AIBU to think that the emphasis on "gender neutral" smacks of desperation

[Sakura]

I'm halfway through Delusions of Gender and lots of things have begun to niggle me.

I get the feeling that the need for women to prove their brains are the same as mens is just as absurd as the mad patriarchal obsession with finding differences is male and female brains.

Neuroscience, evolutionary psychology are the most recent "proofs" that the system has conjured up in order to justify oppression and subordination of women

But the idea that we now have to prove male and female brains are the same, and that if girls and boys were just raised in a neutral environment then sexism would just dissappear, doesn't make sense to me. It would rather be like a black man writing a book proving that he is not, in fact, black. And that him not being actually black means that he should't be discriminated against.

But, well... racism was only invented in order to justify slavery. The trade along the Silk Road (Europe to China) proves that for centuries many races and religions lived side by side and traded equally. There was no inherent racism until it became necessary to justify slavery. That, you could say, was the root of the concept of race.

And it's the same with female oppression. The oppression and subordination comes first, the justifications come afterwards. Dispel the brain myths and they'll only think up another reason why women should be disenfranchised in economics and politics.
MEanwhile women have to expend lots of energy proving they are "just as good as men" or "can be just like men"

The truth is, from what i have seen, there is no evidence, one way or another, about how brains work, but even if there were dramatic differences between male and female brains, on what basis would that be a justification for patriarchy? The truth is, there is no justification, and feminists should bear that in mind.

I think women giving up make-up and beauty practices en masse would do a lot for equality, and in the way women are perceived by society (but it'd have to be a mass movement, because it'd be very difficult to do alone- I am not brave enough, that's for sure)

I also think another 'solution for the revolution' would be for women to simply stop working, like the women in FInland did 50 years ago. The country ground to a halt for a day and men were forced to sit up and listen to their demands. NO cleaners, no carers, no bum-wipers, no supermarket check-outs, no Macdonalds cashiers...

Also, one of her chapters is incorrect AFAICS. SHe talks of female children who were of ambiguous sex at birth who are then raised as girls, but continue to show an interest in boys' toys. She doesn't mention the chromozomes. If the children are chromozomally male, then that could be why they are interested in boys' toys, which disproves her own hypothesis.

Either way, I personally don't think any of this matters. men are always going to find reasons to keep women down and 'brain differences' is just the latest in a long line of justifications.

lol beachcomber!

The bit about Finland 50 years ago sounds interesting. Does she say anything else about it?

I'd love that to be done here and now.

It was Iceland, not Finland, sorry.

I can't find the newspaper article on it but I just found an Icelandic woman's blog:

"The date, October 24th, commemorates thirty years since women throughout Iceland walked out of work, all work. Even the daily chores of home and hearth. Iceland basically shut down for a day. The men were in shock, the children hungry. It was an amazing moment in Icelandic history... "

Icelandic Eyes

Ah, it's "second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world" That makes more sense -- it certainly ranks consistently below average for industrialised nations, although exactly where below average depends on who's producing the report, exactly what they are measuring and what year it is. But not second worst in the world, which would imply that one in every 16 or 17 newborn babies died.

Have ordered Backlash and should arrive in a couple of days.

Abandoning families as 'learned' behaviour... seen the number of posts on here "My DH/my BIL/my friend's DP won't let his son play with a toy buggy/doll/whatever because he thinks it will make him gay/isn't a proper toy for a boy/etc."? What happens to those boys (who have been naturally drawn towards nurturing play as small children but had it squashed because they apparently shouldn't be wired that way and it's not proper manly behaviour) when they grow up?

"My favourite book ever is 'Woman on the edge of time' - in the future society women and men are 100% equal, they have the same rights and responsibilities in a totally egalitarian society. But the 'downside' was that child-bearing was done by machine and breast-feeding could be done by any of the 3 'co-parent's' regardless of whether they were male of female. Is that a sacrifice worth making?"

Orm, I haven't read this book but the picture you are painting is not one of equality for me, it is of women conforming to patriarchal standards in order to be treated as some sort of equal under terms set by men. It also is not a realistic or achievable goal. A woman shouldn't have to neglect her offspring in order to have some power.

Women have babies, women breastfeed - that makes us bloody fantastic not second class citizen sexbots, IMO.

Women and men are different but that difference should not be a reason for a difference in status.

For me the whole concept and system of patriarchy is based on the notion that men and women are different physically. No-one has ever given me an adequate explanation for why 'different' has been translated into men = standard, women = sub-standard. This is why I'm a radical feminist - I just cannot see the current system ever being fair to women and I don't see why we should try to conform to it in order to grapple some form of masculine based power for ourselves.

Urgh, women morphing with machines....no thanks. That's patriarchal utopia, ORmirian, not feminist Utopia.
Men having ultimate say over life: the root of misogyny is that women have the wombs. Once you scrape the surface of misogyny you see it all there- the fear of wombs, menstruation and envy of birth. It's the one thing they just can't have and they can't stand it.

My ex-landlord had an "egg-machine". I shit you not. His "hobby" was to take eggs away from their mothers in the wild and stick them in this machine until they hatched. MAny would die and he'd say 'you shouldn't interfere with nature', and I'd think 'Erm..you just did you megalomaniac, when you took them from their mothers "

The patriarchal obsession with controling childbirth, with milking women's fertility for what its worth in fertility treatments,- where men 'make and grow' babies in old chrones.

That is my vision of hell.

Everything we do and think, even much of feminism, is shaped by the patriarchal view of the world. I totally agree that women should not have to neglect their biology to have power.

For me the very big problem is a very basic problem - physical strength.

Power comes from the latin word for potential. Men always have the potential to overpower us physically. I always presumed that is where the much mocked phrase about all men are potential rapists (Marilyn French's fictional character said it) came from. I never thought that phrase was anti-men and insulting, just a statement about physical strength.

Anyhow, that's why I think we are classed as 'sub-standard'.

But that is the point. Men and women has equal rights over all areas of life.

Women don't morph into machines at all.

And I think that it would be fantastic to be able to 'neglect my biology' if it meant that I could have children and live a full life outside of parenting without feeling as if I am wearing myself to a thread.

I don't think Marge Peircey could be called a servant of the patriarchy.

Virginia Woolf once quoted some famous sexist man (will find it if you want me to). His quote went something along the lines of: "When children are no longer desired, women will no longer be needed"
She warned that women should take notice of his words. And I think she's right.

If the human race loses the need for women's reproductive life-giving powers, women will be in a worse off position than they ever were. As Greer said, "Men will not regret the passing of real, hairy, bloody, smelly, noisy women"

Ormirian you already can neglect your biology. LOts of rich Hollywood women use poorer women as surrogates. The class system also serves patriarchy perfectly: you are always going to have poor women around to offer their bodies (or orifices) in exchange for the money that men hold onto so greedily.

The patriarchal medial establishment is near on obsessed with surrogacy. It's a nice little earner for a start, and they get to feel like Gods.

I'm literally quite traumatised by the fact that in the US a birth mother is not allowed to keep her baby, should she change her mind. Have you ever given birth? Imagine doing so and not being allowed to keep the prize at the end. The young mother went on the run with her newborn but they found her and forced her to hand him over.

I don't think we should have to give up our wombs for equality. But I can see why that might appeal for true equality as there would no longer be male and female, just human?

But back in the real world, we have wombs and are physically less strong, and are less aggressive...... and what can be done to deal with these differences rather than eliminate them, which is essentially the same as ignoring or denying the differences.

It's a common theme Sakura - when the story fits the patriarchal requirements, women get no choice on their children. We did pretty much the same with young unmarried mothers in the 1960s and 70s - forced them to give up their babies for adoption because they did not comply with the social norms of the time ( ie. married and slightly older)

NO, I don'T think it's strength, Ladyblahblah. As I said, that has never stopped women from having to do the bulk of heavy labour for humanity.

And apparently there used to be a certain cultures in the past which didn't realise that paternity existed. IN other words, people believed babies just came from women. Imagine you're in a tribe and then these new, perfect little beings emerge from some of your people once in a while. Pretty bloody jaw-droppingly amazing compared to a bit of physical strength that you're going to lose anyway as you age

yes, traditionally women have not been allowed any say over their children- that is a common staple of patriarchy.
And yet women get the full responsibility of children's mental and physical well-being, including 'how they turn out'. Mother-blaming when things go wrong is another patriarchal favourite

I don't mean in terms of heavy labour - it is a given that men use the patriarchal system to give women the shit work to do.

I mean more along the lines of what Susan Brownmiller said: "[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear"

Going back to the origins of the word power - all men have the potential to physically overpower us. That is something we are constantly reminded of, and then furthermore have no means of protecting ourselves from - look at the court systems etc.

We need a solution to the physical problem IMO because currently men literally get away with murder, and certainly as we all know, definitely get away, every day, with subtle sexual harrassment and abuse, because they have the power to overcome us, and we have literally no power (physical or legal) to protect ourselves.

3 times sakura, and yes the feeling is overwhelming. But IMO as time passes the importance of being a 'mother' fades and is largely replaced by the importance of being a parent. There is so much more to being a parent than giving birth and feeding a baby.

And no, I don't want to be de-wombed. But I do think that the sharing of the caring roles between men and women equally is a vital step.

You really love to twist what I say for some reason Dittany.

I really see the problem as being that women have wombs and men don't, plus (as pointed out by LadyBlahBlah), men are generally physically stronger.

Men have used their physical strength to grapple the power away from women and set things up to suit their own ends. In order for this system to be coherent, things that women do or have, that men do not have, are either de-valued or controlled by men.

Hence the de-valuing of childrearing - society should be down on its knees in god damn awe at what the average women achieves (especially considered the whole system is loaded against us).

But no, wombs and periods are gross and make women hysterical, breastfeeding has largely been destroyed (and is gross and makes women hysterical), childbirth is medicalised, child rearing is low status or interfering with a 'real job'.

The immense pressure women feel to have/do it all is ridiculous and, I think, part of a system which unsustainable and ultimately inhumane.

We are currently in a situation where if women don't play by masculine rules we will have no money, no power and no freedom at all. A system that largely benefits one group whilst buying, selling and controlling another group is not a system to be proud of.

yes, women are just running around on a hamster wheel proving they're good enough. Meanwhile I travelled through CHina last month for a one night stop-over (on the way to the Feminist Conference, yay!). The EXPO trade conference was on at the time and iT was literally just men. British men, chinese men, arab men. Just men. Men are keeping hold of all the cards. Men have got power that they don't even let women know about.

have a look at this cartoon courtesy of Beachcomber