Feminism for Dummies.

[Ilovemyself]

Ok. Here goes.

Apologies if I have offended anyone with my posts since I started using the site. I certainly didn't mean to.

I am all for equality, be it based on sex, race, sexuality, or whatever subculture you area member of.

I have been surprised at the level of vitriol aimed at me because of my (rather poorly worded )comments.

I understand that in every fight for equality there will be those for who the fight is an ever consuming thing. And there will also be those who have been down trodden for so long they will snap at the slightest thing against them. And that there will be those who feel that because they have been oppressed for so long it is their right to be in a dominant position.

For those that want to tip the balance in the opposite direction, I will always disagree. Equality is what we should aim for in all walks of life. These are those who I referred to when I said taking things too far - for promoting something other than equality.

But for the other groups, should I walk on eggshells for fear of offending them, or should say my piece, apologise if I offend, and carry on.

Or am I completely wrong in viewing feminism as a fight for equality when it is actually a fight for women to be in a dominant position over men.

I hope I get some answers here - I certainly don't want a repeat of the last 24 hours. Thanks all.

I would like to applaud the posters who are so calmly and clearly responding to the op.

And an exploration of feminism should include a representative selection of feminist theories, not an undue emphasis on the poster's own views. In particular, when those views are not widely held within the movement.

Females are weaker than males because males are selected to keep other males away from their mates. Differences in strength in humans are relatively minor, so selection for mate guarding is presumably quite weak in our species. Female insects and fish are often larger than males because they lay large broods and reproductive success is correlated with body size. In humans fertility is not a simple correlate of body size, so women have not been selected to be larger than men.

I honestly don't give a shit if my views are different from 'the movement'. I haven't been called upon to explain 'the movement's' beliefs, I have been asked to discuss mine. The movement is not the boss of me, neither is the patriarchy.

And there is more than one version of feminism on mn and indeed on this thread I think. But as I say, I'm not concerned about singularity - to me feminism is a broad church.

Blistory thank you for your fantastic posts.

Well I have been out for a few hours and wow do I now have a lot to read! Blistory- I cannot thank you enough. You have taken your time to make several lengthy posts which I have scanned. You are the first person that has really made me not feel out of place. And some of the other later posts also make me feel more welcome. I will read them properly and digest when I have eaten and have some time to myself.

But I do see your point about how the system is set up, and how even the basics in life are governed. I hope that my wife and I are already doing the right thing by ensuring our girl/ boy twins play with whatever they want. It doesn't matter if the toy is traditionally regarded as a boy or girl toy - either play with them and we would never dream of pushing them in any one direction. How we deal with it as they grow is another matter.

Thanks all

Andy

HoTheHot There is already tons of irrefutable evidence that gender is an interaction between nature and nurture. The most concise argument comes from a phylogenetic analysis of mammals.

Can you point to a paper or article discussing this? I assume you do mean gender rather than sex.

Females are weaker than males because males are selected to keep other males away from their mates.

What's the evidence for this?

Flora Females are weaker than males because males are selected to keep other males away from their mates.
Males are physically stronger than females because of evolution.

Males are/were selected MAINLY because of strength:
Look at a thread about 'why i married my Dh...' and you'll find a lot of reference to strong arms, big shoulder.
Most women prefer their partners to be taller.
Most women are attracted to men with high levels of testosterone especially around ovulation.
Only 20% of men throughout history of mankind managed to have children.

If you were a weak man, your genes died out.

Only 20% of men throughout history of mankind managed to have children.

Really? Seems a very low figure. How do they know?

I must say I'm not a big fan of evo-psych being brought into feminist conversations. I don't think it's very relevant.

Loved blistory's posts though.

arsenal I don't think you know anything about evolutionary theory rather than evolutionary psychobabble. There is not one single theory of evolution which arises from natural selection which is why I'm interested in what JoTheHot was saying about phylogenetic analysis.

As for weak men's genes dying out, if that were true, the world would be populated with He-Men.

flora evolutionary theory rather than evolutionary psychobabbly gosh you love to mock the perceived intelligence of others
If it helps I get paid to write useless programs, I wrote a dissertation on 'Pareto Efficeny'
Im only answering the question why men are bigger.

Actually what I said is very true:
Most women do prefer stronger and taller guys, you cant even deny it yourself.
That is why men are bigger and taller.
That is why male lions are bigger and stronger.

Also studies has shown women do have a preference for high testosterone men during ovulation.
And yes 20% of men actually had during during history.

children throughout history*

Part 3 for Ilovemyself.

So you now see that a man has a different start in life which might not cause him direct advantages but which shelter him from disadvantages. You were effectively a rung higher up than me as soon as we were born (prior to this in other societies ).

You didn't cause this and chances are that you might not even see it. That's male privilege. And when I start talking about that, you as a man are going to feel unjustly attacked.

But understand that I also have privileges - let's use my being white. My white privilege will shelter me from ever knowing what life is like for a black woman. It would be crass of me to say that racism doesn't really happen anymore and that black women should get over it. I would be putting my perceptions, influenced by my white privilege, over their lived experiences as black women. They might argue that they have it worse than me, that they face a whole separate strand of discrimination. How on earth would it be appropriate for me to deny that or to dismiss their views.

But you see, now I feel attacked and diminished by black women. I don't discriminate against them so they shouldn't blame me. I didn't cause racism. And anyway, things are better than they used to be. I'm not a racist so they must be wrong, they're all irrational and as for those ones who want to live in black communities free from white prejudice, well, that's just illogical therefore I'll just ignore them and dismiss them all as irrelevant.

If i allow myself, then it would be easy to think like that ^^ My white privilege is in danger of blinding me to the plight of others. It's making me feel attacked so I go on the defensive. I think that they want to improve their lives at the expense of me. I can no longer see that all that is wanted is a level playing field. That may require me to lose a little privilege but I'm only giving up something I should never have had. I don't lose out, I only gain but my privilege may not let me see that.

So, when you feel attacked for having male privilege, you need to be aware that you as an individual are not being attacked and that you have privileges that you're not even aware of.

What's the source for the 20% figure arsenal?

arsenal

If it helps I get paid to write useless programs, I wrote a dissertation on 'Pareto Efficeny'

How is this related to evolutionary theory?

Most women do prefer stronger and taller guys, you cant even deny it yourself. That is why men are bigger and taller.

The logic is circular at best, absent at worst. What's the evidence?

And yes 20% of men actually had during during history.

Evidence?

Thank you. It all makes much more sense now. Gonna get some sleep as I have an interview all day tomorrow. I will ask more now, and try to bear in mind what I have learned today.

Pareto efficiency: basically the 20:80 rule occur in nature, our interactions etc..

www.newscientist.com/article/mg17924111.900-a-few-prehistoric-men-had-all-the-children.html
Honestly its too much to explain further i have to actually read something i wrote over 12 years ago but eventually the conclusion is around 20% of men and 80% of women had children.
Well the numbers may not be exact but the point is still the same. Powerful men had all the women.

I couldn't read the article as I don't subscribe to the New Scientist however I had a quick read of the original article (I think) in the Journal Of Molecular Evolution:

utenti.unife.it/guido.barbujani/pdf/23.pdf

A couple of points:

• this is prehistory, not history so we have no meaningful evidence of the social structures prevalent at the time

• the article makes no connection with Pareto efficiency and there is nothing to suggest the authors thought that played a part

• the paper does not state that 20% of living, potential male breeders had children but that assuming a birth rate of 1:1 it would equate to 20% of male births. The paper actually considers whether there may have been a higher proportion of women born

• even if it was 20% with a 1:1 birth rate, the paper does not suggest why this is. You have assumed the powerful men got all the women (you do know this is a common MRA trope, right?) but there is no evidence of that. It could be that 80% of men were killed before childbearing age either by animals, other men or maybe this is evidence of early rad fems who killed 80% of the boys and kept the rest as breeding stock.

The point is that we don't know enough about either the biological science or the social science of prehistory and evolution to draw any meaningful conclusions for modern social structures.

the article makes no connection with Pareto efficiency and there is nothing to suggest the authors thought that played a part

The paper doesn't say anything about the Pareto efficiency but its just something I find interesting. Somehow the 20:80 ratio is found in a lot of things in life. It does get boring if its something you are not interested in.

this is prehistory, not history so we have no meaningful evidence of the social structures prevalent at the time

Modern human began 250,000 years ago and this sudden change was 'only' 10,000 years ago, meaning it's most likely relevant to how we choose out partners.
Why do women want their partner to be taller, stronger and have fixtures that display high levels of testosterone, whereas men prefer their partner the other why round.
This has probably a lot to do with our prehistoric minds. I suspect our subconscious is largely influenced by our prehistoric mind, hence we can't help who we fall in love with.

Obviously that's not the answer to everything but it is interesting.

Yeah its the whole chicken and egg thing.

"Modern human began 250,000 years ago and this sudden change was 'only' 10,000 years ago, meaning it's most likely relevant to how we choose out partners."

I don't agree that means it's most likely relevant - we just don't have enough information to make that statement. Also it doesn't have any bearing on modern day social structures. I agree with Prom that a lot of this stuff is used to justify the "natural order" and oppress women. The logic behind evo-psych is circular because it is based on assumptions that are not supported by the evolutionary evidence.

Why do women want their partner to be taller, stronger and have fixtures that display high levels of testosterone, whereas men prefer their partner the other why round.

Not sure, presumably because most of us are attracted to the other sex and those are just characteristics of the other sex. Lots of short men get married and reproduce and lots of tall men don't.

This whole alpha / beta construct that MRAs and PUAs bang on about all the time is just not represented in the real world. Women might pick Brad Pitt over Danny De Vito in a survey of ideal partners but in real life personality and sense of humour play very important parts in forming relationships.

I don't think evo-psych has any significance for feminism other than to recognise that a number of anti-feminists think this way.

Not sure, presumably because most of us are attracted to the other sex and those are just characteristics of the other sex. Lots of short men get married and reproduce and lots of tall men don't.
They are not characteristics of the other sex, they are just preferences. People come in all shapes and sizes; characteristics of a man is having a cock and wearing men's clothes and the characteristics of a woman is having a vagina and wearing women's clothes.
Studies has shown taller man have an advantage in the dating pool.

Women might pick Brad Pitt over Danny De Vito in a survey of ideal partners but in real life personality and sense of humour play very important parts in forming relationships.
Yes personality/sense of humour= friendship.
Tall, big shoulders, displays of high levels of testosterone = sex
Both = long lasting love
ONS: Rugby player vs Primary school teacher. Probably a rugby player for most women.

a lot of this stuff is used to justify the "natural order" and oppress women.
Yeah its used to justify being a dick, because the reasoning is women prefer a dick, then why should they change.

I was asked for an article on sex differences in animal behaviour. All the basic stuff on behavioural ecology was done some time ago, any article will tend to take this stuff as read. Any undergraduate text should cover this stuff. I had Begon, Harper and Townsend, butthere are others. I know mark ridley did some of the earlier stuff on phylogenetic analyses. For instance linking relative testes size to degree of polygyny. Humans came out somewhere in the middle so we evolved in a context were low-levels of sexual infidelity was the norm.

The relevance of evoultionary theory to feminism is that it helps us to understand why women and men are different both physically and psychologically. This in turn helps us to understand what a truly free world might look like. For instance, freedom of choice and equality of opportunities would not lead to women and men participating equally in child care, because women have evolved to be the primary carers.

JoTheHot I asked you for an article on gender differences in animal behaviour and I said:

I assume you do mean gender rather than sex.

But it seems you did mean sex rather than gender, which is very different. We are so so far from being able to draw any meaningful conclusions from evolutionary theory to modern day feminism and if you can't be bothered to set out your position, I'm not sure why you've bothered posting.