If women ruled the world...

[InigoTaran]

Would it be a better place? Interesting article in The Guardian today with opinions from various prominent women.

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/jul/05/what-if-women-ruled-the-world

"Anyone talking about gender in terms of biological determinism, testosterone and primate behaviour would have been shot down by radfems in 1970s"

Because it was a brave, optimistic, feminist world in the 70s with huge institutional changes happening for women. There was reason to believe in the social conditioning model changing everything. But here we are in 2017 - and the world still hates women.

And I'm talking about SEX, not GENDER. The latter is a human social construct.

"But that co-operative and non-violent nature might only be prevalent among women because the patriarchy has expected us to be kinder, nicer, gentler. Whereas if we could go back in time and make society run equally from the beginning, women and men may well have turned out to be equally self-interested and aggressive."

It's a good theoretical hypothesis and may well be true. I still reckon they would be less physical violence.

"There could be a new genetic super-elite who brutally oppress a serf class - and that equally involve women."

It's an interesting sci-fi concept, but it would involve totally equalising the male-female physical strength disparity and making reproduction happen outside of womens' bodies. Plausible if women don't get completely wiped out of existence prior to that thanks to artificial wombs in the patriarchal reality we live in now. There is already mass female foeticide and infanticide as it is.

Anyone talking about gender in terms of biological determinism, testosterone and primate behaviour would have been shot down by radfems in 1970s

That's not true. Do you know any radical feminists? I think you are confusing radical feminism with liberal feminism.

Radical feminism is realistic about biology. Which is not to say that it supports biological determinism but radical feminists do not ignore biology because they understand how important it is in the oppression of women by men.

Rape is a very common reproductive strategy among mammals. Unlike birds, few mammal females get any say in mating. This is just not true.

Okay well there's a thought. Maybe feminists had to the push the line that there is no difference other than anatomy between men and women in order to get a place at the table.

Maybe there is a difference. Not just a conditioned one?

Or, more of a difference than we think? Although, for the life of me, I certainly don't think that women are inherently programmed to do the wife work.

Male violence does seem to be biological. The territorial pissing contests. 'Owning' women. Although, again, the 'women are property' aspect seems to me to be more about a sexual partner, rather than a mother to their children.

I can't remember where I read it, but one of the characteristics of testosterone was to make the person more egocentric.

I certainly see this single-mindedness employed in the pursuit of sex.

And, as a previous poster said, it's interesting where priorities lie in terms of spending money.

DH and I very rarely argue about money. But if we do, it's because he wants to spend it on either something for himself or for us both, whereas I want to spend it on the kids. I see spending money on my children as an investment in them. Irrespective of whether it's a pizza, or an education.

Well certainly men are shit at running the world. They have shown themselves to be extremely violent and exploitative.

Their desire to control and exploit girls and women has done untold harm to humanity and is a global and historic human rights travesty which is unique in its destructive and hideous nature.

I fail to see how things could possibly be worse under women.

The bit about rape being very common among mammals and especially primates is true.

I'm not a zoologist, so don't know the exact statistics of it. There is also a high proportion of females mating with the lower status males on the sly while the dominant male isn't looking (across several species).

"Their desire to control and exploit girls and women has done untold harm to humanity and is a global and historic human rights travesty which is unique in its destructive and hideous nature."

And think how much human potential they have wasted in oppressing women. Think of how many more Marie Curies, Dr. Grace Hoppers and Hedy Lamars we could've had. Think of we could've achieved as a species by now with twice as much positive input.

It's heartbreaking.

YY Ava, it is heartbreaking.

Goodness knows how many brilliant ideas have been lost to the world due to men subjugating and killing girls and women.

On that basis alone they have shown themselves to be the very last people who should be in power.

"Patriarchy is the building foundation of all other oppression. Economic oppression? Most poor people are women. Racial oppression? Product of colonialism and local slavery driven by the patriarchy.

This is where we disagree. If women did have equal power to women - economically, culturally, politically - I see no reason to think they wouldn't have the same tendency to racial prejudice or economically exploitative behaviour as men. What empirical evidence is there for thinking otherwise?"

The empirical evidence lies in no there being no parallel human world with an oppressive matriarchal society. All of our current systems of oppression were built in the patriarchal one and are reliant on the exploitation of women continuing.

Where would slavery have been if not for women being forced to produce more humans for slavery? How could men maintain their high status jobs with higher salaries than women without the unpaid domestic+child-raising labour of women freeing them to do so (thus the economic inequality of the pay gap)? Where would homophobia be without misogyny?

What matriarchal societies are you referring to Ava?

Beachcomber, is not the goal that equal numbers of men and women are in power?

I've read Dworkin and Mackinnon Beach and they opposed all forms of biological determinism. Very explicitly.

Ava, I completely agree that a post-patriachal society without widespread misogyny is theoretically possible. But a society without oppression of one kind or another is not.

Human beings have a weakness for power.

Biological determinism is not the same as acknowledging the role of biology in oppression. Dworkin very much did the latter.

"What matriarchal societies are you referring to Ava?"

There are none - that's my point. If there ever were any - they certainly weren't ruling the world and exploiting it on a wide scale because they got easily wiped out by the patriarchal ones.

I absolutely agree with you, User, that humans are a hierarchical species and that power corrupts us. New forms of oppression could potentially be invented, but they can't be imagined now simply because all of our current injustices are rooted in the patriarchy. They NEED the patriarchy to work.

Dworkin very much did the latter.

Where did Dworkin do that?

"As a class (not necessarily as individuals), we can bear children. From this, according to male-supremacist ideology, all our other attributes and potentialities are derived. On the pedestal, immobile like waxen statues, or in the gutter, failed icons mired in shit, we are exalted or degraded because our biological traits are what they are. Citing genes, genitals, DNA, pattern-releasing smells, biograms, hormones, or whatever is in vogue, male supremacists make their case which is, in essence, that we are biologically too good, too bad, or too different to do anything other than reproduce and serve men sexually and domestically.*

It is shamefully easy for us to enjoy our own fantasies of biological omnipotence while despising men for enjoying the reality of theirs. And it is dangerousbecause genocide begins, however improbably, in the conviction that classes of biological distinction indisputably sanction social and political discrimination. We, who have been devastated by the concrete consequences of this idea, still want to put our faith in it. Nothing offers more proofsad, irrefutable proof--that we are more like men than either they or we care to believe."

www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIID.html

There are none - that's my point.

Well, quite - then we have no basis for comparison.

Example:

Biological determinism: Women are stupid and just dream about babies all day.

Biological reality in oppression:
There is no significant average disparity in IQ between the sexes, but women have never had equal chance to put their intelligence to use because of their reproductive capacity being exploited by men. It is a medical fact that human fetuses sap a lot of nutrients from a woman's body (including her brain), so brain fog during pregnancy exists for some. Permanent sleep deprivation stemming from being forced to constantly look after infants (as women have always been) can result in poor mental function and long term brain damage.

See what I'm saying?

I'm not a zoologist, so don't know the exact statistics of it. There is also a high proportion of females mating with the lower status males on the sly while the dominant male isn't looking (across several species).

Comparing to zoology is interesting but there are maybe more differences than similarities.
A lot of primates and larger mammals operate a system where one male fathers nearly all of the children and most males never get to reproduce at all.
I think this has occurred in some human societies in the past, but certainly hasn't been widespread or long lasting.

But surely the difference between human males and other male primates is that men have a CHOICE about whether to oppress women or not? They aren't simply beholden to animal instinct but have agency and are ultimately responsible for their actions? They're capable of rational thought, -right? Even if they act as if they aren't? So there's hope, at least?

In the paragraph you quoted, Dworkin points to womens' reproductive biology being used against them by men. So she is ACKNOWLEDGING the role of biology in sexist oppression.

She is rejecting biological determinism because she says that womens' biology does not mean that they were put on earth to serve men. Having female sex organs and hormones does not make a human inferior to males, thus "We're like men". It simply makes that human vulnerable to exploitation by the ones with male ones.

She's been proven right by that stance in the intervening decades:
Once given some room to breathe and pursue their own lives, women's ovaries and oestrogen did not make them run back into the kitchen just dying to serve men and having countless babies. Women have proven themselves in the workforce, education and competence in being independent adults with all those hormones and childbearing hips.

But that has not made women safe from male violence BECAUSE of biology. Men are still stronger and they still exploit it. Thus - acknowledgment of biology.

"But surely the difference between human males and other male primates is that men have a CHOICE about whether to oppress women or not? They aren't simply beholden to animal instinct but have agency and are ultimately responsible for their actions? They're capable of rational thought, -right? Even if they act as if they aren't? So there's hope, at least?"

I used to have that hope but I've lost it. Because most men do not make the good choice - their life as men is just too cushy under the patriarchy. I'm not sure that I would give up such privilege if I had it either.

"There are none - that's my point.

Well, quite - then we have no basis for comparison."

But why do they not exist? Oppression has created hugely powerful societies under the patriarchy. If similar oppression had existed under the matriarchal ones - surely they would still be here defending themselves from the power of the patriarchal ones?