the paddling pool

[Alameda]

get your flotation aids here (don't look at me though, I genuinely can't swim)

Running - those types of phrases do crop up regularly, of course. I think perhaps the difficulty is that they are a sort of shorthand for a lot of academic and political feminist thinking over many years, a bit like how other specialist fields develop their own vocab or TLAs.

For some of us newbies, we don't know all the thinking that sits behind those shorthand phrases so it can be quite hard to understand what they really mean, or what the thinking is behind them. And potentially frustrating if they get trotted out without a full explanation of the meaning, IYSWIM. A bit like lawyers roll out Latin phrases and legalese that no one else understands.

Sorry, I meant 'I', not 'we' - it's my experience, not necessarily the same for others!

I'm calm thanks cote. I wasn't saying anything about the race argument - that comment just stood out as a bit off that's all.

If you are going to criticise a comment, you need to understand the context it was made in and the people it was aimed at. That is all.

I wasn't a general comment to the thread but to several RadFems, it was specifically re "all races are social construct", and it was not an attack.

I think that was clear to them, which is why they haven't accused me of attacking.

Just re-read the post in question. You start your post by addressing 'Juggling' by name - who is not an FWR regular. So you can see how it might be misconstrued?

I thought it sounded dismmisive -Glad you've clarified though.

Cote, you said the 'radfems/some books' thing to me on another thread.

It is pissing me off now. I won't go into why as it will derail the thread.

I came back on here to comment on the race thing (which I think could be interesting and relates to gender), but I don't think I will now.

I am a regular here and will happily answer any paddling pool questions however.

And I didn't say 'all races are social construct'. I said 'of course race is a social construct'.

This post explains very well what I meant by that;

CaramelTree Thu 28-Jun-12 20:05:31

Coming back to the race thing, I would phrase it that human physical variation is a biological reality that is connected to geographical areas. I would consider the colour of somebody's skin to be a variation of skin pigmentation. Race, on the other hand, is a set of social constructs attached to human variation. A person who is considered to be white in Algeria would often not be considered white in the UK.

So people can then face racism based on the biological reality of their body and they can face racism based on socially constructed stereotypes about that biological reality, or based on ideas about ethnicity which may have no connection to their biological reality. So somebody can experience racism in different ways because people a. have an issue with their skin colour 'don't like black people' b. attribute some socially constructed stereotype to their skin colour 'black people are really good dancers' or c. because of their socially constructed ethnicity 'Irish people drink a lot.'

That would equate in women and men experiencing sexism a. having an issue with biological sex 'don't like women' b. attaching socially constructed stereotypes to people who have a certain biological sex 'women are irrational,' or c. dislike of people who choose to exhibit femininity or masculinity or androgyny 'don't like feminine men or women.'

So human variation including skin pigmentation - equivalent to biological sex.
Stereotypes of race - equivalent to claims that there are 'innate' gender qualities that all/most women share.
Dislike of certain ethnic groups - equivalent to dislike of people who choose to be feminine, regardless of their biological sex.

I shall now stop taking this thread off topic. I only mentioned race (and did so in brackets) because I was referring to social constructs - of which gender is considered to be one, in feminist analysis.

It would probably be more helpful to any paddlers to talk about gender as a social construct rather than get embroiled in differing interpretations of race. IMO.

I'm sorry if that comment made you angry. It wasn't meant as an insult, as I explained below.

I have a lot of respect for you Beachcomber, from years on vaccination threads, and I wouldn't want to upset you.

Thank you Cote. Not angry - just a bit pissed off.

Right backatcha on the vaccination thing.

I think I'm going to start a thread about discussing feminism with men - there is lots to look at there and I don't think this thread is the right place for it.

I read Caramel's post, too, but it doesn't use the word "race" in its usual scientific/anthropological meaning, which is "subspecies" - i.e. with physiologically distinguishable characteristics, of which skin colour is only one part.

None of those characteristics are "social construct".

I don't see anyone here actually answering this (possibly because it is not possible to, while still being faithful to "race is a social construct"). Quoting a favourite author or each other's posts isn't answering this very simple point.

Looking forward to it

The way that chairmanmeow has been treated on here makes me very uncomfortable.

I don't care who anyone is etc etc, I don't like to see human beings treated that way whatever genitals they have.

Hully, that's a fair comment.

As a FWR newbie, not knowing anyone's back history, I take every post and poster at face value and get a bit confused and uncomfortable at the subsequent comments.

Otoh, I understand that some FWR regulars have been subject to pretty nasty attacks in the past (not saying by chair specifically) so I can understand why they feel sensitive - and might be upset if, as a newbie, I come leaping in demanding to be allowed to converse with male posters etc (being of the liberal, engaging from within bent).

No idea what the answer is. Any ideas?

OK, Cote. I'll answer your question. And then I promise I will stop taking this thread off topic. I'm going to start with gender.

In feminist analysis, gender is considered to be a social construct. Sex, on the other hand, is a biological reality.

So, I am a woman, I am an adult female human being - that is my sex. I have female reproductive organs and XX chromosomes. This is a concrete biological physical reality that varies little from woman to woman.

In feminist analysis, gender is a social construct, it is not a concrete physical reality, it varies enormously within individuals of the same sex and has varied over time, cultures, geography, customs, etiquettes and societies. Gender is considered to be the masculine and the feminine. In patriarchal society, women are feminine and men are masculine - and both groups are socialised to perform gender roles. Put simply, the gender roles are; men/masculinity dominate and women/femininity are dominated. Therefore gender is a hierarchy. It affords differing status depending on whether one is a woman (low status) or a man (high status).

There is no concrete physical biological justification for these status groups. They are dependent on the social construction of gender for their existence.

Now with race it is the same, except that the same word is used for the biological reality and the social construct. It is possible to loosely designate 'biological/physical racial types' to human beings - and that is one meaning of the word race. However 'race' is also used as a social construct - as I said earlier on the thread, here the social construct is 'white' and 'nonwhite'. We have a binary hierarchy, just as we do with masculinity and femininity. This is the social construct - and it is a tool of oppression which allows for nonbiologicaly justified status groups, just as we have with gender. It is an artificial classification of human beings that places white people on the higher rung of the 'white' 'non-white' ladder. It is the artificial non-physical construct that buttresses white supremacy (dominance of white over non-white/white privilege).

And I haven't read this theory in a book. It is my personal opinion drawn by observing the world around me.

Am off out - not ignoring any replies.

I don't feel chairmanmeow was treated that badly here was he, Hully ?

IIRC there were mainly comments about whether people wanted to discuss feminism with men - and stuff came up for people because of some of his previous posts on other threads (that I haven't read)

So,

1. If it's about him being a man, no need to take it personally
2. If it's about previous exchanges he's been involved in, he probably knows what those were.

Scroobius - It's different to be an individual Muslim or Catholic woman who would never obtain an abortion for her own pregnancy than it is to be an individual Muslim or Catholic woman (or woman in general, or man) who is in the rare position of being able to impose their views on women's material reality.

The only feminist choice for someone in that position (politician or policy maker or head of an NGO or wealthy philanthropist or whoever) is to facilitate women running their pregnancies and managing their fertility in whatever way that works for them. Which includes abortion.

I'm uneasy about the Pill being touted as a cure-all (barrier contraceptives for all! etc) but contraception is not 100% reliable. Not allowing a woman access to an abortion could mean that she dies. It's worth being a little hardline on this.

If Melinda Gates doesn't agree with abortion then she should never, ever have one. But that doesn't mean that other women don't need them and yes, want them.

And, of course, there's always the option of suggesting that perhaps the global population might cut back on their PIV in favour of mutually pleasurable sexual activities that don't lead to conception. No internal ejaculation = no need for Pill, no need for abortions.

I'd really like to see what a campaign for that, backed by the Gates Foundation, could do. If Melinda Gates is truly bothered by abortion than my idea seems a better way of preventing them than hers!

The 'Fifty Shades' thread is one example of why I am uncomfortable with discussing feminism with men on FWR. I never said that they can't post here, just that I am personally uncomfortable with it.

Victor, i agree with much of what you say although I don't think the pill is the primary contraception on offer - I think she is aiming to give out implants/injections because women can hide those from the men.

When you say 'being a little hardline', does that mean you don't see the programme at all as being a feminist act because of the absence of support for abortion? Or would you see it be a partly feminist act?

Sorry If my questions are a bit basic. I'm trying to get my head around to what extent feminism permits shades of 'grey' for want of a better term.

I think there are problems with contraception and abortion always being linked in people's minds though, for example in the Catholic church ( which unfortunately has so much influence, especially in this area ) Many people who might have reservations about abortion could be encouraged to embrace the use and promotion of contraceptives much more strongly and openly I feel. ( I loved it when I stayed in Holland and everyone who stayed in my hostel got handed a condom when they booked in ! )

I think there's a lot to be gained from this No controversy in contraception initiative. Contraception and education can go along way to achieving better lives for women and children around the world - enabling choice wrt family planning. Contraception or other family planning would be everyone's first choice I'm sure. Let's back this campaign, which has the potential for so much good in my estimation.

Sorry, x-posted, Victor.

What, though, if the PIV campaign took, say, 50 years to have serious impact (as big cultural changes often do). Would the overall outcome justify the high maternal death rates and illness in the meantime? And how do you start an anti-PIV campaign in the worst countries where many women are illiterate and entirely dependent on men for their daily existence?

I see the end goal you are aiming for, but IMO (fwiw!), I don't see how you could start that sort of campaign until we have first reached a position where women globally are literate, educated, in control of their fertility and with the ability to be financially independent.

Scroobius - It's not basic at all, don't worry. But I would ask you: why is it important to classify the programme as a whole as 'feminist' or 'non-feminist'? Would it help you decide how you feel about it?

I don't think it's tremendously important to classify the programme as 'feminist' or 'non-feminist'. The programme has good intentions: allowing women to control their fertility is a good thing. Allowing them to do it in a way that allows them to 'hide' it is a pragmatic step (although I would like to see someone tackle the reasons women have to hide it in the first place, and I suspect that's something to do with the behaviour of men).

But personally I don't think restricting access to abortion is ever feminist.

X-post!

We could and should have both - I agree that women's actual health and actual bodies shouldn't be sacrificed until cultural change is effected.

But while birth control does its job I think we should take a long hard look at the other side of baby-making. Women don't get pregnant on their own. In answer to your point about waiting for everyone to be educated, I think that's a bit of a red herring - the West is supposedly 'educated' - and it's just that PIV is so ingrained absolutely everywhere that it takes a while for the concept of not having it as the central form of sexual expression to make its way about.

But a concentrated campaign of 'Pregnancy can harm. Perhaps you might consider not having PIV?' could be as simple as the many campaigns for condom use that are essentially 'HIV is on the rise. Put something on the end of it'. No university education needed for that!

BTW, I used 'the pill' as a shorthand for 'chemical contraception'. The jury seems to be well out on whether long-term chemical contraceptive use is a good thing, and of course, if it turns out not to be, it'll be women who bore the brunt of it...

Good point. Why the classification? I think it's about using real examples to understand the principles of feminism as i find abstract theory pretty unsatisfactory for a whole number of reasons. I will ponder on it some more though, as I do see your point.

I get that re: theory v practice. I like a good bit of theoretical chewing the fat but things also have to work in real life.

I am but one feminist, and I'm sure others will have their views, but I tend to find almost everything in RL grinds along between the ultimate goal of removing patriarchal oppression and pragmatically protecting women from harm while we do that.