the paddling pool

[Alameda]

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

Beach - Earlier on the thread it was said that of course there are reproductive differences. What posters are talking about if any other differences are innate.

Race is not a concrete physical reality in terms of sciuence. Science divides humans into 4 categories based on discernible physical differences. Every other difference is socially constructed.

For example, Italians at one time used to be seen as black. Now many/most people would see them as white. A clear illustration that race is socially constructed.

Mooncup - I'm not saying men think better than women. I'm saying they think differently, which really isn't a controversial statement.

Few women think like men (and are ostracised by other women?) and few men think like women (and are thought gay?) but there is definitely a clear median around which the dots congregate.

Autism is now investigated as "extreme male brain", which I find fascinating. Explanation and interesting comparison of male vs female brain in this document.

"Race is not a concrete physical reality in terms of sciuence. Science divides humans into 4 categories based on discernible physical differences. Every other difference is socially constructed."

So the rather flat face and slanted eyes of Central Asian peoples is "socially constructed"? What about the pitch-black skin, prominent nose, and large mouth & lips of the African people? Does RadFem ideology say they are also not physical differences?

"For example, Italians at one time used to be seen as black. Now many/most people would see them as white. A clear illustration that race is socially constructed"

"Italian" isn't a race. It is a nationality.

The only thing your statement above illustrates is that some people don't know what the word "race" means.

Fascinating thread, just what is needed. Thank you Eats and Alameda. I've already learned a lot.

I should be asleep but really want to ask a question about accepting the analysis, rather than living by it. What if every woman - and man, for argument's sake -accepted the analysis in principle but continued to live their life as currently. Is it necessary that some people put the principles into practice? And, can that be only a minority or, for the patriarchy to be truly overthrown, would a majority of people need to put the principles into practice?

On the cleaner comments, I'm a bit confused too (it's a recurring theme, believe me!) I've got no problem with clients using the words 'my lawyer' about me. Can someone explain again what the issue is with me describing the lovely man who comes to clean my house as 'my cleaner'?

Sex is a social construct though - prior to the 18th century, women's reproductive organs were understood to be essentially the same as men's, but inverted. The idea that men and women were diametrically opposite (more moral, natural etc) came in the 18th century, for social and political reasons to do with men asserting power (see Thomas Laquer, Making Sex).

I wonder if the idea that women think differently also stems from then.

Of course race is a social construct.

By 'race' I mean the classification of human beings into white and non-white.

White and black.

White and people of colour.

White and 'others' (is what all these terms actually mean - and therein lies the social construct).

Cote - I said that science divides people up into 4 categories based on these differences. Most socially constructed ideas of race divide people up into a lot more than 4 categories.

Pip - Yes some people need to put the analysis into practice. And I think it would be hard at a personal level to say you are a feminist and then put none of the analysis into practice in any aspect of your life. But that is an individual matter and choice.

In terms of achieving real change though, usually in social change movements it is a minority of people who put things into practice - in the initial stages. Tackling racism, overthrowing apartheid, getting women the vote - none of these started out having the majority doing anything about it or even agreeing that anything needed to change.

Pip- in terms of my cleaner, I don't think there is an issue with that personally. Some felt uncomfortable with that as they felt it sounded like they thought they owned the cleaner. But I agree with you - we talk about my Dr or my Solicitor.

"White vs black" is not what "race" means, though.

Which "4 categories" are you referring to?

I hope "Italian" isn't one of them

Cote - I have read research about it, seems to be very well accepted in scientific circles - but it was about a year ago when I read lots. But a search in google should find it. But look at scientific stuff, not crappy sounding websites posing as science - it is usually easy to tell the difference.

Thanks eats.

Re race, as i understand it the term has a specific meaning in biology (which can apply to any animal species), as well as social and anthropological definitions which are specific to humans. The latter, in relation to humans,bessentially being social constructs in that they do not meet the strict biological definition.

(I think - waits to be corrected...)

Pip - Yes thank you, that is what I was trying to say - but you said it much more clearly

Ok, last question before bedtime...

Melinda Gates is doing some amazing work to make birth control more available to women across the world. She's aiming to get birth control to something like 120m more women by 2020.

But, the money she is using is largely wealth that her husband acquired (and from other donors like Warren Buffet), and she is adamant that the scheme will not support abortion as that is contrary to her faith.

My question is whether her actions can/should be seen as a feminist act?

I've tried to analyze this one in my head and got totally confused, which I suspect just means I still haven't really got it, whatever 'it' is.

Eats - So you say "science divides people into 4 categories" and can't tell me what they are, seem to think "Italian" is a race, and now you tell me to go find out for myself what you mean by "4 categories".

Somehow I'm not convinced that you have a point in there somewhere.

I did search and could not find a scientific categorization of four human races, fyi. I'm willing to learn, though, if you would kindly say what "4 categories" you are referring to.

am enjoying this thread despite having Nothing Useful to contribute

Hi Scroob - I'd say Melinda Gates using the resources and influence she has to make birth control available to women around the world is fab - and absolutely can be a feminist act (perhaps if she herself feels it is - she would be able to describe her motivations I guess)

Regarding her resources being what you might describe as joint with her partner (because I think resources in a partnership do become fairly jointly shared) am just thinking any person with resources will have been dependent on others at some time in their lives (even if just raising them as children, providing a good education etc) and in their family history, and some of those people will have been men.

I went on their No controversy in contraception site only yesterday (through email from White ribbon alliance) and added some thoughts on how contraception has enabled me and my children to live better lives.

I think it's all good ! To be encouraged ! No controversy for me !

Cotes - I am far from an expert on this as I have said. I read some stuff last year that convinced me - you don't have to be convinced. I don't have time now - am trying to cook dinner. But I did a quick google search and found this.
blog.world-mysteries.com/science/how-many-major-races-are-there-in-the-world/

It is not the type of serious stuff I read at all last year, but it explains what I read and gives you a starting point if you want to read more.

Italians did used to be considered by many British people as black, BME or however you wnat to describe it.

i did the quiz, amazingly i'm 100% radfem! but i now doubt the quiz.

17 % antifem? well, i suppose i'm used to getting accusations of that nature here.

very interesting thread! just read it for the first time tonight.
eats , thanx for explaining the PIV thing,( sorry , back on page 2) i think thats the first time it's been explained in a way i understand, it doesnt seem quite so crazy now either. wouldnt say i was a convert but i can see the argument has some merit now.

i wouldnt say piv sex is male centric actually, it's the type of sex that makes babies , thats all, everything else is a cultural flamboyance.

i could live quite happily without PIV, if we got creative in other ways.

I'll check in tomorrow to read more details of your sex life thechairmanmeow

I can hardly wait.

thats a shame i was just starting to warm to you

thechairmanmeow It might be more helpful to meaningful discussion if you were to comment on the various interesting points that have been made at length and quite patiently on this thread.

You immediately jump to the 'sex' part which understandably triggers the comments made by yellow. I'm more than happy to enagage with you but how about putting your own views out there instead of comments that almost merit having 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' added to them

I'll be checking in too chairmanmeow I was surprised that I came out as 100% radfem too - feel quite encouraged in my feminist explorations, but not sure I've been 100% accepted by all the MN radfems ! Surely that's the true test

if you read 'nudge wink' into my post that says more about you than about me