sorry for the long post - there were a few posts I wanted to reply to...
dittany - having read all five pages, I can't actually see much of substance in the webchat itself. The most interesting question I saw posed was from Leningrad: How do we debunk the gender myths whilst being careful not to denigrate/ neutralise the fact that it is women who get pg, give birth and bfeed? and I don't feel CF really answered it beyond saying 'we've come a long way'. To be fair to her though I have now ordered her book and will get back to you on that. While on Amazon, I read the reviews and was particularly struck by this one, especially the point the reviewer makes about the trauma experienced by people who feel they have been born into the 'wrong' gender: 'but now make sense of the queer kid being bullied in the playground. Life would be so much easier if learning how to do the approved gender were that easy. To this child the messages are clear from the outside -parents; teachers; peers: be a proper .....[boy/girl] but the conflict between the innate sense of gender and the external rules of social conditioning can push some to suicide: lets be honest here.'
As I say, though, I'll read the book with an open mind and get back to you.
MrIC: i.e. that some women are not at their best during menstruation is natural. - see, this is an example of the assumption that different means inferior. In some ways, I was most definitely 'at my best' before and during menstruation - more assertive and more sexually responsive, for starters! It's part of what I miss now I'm menopausal. Your wider point is right though - the problems come when innate differences are used to justify inequality and oppression.
However, I have to disagree with this: ... there also needs to be a distinction between natural nature, and acquired nature. That women give birth is completely and indisputably natural (yeah, I know. like, duh!) but that men are more aggressive, well that's just years of natural selection, and isn't true across the board.
The way we reproduce is every bit as much a product of natural selection as male aggression. Just because some genetic trait is not shared by every member of the species doesn't make it any less 'natural' or innate. For example, I can no more help having brown eyes than I can help having eyes at all - both are determined by my genes. The fact that there is variation in levels of aggressiveness among men (and women) is quite hopeful because it means we still have a chance to evolve into a less aggressive species. Environmental pressures change and aggression is not such a useful response to threats and competition as it would have been in the distant past. Encouraging women not to choose or stay with violent partners will help, as will locking up violent men, so taking them out of the gene pool for large chunks of their life (we need to do a lot more of this) ... but evolution is an incredibly slow process and we are stuck, for the time being, with levels of innate aggression, particularly among men, that do none of us any favours. I most emphatically am NOT excusing male violence by saying this - culture is all about moving beyond our biology. We all have the fight-or-flight reflex, for example, but we have to learn not to give in to it - we can't, when receiving a dressing down at work, either punch our boss or run away! We have to find other, preferably healthy ways of dealing with our feelings, perhaps going for a run later or having a bloody good rant after work to our mates. Similarly, we have to find ways for men (and women) to deal with aggressive feelings harmlessly. Pretending they're not there or can be simply switched off because they are undesirable won't get us anywhere.
I am also most emphatically not saying that there isn't a MASSIVE cultural component to male aggression. There most obviously is.
dittany (again) - I had to reread the exchange between you and Himalaya about 'natural means good' several times before I understood what you were trying to say. Sometimes it would be really helpful if you could use a few more words to explain what you mean and avoid misunderstanding. I think I've got it know - you are saying that male dominance has no basis in biology at all - that it is entirely socially constructed? What if, one day, scientific evidence came to light that showed that male dominance was indeed natural - i.e if it could be proved that males had had the upper hand since before we became human and had anything resembling culture? Would that make it OK? If that wasn't how things were, if male dominance is genuinely, entirely socially constructed, how did that happen in the first place and when and where was this golden age of equality before everything went wrong?
garlicbutter - The definition of "Good" in career terms is male. A woman is not a man but, in order to be "Good" in this sense, she must meet criteria defined for and by men - most notably, but by no means exclusively, being unimpeded by pregnancy, childbirth and related matters. Yes! Exactly!
Himalaya - I am not saying that women cannot be good engineers or that men cannot be good carers - they can and they are. I think what I was trying to say is that, all other things being equal, we'd still see slightly more male engineers and slightly more female carers just because of where people's interests take them. I am aware that women have made great inroads into some traditionally male professions. What strikes me about the list of examples you cite is that these are all jobs that require quite high levels of people skills. Have women made the same inroads into professions requiring 'stuff' skills? I agree with your argument about why women workers are not valued - I see it as a sort of positive feedback loop, where probably tiny initial differences (in interests rather than ability) are amplified massively by the undervaluing of the female workforce. It is rational for businesses to reduce their costs in order to maximise profits - that's what businesses do. 'Rational' does not mean 'right' any more than 'natural' means 'good', right?
Dittany (again) - Because men as a group are prepared to use extreme violence against women, to keep us in line. This is true, but it's also worth noting that men are much more violent towards each other as well. They appear to be much more violent full stop.