Women's rights general conversations - Thread 3

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 2.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions, grr"- that sort of thing).

I doubt he will - has always been somewhat set to broadcast rather than receive.

Another article that's a good read. What she has to say about gender wrt to time, place and culture is a big part of my own viewpoint. To put it bluntly, gender is mutable. Gender norms have changed within all of our lifetimes and will continue to do so. We can come up with all sorts of new names to give to gender "norms" and ultimately non-binary is the biggest bollocks of them all. I would imagine that absolutely everyone here could call themselves non-binary if they chose to because I doubt any of us fit comfortably into whatever the current gender norms for women or men are. Obviously, she is far more articulate than me!

It's maddening because we fought so hard to make things that were considered "abnormal" to be "normal" and this whole gender ideology thing is pushing us backwards. They may all think they're progressive but they are anything but.

Oh! Link.
sex and gender are different things

Thanks for that article - it really was excellent, and (like you) it echoed much of what I think. The comments underneath are also very good.

What will you say, MmePoppySeed?

What a good and clearly written piece. Couldn't agree more. It's like... The Voice Of Reason, isn't it? 😃

Great article and comments.

So, for example, a man in the West might stereotypically be expected to be outspoken, professionally ambitious, and physically protective of his family

I think a man being physically protective of his family may not be ‘gender’ but quite primitive and instinctive, and based in his biology, even though some men will be less like this than others. This is where I diverge from GC.

Thank you. That is a very interesting article.

Unfortunately though it may be a bit late to stop the misuse of language kin the name of trans gender ideology.

Even the OED is doing it. Their new definitions are coming from scanning US writing and things on-line as well as British English, so it will snowball too. Their App has homosexuality as same sex or gender attracted, for example.

The misuse of language is in science writing too;
Sex, New Scientist and me | Octavia Sheepshanks | The Critic Magazine

thecritic.co.uk/sex-new-scientist-and-me/

That's one of the biggest worries for me, the fact that the likes of New Scientist and The Lancet have been captured. And similar organisations in other countries. Fundamentally, this genderwoo is unscientific.

It's not just unscientific, it's just so silly.

A friend of mine was the science editor for the OED (now retired but occasionally still does some work for them). I will talk to him about this when I see him in a week or two.

*ScrollingLeaves · Today 14:43

The misuse of language is in science writing too; Sex, New Scientist and me | Octavia Sheepshanks | The Critic Magazine

Crikey, what a bag of wank!

Are women not physically protective of their families too though? Of their children at least. My GC question about 'would you rather go in a field with a bull in it or one with just cows?' always contains the proviso about not getting between a cow and her calf.

Does anyone else thinks we need a women's rights bookclub? There's a read and discuss a chapter a day on an agreed book on the books section. It might be a good way to get wider engagement with the current literature...

Actually, given the deluge of work coming out right now, we may need more than a chapter a day if we did this - we could also extend it to podcast episodes.

Would that be a good idea?

It's a good idea BUT... I don't know how many people could keep up with all the stuff available, I know I would struggle!

Me too, to be honest. I have Glosswitch and Hannah Barnes on pre order now, I just feel like sharing the experience!

There used to be a specific board for it, iirc, but it wasn't used much.
However, some specific threads would be worth trying - why not?!

Yeah, I'll maybe start one a week before the release date of the first one to come out and let people get a copy etc. If it works, great, if not, it'll fall off, no harm done!

I like the idea, and will join with good intentions but on past form I will struggle to keep pace. I used to be an avid reader, but am only averaging a book or two a month at present. Mid life exhaustion/brain fog plus the easier distractions of the internet have killed the book worm in me. Still read articles, and prefer reading text to e.g. video but my unread book pile is getting ever higher.

Yes, it's a good idea, but my reading speed has also slowed down. I don't know whether to blame age or lockdown, but do I think the dreariness of the latter killed a lot of brain cells in the "ability to focus" area.

Definitely a good idea and I'd love to be a part of it.

ScrollingLeaves · Today 14:29
So, for example, a man in the West might stereotypically be expected to be outspoken, professionally ambitious, and physically protective of his family

I think a man being physically protective of his family may not be ‘gender’ but quite primitive and instinctive, and based in his biology, even though some men will be less like this than others. This is where I diverge from GC.

Are women not physically protective of their families too though? Of their children at least. My GC question about 'would you rather go in a field with a bull in it or one with just cows?' always contains the proviso about not getting between a cow and her calf.

Women are, I agree with you, but I think for men and women it is each in their own way and in both it is biological/instinctive. And it is easier for a woman and her baby to be protected from stress rather than have to fight. I think a lot of new fathers feel a drive to protect, and weight of responsibility for, their families though they are not expected to so much any more.

Sorry, that was in reply to DeanVolecapeAKAelderberry · Today 16:22 who brought up the cow and the calf.

This is the nub of it, is it not, from the link posted by Crows upthread:* *

The words that refer to people’s biological, sexed realities —female, male, woman, man, girl, boy, mother, father, sister, brother, daughter, son, and all the rest—are taken. They are in use. They serve a useful purpose in every human society that uses them.

They are not available for appropriation and repurposing — not to mention, becoming taboo in the context of their former and commonly understood biological meanings.

Bit long for a tee shirt, but still...
And the next time some fool like Starmer is asked what a woman is, instead of stammering like it's a catch-question, he could be reminded.

I'm interested but a slow reader these days. And an even slower listener! It takes me ages to get round to podcasts. If we can do it more slowly I'm in.