudging the former into the latter is the oldest trick in the patriarchy playbook - but these days, it's a trick that persuades only the very young and the very naive.

I was talking about how differences in the body translate into psychological symbolism with cultural resonance. It provides an explanation for the reason that different characteristics and qualities are coded 'masculine' or 'feminine'.

Hmm...I see what you mean but what are your implications? That on average men are more suited to leadership? That men on average should take the lead in the family home, not women? Or something else?

'The female genitalia is more internal, not so 'outer directed' or visible; '

• that's true. But should it then follow that on average women should be less outer-directed and visible in public life?

"Coded masculine" doesn't imply that only men have this characteristic, though. There are plenty of very strong, forthright women who are comfortable with management, directing and leadership. And plenty of men who are not so competent in that way.

I think that ultimately the roots of such societal coding lies in the body and in the biological and physical function: The female genitalia is more internal, not so 'outer directed' or visible; the female body has softer lines, is less muscular and so on; and the female biological function is to carry and nurture new human life, and then feed it after birth. If we look at male and female bodies and functions and then extrapolate qualities and characteristics we end up with societal codes and stereotypes.

The very concept of leadership is suggestive of someone who takes command of a situation and directs it ( coded masculine). What might a 'feminine' leadership style look like?

Facilitating a sharing circle? At some point a decision and an action has to be taken, and this can not always be done by a committee. I guess some people might be more attuned to a collaborative style where everyone's view is listened to - but at some point a decisive action or a decision must still be made.

We all breathe man-made air, which is why we imagine that laying down boundaries and taking charge of situations is a male thing. And yet mothers do this every single day, all day long. You can't be an effective carer without the ability to show leadership. I trained as a doctor and have also spent years as a SAHM, & the skills involved are surprisingly alike.

"Femininity", on the other hand - the pose of softness, tenderness, edged about with helplessness - is a time-honoured way to coax men into providing support. I'm not knocking it: in a world where women are blocked from earning, it's a useful skill. Mothers teach it to daughters. But it isn't a female thing: it's an economic thing. It's a pose.

This hurts everyone, but it hurts young women particularly. No wonder they are all so confused and so angry. They can see right through the pink-and-purple girliverse, but they also see that the language of rules and power has long since been co-opted by men. The reality of caring - the toughness of it, the hard-won power that it can hold - is kept hidden away. Nobody, least of all men, wants to acknowledge just how strong women can be.

Certainly agree that women and men have very different bodies, which creates real difference in their functioning.

By the logic of the second point, though, strong and forthright women would have to possess stiff, out-popping vulvas; gentle men would have floppy, spongy willies. Not sure this measures up to reality.

I think you're correct in that possessing the capacity to nurture new life does shape the capabilities of women. But nurturance is a very, very tough gig.

Certainly agree that women and men have very different bodies, which creates real difference in their functioning.

By the logic of the second point, though, strong and forthright women would have to possess stiff, out-popping vulvas; gentle men would have floppy, spongy willies. Not sure this measures up to reality.

I think you're correct in that possessing the capacity to nurture new life does shape the capabilities of women. But nurturance is a very, very tough gig.

"Coded masculine" doesn't imply that only men have this characteristic, though. There are plenty of very strong, forthright women who are comfortable with management, directing and leadership. And plenty of men who are not so competent in that way.

I think that ultimately the roots of such societal coding lies in the body and in the biological and physical function: The female genitalia is more internal, not so 'outer directed' or visible; the female body has softer lines, is less muscular and so on; and the female biological function is to carry and nurture new human life, and then feed it after birth. If we look at male and female bodies and functions and then extrapolate qualities and characteristics we end up with societal codes and stereotypes.

We all breathe man-made air, which is why we imagine that laying down boundaries and taking charge of situations is a male thing. And yet mothers do this every single day, all day long. You can't be an effective carer without the ability to show leadership. I trained as a doctor and have also spent years as a SAHM, & the skills involved are surprisingly alike.

"Femininity", on the other hand - the pose of softness, tenderness, edged about with helplessness - is a time-honoured way to coax men into providing support. I'm not knocking it: in a world where women are blocked from earning, it's a useful skill. Mothers teach it to daughters. But it isn't a female thing: it's an economic thing. It's a pose.

This hurts everyone, but it hurts young women particularly. No wonder they are all so confused and so angry. They can see right through the pink-and-purple girliverse, but they also see that the language of rules and power has long since been co-opted by men. The reality of caring - the toughness of it, the hard-won power that it can hold - is kept hidden away. Nobody, least of all men, wants to acknowledge just how strong women can be.

The very concept of leadership is suggestive of someone who takes command of a situation and directs it ( coded masculine). What might a 'feminine' leadership style look like?

Facilitating a sharing circle? At some point a decision and an action has to be taken, and this can not always be done by a committee. I guess some people might be more attuned to a collaborative style where everyone's view is listened to - but at some point a decisive action or a decision must still be made.