the paddling pool

[Alameda]

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

Hully, I think the Chairmanmeow thing was actually a typical example of man/woman interaction.

My view was that it went something like this :-

Various posters : having discussions from various points of view, attempting to reach, no a consensus, but an understanding.
Male poster : ignores pages of debate and picks up on the very thing that a lot of women are particularly sensitive to. Makes what could be an inappropriate comment, probably from nothing more sinister than lack of thought.
Female poster a : calls him out, affected by prior posting history
Female poster b: in the spirit of this thread tries to support above poster, but points out why comment could be deemed offensive.
Male poster : beats chest, starts to rail against all, plays the victim
Female poster b : having had it pointed out to her that not in the spirit of the thread, attempts to appease male poster and apologies
Male poster : now suitably appeased and feathers smoother, magnanimously accepts apology as befits him andnow prepared to take posts 'on face value'

How very fucking big of him.

Refuses to post in anymeaningful way or contribute or attempt to understand female poster a's problem and ignores anyone else who offers to engage with him because it's all now about him. Has tantrum and walks off.

I will happily discuss my views on feminism with any man but there has to be a degree of sensitivity in FWR in exactly the same way that you want posters to be respectful and consider others in their tone

Glasgowwean, I disagree with that analysis in a whole heap of ways.

It's probably not helpful to go into all the whys, but one thing I am uncomfortable is the whole idea of 'calling out' posters. MN has a reporting feature. Posters can simply be ignored. There's just no need for it.

Pip - I think providing access to contraception is a feminist action. I think that PIV is harmful and chemical contraception is not the best overall solution for women - it is harm reduction rather than eliminating the harm. But I am also a pragmatist.

Not allowing aiding access to abortion though is imo an anti feminist act. It is preventing women having full rights over their own body.

I don't think it matters whether she or her husband earned the money. Presumably they both contributed to the family and relationship and are therefore both entitled to any assetts amassed from this.

Pip - People do report posters, but sometimes it can take hours for MNHQ to respond. I have seen racist and other very offensive comments that lots of people are reporting, stay on a thread for hours. If posters in those circumstances say nothing and simply report, it makes it look to everyone else as if no-one cares about this kind of stuff.

So although I generally agree with the reporting line, I think sometimes calling someone on something on a thread is valid. Of course posters may not agree when this is valid.

Pip, I don't disagree with that but sometimes you can't help but be aware of other postings and the background and in this instance, there was nothing that I felt was 'reportable' in respect of the post in question. I am genuinely sorry if I contributed to the sense that men aren't welcome to post in this section.

I would echo Glasgow that all this stuff is not saying that men are unwelcome to post.

"I think that PIV is harmful"

About a billion years of evolution appears to disagree with you.

If you don't like sex, don't have any. If you are scared of STDs or unwanted pregnancies, protect yourself. But calling penetrative sex "harmful" is a very strange stand to take.

"Not allowing aiding access to abortion though is imo an anti feminist act. It is preventing women having full rights over their own body."

If Melinda Gates were working to prevent access to abortion, you would be right. However, she is just ignoring abortion, because she doesn't believe in it. She has every right to support causes she wants to and ignore the rest.

With my limited budget, I support several women's charities in the Middle East. Even if I had unlimited funds, I would never give money to religious causes or finance the building of a mosque, for example.

It is unreasonable to expect people to support causes that are diametrically opposed to their world view.

Cote, it's not the PIV itself is it though. It's how it's been used and the fact that it can only cause physical suffering potentially to the woman. It's been used as a tool in a certain sense to continue oppressionl. It's certainly not an argument that sits comfortably with me but I can see the merit of the argument.

And as for termination, I know what you mean about supporting causes you don't support but I just can't see that feminism can be anything other than 'pro-woman' which surely means access to abortion if needed.

Beachcomber - re "In feminist analysis, gender is considered to be a social construct"

And DH considers two blackbirds a sign of imminent good luck. "Considered" is not "is", of course.

There is ample evidence out there, some of which I quoted, that shows gender differences are at least partially innate. Faced with all that evidence, I don't think it is wise to continue "considering" the opposite because it makes that position look more like faith and less like the conclusion of rational analysis.

"both groups are socialised to perform gender roles"

Gender roles are social constructs, I would agree with this. That women are expected to be inoffensive and demure, while men are expected to be aggressive and driven in most cultures, for example.

But gender isn't, for the most part. It is fact that there are significant differences between how men and women function - we solve problems with two hemispheres of the brain while they involve only one, they are much better at spatial and gross motor skills while we are much better at visual cues, underlying meanings, and consensus building.

This is not about superiority/inferiority, but about specialisation.

Ignoring myriad evidences of these differences, again, makes the RadFem position look more like faith and less like the result of a rational, scientific analysis.

I'm happy to leave it there for the purposes of this thread, just wanted to clarify the above.

Cote - its is the paddling pool so not really the place for a full debate. But the argument around continuation of the species might be that for many species sex is not enjoyable or even unenjoyable for the female of the species. In nature that doesn't matter, as long as the species continues. But as women surely we can demand more than that?

In terms of a right to abortions - of course everyone decides what they give money to. But she has not simply said I am giving money to x and by extension implying she is not giving money to y and z, She has said publically she will not give money to abortion as she does not support it - and I think taht is an anti feminist statement

And in terms of the brain, there are different scientific views. One major strand would say that the brain is incredibly pliable and changes and evolves according to what we all actually do day-to-day. But the argument about whether gender behaviour is innate or socially constructed is one that has been waged for a long time and very vehemently in scientific circles. So we are not going to come to a consensus on mumsnet

"it's not the PIV itself... It's how it's been used and the fact that it can only cause physical suffering potentially to the woman."

Only or potentially cause physical suffering? Surely, it's potentially. Thankfully, rape happens only very rarely and there are measures we can take to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies, so calling penetrative sex "harmful" is a gross exaggeration.

Cars can potentially kill or maim you. So can planes. Even crossing the street can potentially kill you. So, should we say cars, planes, and crossing the street are all "harmful"?

The fact here is that sex is a basic need we have evolved over a billion years to crave and enjoy. Saying it's harmful and expecting people to give it up is not an argument that is never going to leave the realm of fantasy.

Cote - You are conflating sex with PIV. Sex is much much wider than just PIV.

And nobody is expecting anyone to give up PIV sex. It is saying this is why PIV sex is harmful to women, you don't have to do PIV sex as there are other kinds of sex, but it is up to you what you do ultimately.

Eats - I don't know how much science you actually read (from scientific sources, I mean, not feminist ones) but there is overwhelming evidence that is not so. One-year old girls and boys display very different reactions to, say, separation from their mothers. Female monkey fetuses given excess testosterone in the womb display male characteristics after birth. Brain scans have proven time after time that women use both hemispheres when solving problems while men use only one.

This is all so well documented that I find it hard to believe any respectable scientist would claim there are no innate differences between girls and boys.

I would be happy to change my mind, though, if you could provide any scientific evidence to back up your claim that there is no innate difference between genders.

I said "penetrative sex" so clearly not saying sex is only PIV.

"nobody is expecting anyone to give up PIV sex"

Why not? If it is harmful for women and "male-centric", why are you not telling women to give it up? That is what I understood by the "campaigning" that people refer to on this thread.

Cote, fair enough if you disagree with feminist analysis that gender is a social construct and a hierarchy.

Implying that the analysis is an irrational belief because you disagree with it, is rude though.

I guess it is just a coincidence that what society considers to be masculine traits seem to make humans better at holding power, and what are considered feminine traits make humans better at doing housework and being submissive.

In Japan maths is considered a feminine subject and one that girls are good at. In the UK maths has traditionally been considered a masculine domain.

Apart from the universal notion that masculine = dominant and feminine = submissive, what is considered masculine or feminine varies from culture to culture. We are clearly in the domain of the social construct.

Saying that gender is a social construct does not mean that one thinks women and men are the same.

I'm with Victor, almost word for word.

I think PIV has become normal, that is a social construct, something that over time has become fethisized to such an extent that it is the only form of sexual relations deemed "normal" It is the yard stick by which all other forms of sexual contact and non-straight sex is measured. There is some historical evidence to suggest that after humans realised women didn't produce new life through some sort of magic but through intercourse, humans sought to control reproduction even if ancient civilisations because of food resources. After we settled the land there was a huge rise in population. Shere Hite and others who studied this area found that few women orgasm from PIV but it was found to be a bonding experience because PIV sparked some deeper emotion and attachment to the male partner. I read some where that it was the "fear" of the very real consequences of PIV that meant women became emotionally attached to men as a defence mechanism, ie if we create a bond we are less likely to be hurt or abandoned to face the consequences on our own.

Cote - did you say penetrative sex, sorry missed that.

Feminism is not abouttelling individual women what they should and shouldn't do. It is about saying for example, this is why I think PIV sex is harmful - and it is then up to the woman what she does. If feminism was about telling individual women what to do I would be going around all day telling women they should take make up off, stop wearing high heels, stop having PIV sex with their husband - don't you think this would be pretty oppressive and blaming behaviour?

Cote, fair enough if you disagree with feminist analysis that gender is a social construct and a hierarchy.

Implying that the analysis is an irrational belief because you disagree with it, is rude though.

She is saying scientific evidence proves otherwise. That isn't being rude, surely?!

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. It might be an interesting discussion for a more robust thread, but I don't think it is fair to do that in this thread.

Although maybe we should have the swimming pool for those who want to go one step up to slightly more robust debate?

"Implying that the analysis is an irrational belief because you disagree with it, is rude though"

That is not what I said at all. I said there is extensive evidence from myriad scientific experiments that support the opposite of RadFem beliefs, and therefore, those beliefs sound like faith rather than rational analysis.

Please say you understand, because there is a big difference.

PIV might 'potentially' be harmful for women but it's 'potentially' harmful to women in a number of ways that it's not for men, potentially or otherwise.

Short of contracting HIV (and the risk is less for heterosexual men than it is for heterosexual women) engaging in PIV does not come with the risk of death, illness, disability and disease that it does for women.

Another of my handy slogans that I've nicked from somewhere I can't remember is 'don't compare women's lives: compare their lives with men'.

That's a great phrase Victor!

It's not mine! But it's always useful.