“Women basically already have equal rights in the West”

[Ethelfleda]

I’ve heard this statement from a few people over the past year or so, always from men.
I know they’re wrong but I so rarely know how to tell them they’re wrong.
I want to tell them they’re wrong without patronising them because it is my belief that once you do this, you alienate your audience and they won’t ever come around to your way of thinking.

What do you say to this statement??

We can talk about how the patriarchal system of male dominance is founded in their need to control our reproductive capacity to suit their own need to ensure paternity and inheritance rights.

I speculate that 'patriarchy' came about organically. We had the need to protect ourselves from other tribes/animals and one's social group was probably more of a uniting factor than sex - e.g. Viking women probably associated more with Viking men than with Saxon women, who they likely had little social interaction with.

One sex was bigger, stronger, and more predisposed towards aggression on account of their hormonal makeup. The other sex was smaller, weaker, less aggressive and likely to spend a significant portion of their life caring for children due to the lack of contraception.

The sex that were fighting, conquering, and securing new resources naturally became the guardians/directors of said resources and so patriarchal society grew. But I'd imagine that the driving force was the protection of women/children rather than the subjugation, even if partly for selfish reasons (e.g. the need for a heir etc) rather than pure altruism.

If your version of feminism really is just about women's inherent victimhood, and the idea that the female body and its natural functions are somehow in need of rejection, or that motherhood automatically means subjugation, then it is not a version of feminism that I share.

This is a gross misrepresentation.

I have never once suggested the female body or its functions should be rejected in any way; quite the opposite.

Nor have I said that motherhood in itself equates to subjugation.

In all cases I am concerned with the social implication of female physiology, given the sexist nature of human cultures.

The reason you feel you've strayed into enemy territory is likely because you're rehashing points the feminist movement considered, analysed, critiqued, and rejected long ago. It suggests you haven't done your research, and it's irksome when you're dismissive of the intellectual work of our foremothers.

I'd also point out that how you feel about womanhood, and what womanhood is, are not the same thing.

The reason you feel you've strayed into enemy territory is likely because you're rehashing points the feminist movement considered, analysed, critiqued, and rejected long ago.

But surely people need to form their own conclusions rather than acquiesce to the opinions of those that came before. If we didn't do this we'd still think the earth was flat!

Justhadathought , RabidChinchilla thank you for some really interesting insights.

Likewise, Gronky!

But I'd imagine that the driving force was the protection of women/children rather than the subjugation,

I'm sure they are fond a few they know personally. The only problem is that of how they would treat the women and children of a competing tribe. Systematic rape or murder of the enemy's chattel continues to this day so sadly I very much doubt their motivation is some fundamental global tenderness towards females and children.

Their driving force was to compete and win against other males and to the victor the spoils.

But surely people need to form their own conclusions rather than acquiesce to the opinions of those that came before.

When forming your own conclusions it's useful to familiarise yourself with the work of those who've gone before and make an attempt at understanding their perspective. I highly recommend it.

You should read “A Woman in Berlin”. It’s a really good insight into this phenomenon which is mostly about protection (from other men).

If you sought the approval of the top dog (ie. the most feared / respected soviet soldier) the other soviet soldiers didn’t rape you. Not because they respected you but because they were afraid of the person you “belonged to”.

Thats not an insight; its an example of women using survival sex to manage the amount of male violence she has to deal with. To be raped/have unwanted sex with gritted teeth by one man she doesn't love in place of being raped by any man who chooses to rape her.

An insight would be to grasp that none of the women and all of the men benefit from the arrangement; the tacit agreement is that if a woman doesn't agree to unwanted sex on demand from a strong enough man, she is available to rape by any one of the others.

The arrangement is not designed by the women. It is driven by the willingness to use violence of the men. It explains how street violence works for the benefit of all men, and why women say 'I have a partner' when they are being harassed.

The sex on Pornhub is so caring, tender, respectful and protective towards women. Makes me feel really safe and valued and reminds me, if I ever start to doubt it, how much men secretly love to make us feel like equals in our relations with them, even if they don't always show it in the real world.

What interests me more and more in recent times, is that if a 'feminist' rejects motherhood because it is seen as an oppressive construct & prison (in our society).....what is it they think womanhood is actually about?

This, for me, is a really interesting question.

I observe that many women who don’t have kids ‘refocus’ their efforts into their jobs, and honestly I think this topic is a huge, multidimensional area with many potential crossovers. For instance, dopamine plays a huge role in our quest for ‘fulfilment’ and supposedly has a significant impact on individual motivation.

I’ve got ADHD and never really gave it much thought as I function pretty well as is - I’ve adjusted my life so that it works for me (e.g. leaving office work years ago for a more technical, hands-on role where I don’t have to sit at the same desk all day and can be relatively ‘hyperactive’ within the scope of my daily duties).

However, the more I’ve researched it in the last couple of years, the more I’ve realised how many things which I’ve attributed to my personality are likely symptoms of ADHD (although can you really separate your personality from the contributing factors, or is it one unified entity a bit like a soup made of individual vegetables?). The most interesting element to me currently is dopamine. As people with ADHD are often hugely deficient in it, it’s suggested that we seek it out via external stimulus which can almost manifest as ‘pleasure seeking’ - increased likelihood of substance abuse, risk taking, huge sugar craving, etc, and life expectancy 12 years lower than non-sufferers, likely due to the aforementioned.

It explains to me why I’m always seeking stimulation and find it really hard to do ‘low reward’ tasks like cleaning etc - I know most people don’t enjoy these things but they literally drive me insane and I can never ‘get in the groove’ like most people seem to as I’m counting every second like a sprinter awaiting the starter gun. It also likely explains why, despite being slim, I can eat three packs of Jaffa cakes back to back and still be craving sugar whilst simultaneously feeling sick.

I feel constantly driven to do something and can almost feel my teeth itching if I’m sat still and not typing or something. Conversely, I wonder if part of why I’m not attracted to motherhood is because I know it’d involve an inordinate amount of the tasks which already drive me insane, and the fact that many people with far more patience than myself struggle with it.

God, I’m waffling now, but part of my point is that I’m always driven to do something and this is likely just an exaggerated manifestation of something that most humans experience. I think it’s potentially against our nature to not ‘focus’ on something.

The sex on Pornhub is so caring, tender, respectful and protective towards women. Makes me feel really safe and valued and reminds me, if I ever start to doubt it, how much men secretly love to make us feel like equals in our relations with them, even if they don't always show it in the real world.

On a similar but tangential note, why do you think 50 Shades of Gray was so overwhelmingly popular with women?

Things that i have noted recently include men killing wives or girlfriends and possibly children which are reported in the newspapers as loving father, with massive sentiment in favour of the murderer.
Two teenage girls taking councils to court over lack of privacy for allowing males into changing rooms etc.

if a 'feminist' rejects motherhood because it is seen as an oppressive construct & prison (in our society).....what is it they think womanhood is actually about?

The state of being female.

You don't have to breed to be female.

This is one of the things feminists are quite hot on, in fact. That motherhood is not intrinsic to womanhood (though the converse is of course true); that only women may be mothers thanks to biology but that this does not and should not limit us to the role of breeders in a world ruled by men.

The cat is beautiful, TehBewilderness. That was just the tonic I needed, ta.
She has a satirical eye, which I admire enormously.

This is a somewhat difficult point to explain, but part of the reason why I struggle with discussion of ‘purpose’ and ‘what x is about’ is because I fundamentally believe that intelligence is just an evolutionary byproduct and any human concept has no ultimate meaning in the wider universe. Really, human existence and ‘purpose’ is no more important than the endeavours of the ants in my lawn as they build a new nest.

This is hardly a revolutionary concept I’m sure, yet the most obvious things often seem lost on a lot of people, and I think many get overly preoccupied with meaning. Our only purpose really is to perpetuate the human race and if we fail the universe will continue without the slightest blink. Of course, with all that said it’s in our nature to strive for continued existence and despite our cosmic insignificance it’s all we know. But self importance feels almost like a contradiction or an incongruence to me.

Siri, show me Nihilism.

Our only purpose really is to perpetuate the human race

Done that already. Do I have no purpose now, then?

I'd argue we have no purpose at all; we simply are.

I'd argue we have no purpose at all; we simply are.

I agree. And not just ‘us’. Everything simply is. But I do believe we arguably have biological imperatives.

And what is the opposite of nihilism, Inebriati? Is it ego?

So you're conflating purpose with biological imperatives?

That's pretty sexist.

In all cases I am concerned with the social implication of female physiology, given the sexist nature of human cultures

I'm trying to unpack what is meant, in all its forms, by the term 'sexism'. Sexism implies, for a start, that there are different sexes ( two of them), and that prejudices, & expectations, become attached to each sex...which the develop into stereotypes and fixed ideas.....which then end up being culturally codified in various ways......

The point is, though, for my purpose here, that the differences are originally rooted in the body and in bodily function and aspect. I also don't believe that all differences are socially constructed. They do have a root in nature....even as we develop and progress as individuated human beings in society.......these differences can be 'managed'/'contained/' 'accommodated' etc.

...which is where we are now, broadly speaking, in 'the west'. Living in a society which gives equal legal and civil rights to each sex...even as it still accommodates, or ameliorates the differences.

The reason you feel you've strayed into enemy territory is likely because you're rehashing points the feminist movement considered, analysed, critiqued, and rejected long ago. It suggests you haven't done your research, and it's irksome when you're dismissive of the intellectual work of our foremothers

Well then, you've assumed wrong...based on your prejudice towards some of my questions and points...but they don't accord with your theories. I've read all of the feminist texts, and am probably a similar age to yourself...it's just that I've not stayed static or fixed in my views and takes on life, in politics, or in most things.

because they don't accord with your theories

I also don't believe that all differences are socially constructed. They do have a root in nature

Yes, they're rooted in the physiological reality of sexually dimorphic bodies.

There's no evidence that any of the differences are solely as a result of the physical body itself; that people are 'born this way' if you will.

As an experiment, you might wish to compare the behaviour of feral children - raised completely without the input of human socialisation - of both sexes. How much difference do you think you're likely to find?

The differences you speak of may be rooted in the body, but they are not inherent to it. They emerge through a continuous feedback loop between the sexed body and the context of its environment - which on a social level is inherently sexist due to the cognitive bias towards males we are all inculcated into as children.

All differences have an element of social construction. Our bodies do not live and develop in a social vacuum; nor do our minds.