A chatty, questions and random comments thread

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

There used to be a lovely 'Chat' thread where we could all be silly or just comment/witter on about stuff, and I've not seen it since this place got renamed to 'Chat'. Would it be a good time to have another random chatty thread going? I think there are some newbies having a look around after the thread about calling yourself a feminist, so maybe it would be a nice thing?

So people can ask random questions or make comments without feeling they have to jump right in to an ongoing thread or write an OP, if they don't want to.

Btw - some amazing French doctors worked out that the clitoris can actually be partially reconstucted for victims of FGM ... it is wonderful they did, but it shocks and stuns me how late this discovery is, and how under-reported, compared with viagra. Now viagra is great, don't get me wrong, but for many men, it is correcting a problem that has occurred with age, or that is a medical condition. It's not repairing an abusive piece of butchery done to them as children (like FGM). So that always makes me rather upset.

I don't imagine many women who've had FGM are able to afford reconstructive surgery easily, either. Viagra, OTOH, is fairly cheap because the marketing is excellent and the idea that men need erections is so fundamental and widely accepted.

LRD "After all, if you can make a shift in a big structure, away from misogyny, it's much faster and more dramatic than making a change in an individual. "

And taking 'brain plasticity' into account, we have to ask: Why are brains commonly molded in such a way to become misogynistic (since this is unlikely to be the brain's default setting)? How is the wider pattern woven together that shapes male minds to be 'normal' in this way? Doesn't it mean challenging the default male-centredness of education, politics, archetecture, art, media, etc, etc..... In other words, challenging all those mind-molding institutions as well as those minds shaped by them?

Mmm. I do not know enough about brain plasticity, I admit. I do not believe things are 'hardwired', but I shy away from talking about the brain because I know how annoying it is to people who know their stuff when laypeople get it wrong.

I doubt, to be honest, that 'brain plasticity' is the best explanation of why people think in a misogynistic way. I don't think your brain is rewiring itself frantically when you first pick up The Female Eunuch. I think what is changing is conceptual, not neurological.

I'm not denying there are interesting issues about how we're taught to think, and it is quite possible men are taught to think differently, but I think it's not fashionable to think in terms of conceptual activity rather than cognitive activity, and that is a bit daft. All that Baron-Cohen shite about 'extreme male brain' ... well, maybe men's brains have been wired differently as a result of different teaching. But also, maybe the tests he uses reward masculine conceptual approaches, which aren't to do with brain wiring at all?

Not sure. But, I mean, it is perfectly easy for me to pick up formal logic and use it as a thinking tool, if I so choose. Or I can think in terms of, say, medieval hermeneutics. They are totally different systems of thinking but my brain is not incapable of using either or both.

I'm not putting this very well ... but I think we maybe need to step back from all the research into brains and neurological processes and ask what else is going on that shapes thinking. Looking at the brain is an approach very rooted in the idea that you will find differences between men and women and they will be physical rather than social, so it's already somewhat biased. IMO.

Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent!

Yes: I think if we change, say, the structure of education we will change the structure of people's thought, too.

Well, of course, Viagra [sildefanil citrate?] wasn't actually an erection treatment at all. It was a side effect from its use as a vasodilator developed for treatment of high blood pressure and angina. Wasn't very good for angina.

Again, HRT allegedly developed for women had a high spend on it; the benefits no longer seeming to outweigh the contraindications.

Back more to the thread, the view of radical feminism seem, as other posters have said, seems to be more like Marxism - i.e. that things will be better if only we change the society. Well that didn't turn out great for Marxism.

Is one of the issues like Tragedy of the Commons - something for the good of all, can be exploited by some to the disadvantage of all?

I think you've missed the point or I've explained badly. Basically, viagra is pretty cheap and available - huge amounts of money are spent on advertising, of course, but to the consumer, it is cheap and available.

OTOH, surgery to correct FGM is little-known, expensive, and correcting a form of abuse that's man-made, not a medical condition.

It is a stunning example of how differently we as a society treat women's and men's sexual desires.

I am not saying no medicine has been developed for women ever, of course. I am simply explaining that, by and large, medicine has a strong male bias. I am not bashing medics, because some of my close friends are doctors or training to be them, but it is shocking how little they are expected to know about women's bodies. This is anecdotal (though quite a common complaint, apparently), but I've had to sit and explain to a doctor how the menstrual cycle works and what the pill does. This is GCSE biology (or should be), yet I have had GPs who do not understand that if you take the pill after you have become pregnant, it will not work, even if you became pregnant from sex had during your period. I have had GPs who do not understand that if they prescribe me two types of hormonal pill containing the same active ingredient at once, it will make me bleed extremely heavily, and it's not 'harmless because this hormone occurs naturally in your body'.

This sort of thing stuns me.

Sorry LRD, regarding your response "I think we maybe need to step back from all the research into brains and neurological processes " :

When I said "And taking 'brain plasticity' into account, we have to ask: Why are brains commonly molded in such a way to become misogynistic" I was actually referencing vaselas post (but didn't make myself clear) where she says:

"I think the absence of work on menopause is to a degree misogynistic. For me it's easier to view the whole thing that way, because misogyny seems ultimately easier to "get rid of" - given what we now know about brain plasticity etc."

Ohhh, that makes more sense, sorry! I just saw my name in your post and thought you were asking me the whole thing. I didn't really agree with her point about brain plasticity so I wasn't sure how to reply.

I don't really understand what you were asking me, sorry? (Not being snippy, just not quite running on all cylinders right now.)

LRD - I don't see getting rid of misogyny as being something that's a question of individual action (although it can be). It requires concerted action (I'm not talking about the biological solutions proposed by some, just to make it clear!)

But if we focus on shifting structures, that won't necessarily affect the underlying misogyny.

OneMoreChap - it's not a question of symmetry or equality of spending. It's just a question of ensuring that misogynistic attitudes (or slightly misogynistic attitudes) don't come into decisions on medical research.

kim, I never said it was. I said:

"Look at viagra.

[...]

Btw - some amazing French doctors worked out that the clitoris can actually be partially reconstucted for victims of FGM ... it is wonderful they did, but it shocks and stuns me how late this discovery is, and how under-reported, compared with viagra. Now viagra is great, don't get me wrong, but for many men, it is correcting a problem that has occurred with age, or that is a medical condition. It's not repairing an abusive piece of butchery done to them as children (like FGM). So that always makes me rather upset.

I don't imagine many women who've had FGM are able to afford reconstructive surgery easily, either. Viagra, OTOH, is fairly cheap because the marketing is excellent and the idea that men need erections is so fundamental and widely accepted.

[...]

viagra is pretty cheap and available - huge amounts of money are spent on advertising, of course, but to the consumer, it is cheap and available.

OTOH, surgery to correct FGM is little-known, expensive, and correcting a form of abuse that's man-made, not a medical condition.

It is a stunning example of how differently we as a society treat women's and men's sexual desires."

I am not quite sure why two people are so keen to insist that the fact that viagra (like a huge number of drugs) was a side result of other research, invalidates my argument? Given that I never claimed that it was the result of targeted research?

vesela - I think I follow you. I do believe we need to concentrate on both structures and inviduals, both 'misogyny' and 'patriarchy' (if that makes sense? I tend to use those terms interchangeably but I think you are using them to refer to slightly different things?).

I hope I'm not dragging this conversation down, I'm fascinated!

Re. brain plasticity - yes, the research about sex differences not being hardwired is part of it, but I was thinking more of the ways in which people are looking at preventing sociopathy etc., as something a bit similar.

Well, no shit, kim, that's kind of the point!

It backs up my argument.

LRD sorry my bit about Viagra was a throw away - it happened to have a side effect which pharma companies make millions from - it's not about male focussed research - which I took from your Take for example the way that medical research goes - there's an absence of work on, say, the menopause or period pain... and Look at viagra.

I like vesela's point it's not a question of symmetry or equality of spending. It's just a question of ensuring that misogynistic attitudes (or slightly misogynistic attitudes) don't come into decisions on medical research.

I'd like to see more detail of the impacts of those attitudes on decisions, and where they occur - because that certainly warrants push back on the decision makers.

Will there be any change now we have a preponderance of female students entering the profession, or will the hegemonic structures subvert the positive impact they could make?

Oh, I see. Yes, but you have to realize that it is very normal for drugs to be discovered as a result of other research. What then happens is a long and expensive process of making the drug suitable for its new, discovered purpose, testing it, marketing it, all that ... a lot of people think as soon as you discover something has a specific effect, that's it, it's ready to go on the shelves. But, of course, this isn't so.

The whole point with viagra is that the desire for it has been so built into our consciousness. As a society, we accept that men need erections and we're constantly bombarded with messages telling us that we should really buy viagra. There isn't the same consciousness of women needing orgasms, even in the West and even in the 21st century. We have much further to go, to get the same acceptance. It is fascinating, but not surprising - after all the medicine is rooted in history, and it's only pretty recently in history that the idea of a female orgasm has become acceptable to discuss, or even widely acknowledged as real.

Morning all. Yes, really interesting discussion here folks!

I just wanted to pick up on FoodUnit's definition of "womanism," which was "Womanism: feminism that examines the intersecting oppressions of race and sex and (I think) it views a shifting model of oppressed/oppressor dependent on situation rather than the rigid patriarchal model."

The term was really first adopted by some African American women who felt excluded by "mainstream" feminists who were mainly white and educated. Some of the exclusion was down to general racism. Some was due to a refusal to engage with the idea that racism and class prejudice could have an equal negative impact on the lives of Women of Colour as misogyny.

There is some "live" discussion at the moment, where some white feminists seek to describe themselves as "womanists" because either they feel uneasy with the term "feminism" or because they also feel "mainstream" feminists still fail to acknowledge the complex "intersecting factors" of oppression in society.

However, there are many Women of Colour who are unhappy with the idea of white women appropriating the term in this way, as whether they choose this or not, all white women benefit from the existence of systemic racism. Therefore, those identified with the oppressor class should not "wear" the identifying label chosen by those who are oppressed.

It's kind of similar to how many feminists do not accept that men should describe themselves as feminists, because all men (whether they choose it or not), benefit from the existence of systemic sexism.

Thanks kritiq that is interesting to know.

Mmm. There's a necropost with the OP complaining about her DPs inability to sort out an erection, despite the fact he's happy with non-PIV..

Quibble a bit about history? Far East recognised this, surely, and also lot of Moghul type stuff. Surely a lot of this is from Puritanical Christianity...?

Thanks kri, that is useful to know.

What is a necropost? Sorry.

But no, I don't know about the Far East, just can't comment on that, but it's not Puritanical Christianity, it is far, far older than that. There are roots for the idea men need erections/women's sexuality is to be controlled/women don't enjoy sex going waaaaay back. Think of Priapus or Lysistrata, or medieval stuff about the trials of marriage for women.

I am sure there have always been men and women who are well aware that women enjoy sex. You figure it out, right? But the point is that there hasn't always been a cultural understanding or acceptance of that fact. And it feeds into medicine. It can't not.

I don't know how much Western medicine is Far Eastern - I assume a fair bit, but just wouldn't know exactly which bit you mean?

"I don't really understand what you were asking me, sorry? (Not being snippy, just not quite running on all cylinders right now.)"

No worries LRD I was just agreeing with you and tying it in with what vasela said- not so much asking a question as being chatty I s'pose

Sorry.

I got about four hours of sleep last night and I'm mainlining coffee. It is making me very talkative but not very coherent!

Thanks KRITIQ "However, there are many Women of Colour who are unhappy with the idea of white women appropriating the term in this way, as whether they choose this or not, all white women benefit from the existence of systemic racism. Therefore, those identified with the oppressor class should not "wear" the identifying label chosen by those who are oppressed. It's kind of similar to how many feminists do not accept that men should describe themselves as feminists, because all men (whether they choose it or not), benefit from the existence of systemic sexism."

This to me makes perfect sense as the radical approach for racialised women- but am I right in thinking that the main difference in the theory is that - rather than viewing a'white patriarchy' (which would make it a perfect fit with radical feminism) they believe the 'oppressor' is different according to the situation, which is a more mutable model rather than pyramid structure status quo?