The patriarchy is a giant parasitic space porcupine.

[psiradish]

Some time ago I was doing a google image search for something-or-other, when I got a result from yonder livejournal entry: http://hyel.livejournal.com/895483.html In this entry was a link labeled The Internet Superhero Feminists. And one can hardly see a link labeled The Internet Superhero

Comments

[star999chick]

I like how people think that promiscuity (ala men) = feminism, so I'd be interested to hear how exactly you think I've got a feminist hiding away in me somehow.

I have certain matters of inequality that I disagree with, yes. But I'm also one of the most sexist people I know. I definitely like my gender roles traditional in my own life, and I think that if you ever got me in a room with a feminist she'd want to kill me after five minutes. In fact, I'm pretty sure she'd dislike me the second I get to "strip club".

Am I pro-choice? Sure - but that has more to do with my pragmatic approach to lawmaking than any sort of social outrage on the issue. Do I think men and women should be paid the same? Sure, but I don't get worked up thinking about how we don't. Frankly, I think many offensive stereotypes about women are true, I see them all the time. Does that mean that all women are like that? No, but men and women are different, we're sexually dimorphic animals, and last I checked there was pretty compelling evidence that those differences extend to more than bone structure and hair distribution. Racism? Enrages me. Homophobia? Couldn't be angrier. Sexism? Well... you may have a point...

You know what I'm saying?

[psiradish]

My prominent recollection is you pointing out the uneven expectation for women to be attractive, with a decidedly frustrated tone. Besides that, it was just a vague feeling. With the arguable addiction elements of your promiscuity (...should I probably not be mentioning that publicly?) it's hard to call it an example of sexual freedom, so no, I don't think that entered into it much.

I'm not sure how outrage ties into being pro-choice. Defending pro-choice can certainly lead to outrage, but that's the case for every position opposed by large numbers of religious conservatives.

It's not surprising that people often fulfill stereotypes; even offensive ones. Stereotypes are not born in a vacuum; they're genuine observable trends of varying strength that people, in their all-consuming need to keep things - including other people - as simple as possible (wee, a stereotype!), senselessly attribute to all members of a particular group. Now, gender stereotypes may turn out to come true much more often than others, but that would only make sense given that they're the only stereotypes actually held up as an ideal for the people to which they apply.

The human brain is extremely adaptive. Observed differences related to behavior and aptitude between male and female brains could just as easily be the result of social conditioning and personal experience as any actual inherent sexual dimorphism. And given that the abundance of exceptions to gender norms has steadily gone up with the decreasing social pressure to adhere to them in recent years, the case for the former is rather strong. That, and whether any of these observed differences even really exist with any statistical significance is highly contested. For example:
• Yon book goes over various studies on the matter and finds that there are more differences in various mental skills among individuals of any gender than between the genders themselves. In the nature of amazon.com, there are also links to some other books that debunk gender essentialism.
• This post that says something very similar, though the poster only speaks from recollection (no sources cited).

But at any rate, we both acknowledge that exceptions to gender norms exist. Is it your position, then, that they shouldn't? That society should in fact be fighting against the exceptions? That it shouldn't allow their "abberant" desires to go unchecked? That we shouldn't let them follow their own path to happiness so long as they're not harming anyone else? That they deserve to have their individuality suppressed, or if they refuse to conform be treated with ridicule, disdain, hostility, and/or even violence, often to the point that they're driven away from a part of life they had truly wanted and fully earned? Because that is what sexism does. And it doesn't do a damn bit of good in return.

[star999chick]

Actually, if I remember correctly, I was annoyed becuase you were trying to argue that the expectation is the same - which is just incorrect.

I would say that for most who are pro-choice, the opposition throws them in an outrage first because it's a rights issue, for me opposition to it makes me angry because it's just not effing practical.

I would agree that the brain is adaptive, but I don't agree that differences between males and females could 'just as easily' be the result of social conditioning and personal experience. Wasn't there a famous 'boy raised as girl' experiment like.... 40 years ago that maybe pointed to that a little bit?

The idea that there's a biological basis for gender roles is definitely contested - but I mean, come on. Of course such a muddy area is going to be the perfect breeding ground for biased people who are looking ONLY for evidence that supports their opinions?

All that being said, I'm not settled - maybe check on me in a few years when I'm done my undergrad even, I'll know a bit more about the brain (err, one would hope, being a neuroscience specialist) and I'll make a mental note to watch boys and girls :P

I don't believe that we should try to correct differences to the gender norm. I consider myself an exception to the gender norm in many ways. Left handedness isn't 'normal', homosexuality isn't 'normal', aknowledging that something isn't normal doesn't mean you have to hate it. I think that's where the breakdown is. I also don't think sexism is the cause of rape AT ALL - didn't we recently find out that chimps do it as well? I bet it's something they saw on the chimp TV. Also, I'm hard pressed to think of anything more stereotypically female than not coming out and talking about someone raping you because you don't want to make a fuss. Are you effing serious?

[psiradish]

Regarding the beauty double-standard: I know at some point I said something along the lines of "I'd better hope it's true, because I don't think I look good naked." And you said something like, "See, that's exactly what I'm talking about!" And I said something like, "Yeah, I noticed it, too," with an ironic and guilty tone that probably didn't come across in text. And then I tried to save face with something like, "I'd probably bother to look pretty if I actually had a girl to look pretty for," which I'm still not sure is a lie or not (though I certainly would hope not).

I wasn't aware of any famous 'boy raised as girl' experiment. I would have thought such a thing were impossible in fact, due to the inherent ethical problems with any experiment that takes the form of "Let's see what happens when a human child is raised under the following conditions: ..." Curious.

The simple existence of those books wasn't something I brought up to be conclusive, but simply to counter the vague certainty of gendered brains implied by your "more than bones and hair" comment. Sort of, "Well, these books show that there are also smarty scholarly folks who think otherwise." To determine whether or not they think otherwise for good, well-argued, concrete reasons, and without biased datasets, we would both actually have to read the books in question. (Someday.)

Sexism isn't merely acknowledging that there is a "normal" for each gender, and noticing that some people don't fit it. That's just observing trends, and that's fine. Sexism is when you use gender to make judgements (particularly of a predictive nature) regarding individual ability, desire, ambition, behavior, overall value, etc. in lieu of direct observation. In this day and age that is completely and unacceptably stupid; especially when, as far too commonly happens, people with years' worth of thorough direct observation held right in front of their face (like an employer looking at school and employment records and any number of other qualifications for a potential employee) nonetheless favor wild conjecture based on what's between the legs and is or isn't sticking out from the chest. But even in day to day interaction, it's not that hard to actually wait for direct observation before making conclusions about anyone.

...

[psiradish]

And sexism isn't the exclusive cause of rape, no. Only the most extreme measures - like mandatory brain-hacking on all humans, or just plain wiping out all life on the face of the earth - can ever reduce the occurance of any given offense to 0. But the actual frequency of men raping women is far larger than it should be, and that is because of sexism. The fact that the kind of men who rape women are frequently seemingly-decent and otherwise morally upright men, corrupted by a repugnant sense of entitlement to other women's bodies, is because of sexism. The fact that society is, in general, eager to find ways to blame women for any abuse they suffer at the hands of men, including rape, is because of sexism.

Yonder is a story of near-rape where the blogger briefly considers the difficulties she would have had pressing charges if it had actually become rape, due to the circumstances. And lo, the 3rd comment on the blog is one RonF who, despite ostensibly showing support, proceeds to tell her she was "damn stupid" to put herself in such a situation - daring to think that she could actually have casual sex on her own terms, and all. For an idea of the kind of shit a woman faces when put on trial for being raped pressing rape charges (and how stupid that shit is), I present The Rape of Mr. Smith. Now, according to the comments on that the law has improved some, so that an accuser's sexual history can no longer be held against them; though there are plenty of chowderheads willing to whine about how this refusal to admit information completely irrelevant to the case is unfair to the defendant - and too many judges willing to sidestep the law and allow the admittance of such information, anyway.

The simple fact is, a woman who officially makes rape allegations is always in for a shit-storm, both in the court of law and the court of public opinion. And however marginally the situation may have improved from maybe a few decades ago, there's still a lot to discourage a woman from expecting actual justice in return for coming forward. So I don't really see how a woman remaining silent about being raped can be considered in any way attributable to inherent gender characteristics. Under the circumstances, it's clearly just human nature.