Emulate this way of Serving our Husbands?

iluvy

Wed, Nov 02 2016, 9:19 pm

First of all, I call myself a feminist out of simple respect for the women who were imprisoned, force-fed, harassed, degraded, and assaulted so that I could vote, get a degree, get a well-paid job (not secretary), a credit card, a bank account, and have any life that I choose to live. I think it is offensive and ungrateful when women living the benefits of the feminist movement disavow it.

Fox wrote:

Science shows that there are many, many differences between men and women aside from their reproductive capacities.

In order for this "science" to be used to refute the gender as social construct model, four major points must be ignored:

1. Inter-group differences are not large.
2. Intra-group differences are large.
3. Socialization affects everything.
4. Most of the measured traits do not mean what you think they mean.

With regard to points 1 and 2, instead of saying "Women are from Venus and men are from Mars," it would be more scientifically accurate to say "There women and men on both Venus and Mars; Venus has slightly more women than men and Mars has slightly more men than women." (which is the title of my upcoming book.)

With regard to point 3: when studies show that parents talk more to their infant daughters, are more likely to warn their infant daughters to be careful when they are going up a steep incline, and are more likely to buy pink clothing for their infant daughters, we can't say that innate gender differences are the reason girls are more likely to be verbal, careful, and like pink. And in fact we know that the third trait, for which there is by far the most evidence, is entirely socially induced.

Point 4: I remember someone on imamother once saying that she would never use a female surgeon because men have quicker reaction time. I looked up the paper she was talking about and saw that a) the difference in reaction times was literally less than a blink, and b) the study showed that men reacted more quickly and less accurately.

And as for misandry...

youngishbear

Wed, Nov 02 2016, 9:35 pm

UQT wrote:

Hey ladies, don't worry. The Binah found a way to make husbands look bad and I quote,

"My wife just gave birth to our little Yisroel. She just gave our family the greatest possible gift, and with it came pain and challenges. my appreciation to her after birth was incredibly high, but how do I hold on to that? How can it be that in six months from now, I might look at her and not immediately see the pain she went through to give us this son and indeed all our children? How can I not be filled with gratitude towards all at all times?"

There are guys like? Takes my DH six hours to get over it.

Don't worry UQT, I'll bet this was written within the first six hours of Yisroel's life. LOL

Fox and Marina, I have a feeling if I stick around long enough, the two of you will eventually prove the horseshoe theory of politics.

amother

Sienna

Wed, Nov 02 2016, 10:02 pm

Fox wrote:

Also bear in mind that if we consider gender to be purely a social construct, then we can't simultaneously claim than homos-xuality or gender dysphoria have any natural biological basis. There is no "born this way" if you subscribe to the philosophy that gender is a social construct.

Are you sure that's a road you want to go down?

Brilliant

Fox

Wed, Nov 02 2016, 11:20 pm

iluvy wrote:

Which is precisely why I like "equity feminist" to make sure there's no confusion.

iluvy wrote:

This little article summarizes some of the major strains of thought regarding gender differences.

Nature versus Nurture

The key element that I want to bring out is that most researchers believe in the "nature and nurture" theory. That is, existing biological differences are reinforced by social constructs.

This also begs the question of whether social constructs were develop to take advantage of biological differences, which is the stance of evolutionary psychologists.

But again, this is really a side debate. The real question is why feminists are so reluctant to promote the importance of all the roles traditionally occupied by women.

marina

Thu, Nov 03 2016, 11:53 am

Quote:

But again, this is really a side debate. The real question is why feminists are so reluctant to promote the importance of all the roles traditionally occupied by women.

Mmm.. Yet when I gave you an example of Barnard holding a symposium on just this issue, you told me how ridiculous it was that they even have to do that. Can't have it both ways.

Fox

Thu, Nov 03 2016, 1:03 pm

marina wrote:

Mmm.. Yet when I gave you an example of Barnard holding a symposium on just this issue, you told me how ridiculous it was that they even have to do that. Can't have it both ways.

From your description, the symposiums were not held to promote feminine gender roles; they were held to support women who chose to be SAHMs. While there might be some overlap, it's not the same thing at all.

Promoting feminine gender roles involves first claiming certain roles and characteristics as feminine, and then explaining how those roles -- regardless of which gender happens to be performing them or where they are performed -- contribute to make the world a better place.

Telling women, "SAHMs should be respected, too!" is about validating women's choices. That's very nice, and I suppose it's better than saying, "You're a sell-out to the patriarchy," but it doesn't do much to make the point that feminine gender roles are something to be embraced and encouraged, not something to overcome.

This is also the problem I have with feminist reaction of "girlie culture." It's all about saying, "I can be a feminist and still paint my nails." They should be saying, "Hey, women make the world more beautiful and comfortable, and if we weren't painting the world's nails (insert whatever metaphor you want), it would be a pretty miserable place!"

Here's an interview with CHS that articulates some of what I've been trying to say:

Vox Interview with CHS