Let's have a calm, polite and substantial discussion about gender and sex

[Marokai Backbeat]

Feminism means nothing and everything. It means whatever a feminist wants it to mean.

It certainly doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Well it's true, though, isn't it? Maybe you're entirely right and I'm being a bit unfair in my criticism of the movement, such as it is, but there's either never a dead-on definition of "feminist" whenever someone criticizes it, or the definition is so broad that it applies to everyone but the deranged.

Now, the point is that, in 95% of cases, patriarchy works to the benefits of men and to the disadvantages of women. Would you deny this? IMO, this provides a fairly logical reason why the movement would call itself feminist.

I just think "patriarchy" is a pretty serious accusation to be throwing around and hardly applies to 2013 America or even really most of the Western world (whatever that term means, these days, either). Perhaps parts of Asia and the the majority of the Middle East are legitimate patriarchies, but I'm not sure what the modern incarnation of American feminism is very well equipped to do about it.

That's really what my problem with the term comes down to; I don't really think that "movement" is very well equipped to deal with the problems they target. I don't see much constructive suggestions coming from that camp, these days. It's also difficult for me to support feminism, as someone who believes in gender neutrality, when the very term perpetuates the differences between the genders. There's also an unfortunate amount of sex-negative feminism going around (which seems to amount to "looking at women sexually = rapist waiting to happen"), which just strikes me as some form of puritanism.

[Link]

yeah, I don't like when leftist people resort to this libertarianish argument of personal autonomy. like when people argue against anti-gay social conservatives with "how does someone being gay affect you?". you shouldn't support lgbt equality because you "don't mind people being gay, it doesn't affect me". you should support it because there is nothing morally wrong with being queer, or, in this case, nothing morally wrong with choosing to have sex with a bunch of people.

Two things... 1) People are busy.  If something doesn't affect me I don't give it any more thought.  We don't have time to ruminate over every single thing that doesn't affect us.

People evidently do pay some attention to this issue, it seems.

I didn't use the words "everyone" and "never."  A lot of use come on this forum for recreation.  There are plenty of things we discuss on here just for the fun of it but at the end of the day our main thinking on a lot of it is who cares because either way it has no impact on my life.  That does not make us bad people.  I really don't want to think about gay marriage.  If someone is gay and wants to get married that's their business.  It wouldn't affect my marriage or whether I was friends with them.

2) Sleeping with a bunch of people was scientifically proven to be a bad idea decades ago.  Where are people taking sex ed?!

Somewhere that doesn't greatly overhype the dangers of pregnancy and STDs from safe sex to scare kids into abstinence.

Sounds like you got "taught" in a bizarro world version of Texas.  Any medical text will tell you increasing the number of sex partners in a life time is correlated with increased morbidity and mortality.  I prefer to get my information from peer reviewed scientific studies not a Burning Man rumor mill.  It's interesting that you have to trot out the strawman of abstinence in order to defend promiscuity.  I don't think saying to a kid use a condom and try to only change monogamous sex partners only once every two or three years qualifies as "abstinence."  Would you advise a 16 year old that it is totally okay to sleep with HUNDREDS of people in a 10 year period as long as they use a condom?  Do you have any idea how reckless that type of advice is?

[Kitteh]

yeah, I don't like when leftist people resort to this libertarianish argument of personal autonomy. like when people argue against anti-gay social conservatives with "how does someone being gay affect you?". you shouldn't support lgbt equality because you "don't mind people being gay, it doesn't affect me". you should support it because there is nothing morally wrong with being queer, or, in this case, nothing morally wrong with choosing to have sex with a bunch of people.

Two things... 1) People are busy.  If something doesn't affect me I don't give it any more thought.  We don't have time to ruminate over every single thing that doesn't affect us.

People evidently do pay some attention to this issue, it seems.

I didn't use the words "everyone" and "never."  A lot of use come on this forum for recreation.  There are plenty of things we discuss on here just for the fun of it but at the end of the day our main thinking on a lot of it is who cares because either way it has no impact on my life.  That does not make us bad people.  I really don't want to think about gay marriage.  If someone is gay and wants to get married that's their business.  It wouldn't affect my marriage or whether I was friends with them.

Not talking about this forum, I'm talking about the fact that lgbt rights seems to be a pretty big deal for very very many straight people on all sides of the issue.

2) Sleeping with a bunch of people was scientifically proven to be a bad idea decades ago.  Where are people taking sex ed?!

Somewhere that doesn't greatly overhype the dangers of pregnancy and STDs from safe sex to scare kids into abstinence.

Sounds like you got "taught" in a bizarro world version of Texas.  Any medical text will tell you increasing the number of sex partners in a life time is correlated with increased morbidity and mortality.  I prefer to get my information from peer reviewed scientific studies not a Burning Man rumor mill.  It's interesting that you have to trot out the strawman of abstinence in order to defend promiscuity.  I don't think saying to a kid use a condom and try to only change monogamous sex partners only once every two or three years qualifies as "abstinence."  Would you advise a 16 year old that it is totally okay to sleep with HUNDREDS of people in a 10 year period as long as they use a condom?  Do you have any idea how reckless that type of advice is?

I'd be interested in seeing the studies you're talking about, actually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) Correlation != causation obvs

2) Meaningless unless controlled for safe-sex practices.

The basic point here is that:

*contrary to popular misconception, the vast majority of STDs are either curable, usually asymptomatic, or very easily prevented with vaccination (HIV and to some extent herpes which is often asymptomatic are the only ones that don't fall into one of those categories)

*again contrary to popular belief this isn't the 80s anymore, with proper treatment an HIV+ person can live with few health effects

*the risk of acquiring an STD is highly dependent on demographic factors (being black/latin@, poor, a gay man, etc),

and most importantly

*nobody is saying that having dozens of sexual partners is harmless, but that given that the risks are smaller than popularly believed can be reduced greatly with safer sex practices the risk-benefit scale is on the side of not letting the fear of STDs stop you from having sex with someone you really want to

[traininthedistance]

Feminism means nothing and everything. It means whatever a feminist wants it to mean.

It certainly doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Well it's true, though, isn't it? Maybe you're entirely right and I'm being a bit unfair in my criticism of the movement, such as it is, but there's either never a dead-on definition of "feminist" whenever someone criticizes it, or the definition is so broad that it applies to everyone but the deranged.

Well, it is true that it can mean different things to different people.  But that itself is a criticism so broad that it applies to every ideology/movement/etc, or at least any such idea widespread enough to have currency in the real world.  I can only say that my experience of feminists and feminism is more along the lines of this comic (i.e., not about "division" or "bra burning", but about basic respect and the ending of double standards/double binds) than along the lines of what you seemed to paint them as in your long post earlier.

And I have definitely seen way way way more sex-positive feminists than sex-negative feminists, at least among anyone under 50 years old.  That point is a critique that I'd say was totally valid 40 years ago, but really isn't at all anymore.

I think the rest of what you say seems to mostly be hang-ups and misunderstandings pertaining to terminology and jargon.  Which I can't entirely fault you for, though it is unfortunate insofar as it becomes hard to communicate and explain the more subtle de facto societal pressures and injustices that any less-powerful minority group tends to suffer, even with paper equality.

[Link]

*contrary to popular misconception, the vast majority of STDs are either curable, usually asymptomatic, or very easily prevented with vaccination (HIV and to some extent herpes which is often asymptomatic are the only ones that don't fall into one of those categories)

And you think that is a good thing?!  Wow.  What are they teaching kids in sex ed these days.  Asymptomatic STIs that can be treated are the worst because people don't know they have them.  They pass them on to other people and then one day years down the road they can't get pregnant and wonder why.  There are so many sad stories out there caused by asymptomatic STIs.  Putting propaganda on the internet that asymptomatic is a nice feature is crazy.  Seriously.  Read the scientific literature.

*contrary to popular misconception, the vast majority of STDs are either curable, usually asymptomatic, or very easily prevented with vaccination (HIV and to some extent herpes which is often asymptomatic are the only ones that don't fall into one of those categories)

Nice.  I was wondering which @$$holes I had to thank for this...



Yeah.  Just keep on ph-cking.  Everything is gonna be peachy... until it isn't.

I don't have time to dump a medical library on you right now but sufficed to say everything else you said was equally absurd and in some cases even more dangerous.

To the other forum members please do not listen to a word this guy has to say on this topic.  What he is saying is totally reckless and contrary to every piece of published scientific literature I've ever seen.  Use common sense.  Eating carrots, running, and having sex are all good things... in moderation.  Wrap it up and try and minimize your number of sex partners.

[Kitteh]

*contrary to popular misconception, the vast majority of STDs are either curable, usually asymptomatic, or very easily prevented with vaccination (HIV and to some extent herpes which is often asymptomatic are the only ones that don't fall into one of those categories)

And you think that is a good thing?!  Wow.  What are they teaching kids in sex ed these days.  Asymptomatic STIs that can be treated are the worst because people don't know they have them.  They pass them on to other people and then one day years down the road they can't get pregnant and wonder why.  There are so many sad stories out there caused by asymptomatic STIs.  Putting propaganda on the internet that asymptomatic is a nice feature is crazy.  Seriously.  Read the scientific literature.

*contrary to popular misconception, the vast majority of STDs are either curable, usually asymptomatic, or very easily prevented with vaccination (HIV and to some extent herpes which is often asymptomatic are the only ones that don't fall into one of those categories)

Nice.  I was wondering which @$$holes I had to thank for this...



Yeah.  Just keep on ph-cking.  Everything is gonna be peachy... until it isn't.

I don't have time to dump a medical library on you right now but sufficed to say everything else you said was equally absurd and in some cases even more dangerous.

To the other forum members please do not listen to a word this guy has to say on this topic.  What he is saying is totally reckless and contrary to every piece of published scientific literature I've ever seen.  Use common sense.  Eating carrots, running, and having sex are all good things... in moderation.  Wrap it up and try and minimize your number of sex partners.

So far you've proven that you don't know what the word asymptomatic means (hint: infertility is a symptom, therefore a STD which leads to infertility is by definition not asymptomatic) and that gonorrhea is becoming more resistant to antibiotics used to treat it (which bacteria have a tendency to do, because of this thing called natural selection).

Frankly though, I don't think "minimizing your number of sex partners" is going to be a problem for you or most of the people reading this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Now, the point is that, in 95% of cases, patriarchy works to the benefits of men and to the disadvantages of women. Would you deny this? IMO, this provides a fairly logical reason why the movement would call itself feminist.

I just think "patriarchy" is a pretty serious accusation to be throwing around and hardly applies to 2013 America or even really most of the Western world (whatever that term means, these days, either). Perhaps parts of Asia and the the majority of the Middle East are legitimate patriarchies, but I'm not sure what the modern incarnation of American feminism is very well equipped to do about it.

That's really what my problem with the term comes down to; I don't really think that "movement" is very well equipped to deal with the problems they target. I don't see much constructive suggestions coming from that camp, these days. It's also difficult for me to support feminism, as someone who believes in gender neutrality, when the very term perpetuates the differences between the genders. There's also an unfortunate amount of sex-negative feminism going around (which seems to amount to "looking at women sexually = rapist waiting to happen"), which just strikes me as some form of puritanism.

Patriarchy, contrarily to what you seem to believe, is far from being limited to nonwestern countries. Just look around you, discrimination is everywhere in our "modern and enlightened" societies. Sure, the West is just awful in that regard, whereas, generally, the rest of the world is absolutely completely disgustingly godawful, but that's certainly not something we should be satisfied about. Just like the fact that most Africans are poorer than an American poor doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to end poverty in America.

As I said, I don't know why you are focusing so much about the name feminism. It's just a word! I also tend to believe this is not the best term to describe what feminism really is, but, at the end of the day, who cares?

I don't know where you've seen what you describe at the end of your post, but anyway yeah, it's certainly possible that a few feminists think that. 99% don't, however, and you should pay more attention to what these people say instead of focusing on these fringe examples.

[Link]

So far you've proven that you don't know what the word asymptomatic means (hint: infertility is a symptom, therefore a STD which leads to infertility is by definition not asymptomatic) and that gonorrhea is becoming more resistant to antibiotics used to treat it (which bacteria have a tendency to do, because of this thing called natural selection).

So far the only thing you've proven is you don't know the difference between a symptom and a sign.  Symptoms are subjective.  Infertility is not subjective.  When a doctor says a disease process is asymptomatic that doesn't mean it isn't causing damage.  Please retake health class.  It's your body.  You need to learn about it.

So far you've proven that you don't know what the word asymptomatic means (hint: infertility is a symptom, therefore a STD which leads to infertility is by definition not asymptomatic) and that gonorrhea is becoming more resistant to antibiotics used to treat it (which bacteria have a tendency to do, because of this thing called natural selection).

Yeah genius the reason they are even exposed to antibiotics which causes the selective pressure is because promiscuous @$$hole$ think getting gonorrhea is no big deal and keep getting repeated doses of antibiotics which makes the resistant strain more prevelant.  How in the world do you not know this?!



I dare you to say you know more than the Mayo Clinic staff.

[traininthedistance]

Just want to point out that calling people who disagree with you "a$$holes" or (in other words) lonely, hunchbacked losers is not exactly the route to a "calm, polite, and substantial discussion".

Sorry to be such a blatant Moderate Hero here but someone has to do it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Feminism means nothing and everything. It means whatever a feminist wants it to mean.

I do agree the term "feminism" was being twisted and abused for a number of occassions but, seriously, show me any social and political term that was never twisted around, used the wrong way etc. The principle of feminism, however, is very clear, to say otherwise is like to say the democracy can very well mean a rule of minority or one person rule, because the term was abused many times in history.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just want to point out that calling people who disagree with you "a$$holes" or (in other words) lonely, hunchbacked losers is not exactly the route to a "calm, polite, and substantial discussion".

Sorry to be such a blatant Moderate Hero here but someone has to do it.

You are absolutely right, and I'd ask Link to calm down or take it to another thread.

[Link]

Just want to point out that calling people who disagree with you "a$$holes"...

I just want to point out your use of the pronoun "you" is inappropriate.  I posted irrefutable scientific facts that came from high quality studies published in peer reviewed journals.  If someone wants so disagree with me there is no problem with that.  But to contradict such evidence without presenting any evidence is unacceptable particularly with the topic that was being discussed.  There is already a devastating amount of misinformation circulating out there.

Also what would you call someone who knowingly repeatedly engages in high risk sexual activity, gets infected with gonorrhea multiple times and says it is totally okay because, you know, it's treatable?  That moniker is not being directed at anyone on this forum in particular.  Someone doing something like that is a real @$$hole and far more people on this forum have called other people worse when they were behaving better than that.

Anyway I've said just about all I'm going to say on the topic.  Most of my posts were directed at the general readership of the forum.  Certain people make certain unhealthy decisions early in life and no matter what objective evidence is presented to them they will just continue on in their destructive ways.  I'm not going to change them.  But I want other people who are savable to have strong evidence that debunks the misinformation spread by a small hard core of people.  That's really all I can do.  Regardless of religion or lack there of, sexual orientation, personal moral code, etc there are certain universal immutable scientific facts.  Those are not up for debate... or at least not up for debate for people who come to the table with no scientific facts backed up with references.

Stay safe guys and when in doubt err on the side of caution.

[Gustaf]

Didn't have time to read through the whole thread but it seems like a good idea. I read the first and last page though.

So, personally, I differentiate between two things, namely private life and political opinion (used broadly).

We are all stuck in the societies we live in. The norms they have, the rules and roles they impose. One should recognize these things and step away from the worse forms of it. But one should also recognize that one cannot change the world through individual action. If you want to have a loving relationship with a real human being in the actual world, you'll have to conform to at least some of the things that society stipulates for it.

What battles you pick and what deal-breakers you have is individual. I could never date a girl whom I didn't percieve as intellectually equal to me. I could never date a girl who didn't have her own life in terms of career goals and interests. I don't want arm-candy or a trophy wife.

But if she wants to feel protected by me, make more decisions, throw her around in bed, buy dinner a bit more often and so on...well, I can live with that. Some of those things I don't particularly like, due to feminist convictions, but fine. You win some, you lose some.

The issue of being 'masculine' and 'assertive' is a bit complicated. It's been said before by many people, but basically, defining yourself and your existence based on others is psychologically unhealthy and sexually unattractive. If you are not ready to piss someone off you will always look a bit weak and like a person of self-worth.

That doesn't mean you need to be a 'bad boy' or an 'asshole'. It does mean that you may need to occasionally tell your girlfriend to shut up and  off rather than say that you're sorry and it was your fault. If you're not a jerk, there are of course plenty of cases where you should apologize as well.

Every girl I've been with has seen me as nice and kind, but I am still fairly assertive at times. You need to strike a balance between those behaviours. Interacting with people and being socially competent helps to pick this out.

[Sbane]

*contrary to popular misconception, the vast majority of STDs are either curable, usually asymptomatic, or very easily prevented with vaccination (HIV and to some extent herpes which is often asymptomatic are the only ones that don't fall into one of those categories)

And you think that is a good thing?!  Wow.  What are they teaching kids in sex ed these days.  Asymptomatic STIs that can be treated are the worst because people don't know they have them.  They pass them on to other people and then one day years down the road they can't get pregnant and wonder why.  There are so many sad stories out there caused by asymptomatic STIs.  Putting propaganda on the internet that asymptomatic is a nice feature is crazy.  Seriously.  Read the scientific literature.

*contrary to popular misconception, the vast majority of STDs are either curable, usually asymptomatic, or very easily prevented with vaccination (HIV and to some extent herpes which is often asymptomatic are the only ones that don't fall into one of those categories)

Nice.  I was wondering which @$$holes I had to thank for this...



Yeah.  Just keep on ph-cking.  Everything is gonna be peachy... until it isn't.

I don't have time to dump a medical library on you right now but sufficed to say everything else you said was equally absurd and in some cases even more dangerous.

To the other forum members please do not listen to a word this guy has to say on this topic.  What he is saying is totally reckless and contrary to every piece of published scientific literature I've ever seen.  Use common sense.  Eating carrots, running, and having sex are all good things... in moderation.  Wrap it up and try and minimize your number of sex partners.

So far you've proven that you don't know what the word asymptomatic means (hint: infertility is a symptom, therefore a STD which leads to infertility is by definition not asymptomatic) and that gonorrhea is becoming more resistant to antibiotics used to treat it (which bacteria have a tendency to do, because of this thing called natural selection).

Frankly though, I don't think "minimizing your number of sex partners" is going to be a problem for you or most of the people reading this.

No, you don't get it. Asymptomatic in the sense that the patient can't tell they have a disease can in many cases cause infertility. Don't you think that is dangerous? WTF is up with this acceptance of gonorrhea....doesn't make sense to me at all. While it may not kill you, it is a very serious disease and needs to be taken seriously.

[angus]

My university is in the news after it was discovered that student leaders led new students in a "rape chant" during frosh week.

What was interesting with regards to this discussion is the varied responses blaming other cultures. The campus feminists are blaming patriarchy of course, while the resident priest and church groups blame the secular culture and the loose morals it produces.

It's certainly not surprising to see conservatives attempting to spin these events in their favor. I don't really see anything modern or "secular" about these kinds of attitudes, though.

quirk of English.  or maybe it's just American English.  Anyway, folks have taken to using the word secular as an antonym for religious.  Not what the word etymologically stands for, obviously, but at some point you have to accept that the kids are using it that way now.  (It actually says "Novus ordo Seclorum" on the back of a US one dollar bill.  It has been that way since long before I was born.  My guess is that only a small fraction of Americans know that, and an even smaller fraction of Americans can properly translate that into modern vernacular English.)  In that light, you can see how the priest--who is schooled not only in the language that bastardizes the word "secular" so much that it means the opposite of religious, but also in the language from whence it passed--would blame secular forces for all manner of disagreeable developments.  

It is equally understandable that feminazis--who are very "secular" in the original non-modernized sense of the word--would blame patriarchy for the phenom.  We could probably make similar comments about the conflation of patriarchy with catholic priests, which of course brings us full circle.  In that light DC's incisive comment is rather poignant, wouldn't you say?  Not bad for on-the-fly existentialist philosophizing.  Especially for a Republican.

As for the rudeness and vulgarity of the poetry in question, that goes without saying.  As for the fact that political correctness now weighs in heavier than freedom of speech, I suppose that flies as well, now that it's been run up the flagpole.  I'm not sure which is worse, but if you want to fire off volleys against the sad moral state of universities now, and of the students who attend them, then you'll have no shortage of ammunition.  

[Beet]

angus, you are such a stereotype man. Not that I'm saying I'm any better, but...

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Freedom of speech" is overrated.

Didn't have time to read through the whole thread but it seems like a good idea. I read the first and last page though.

So, personally, I differentiate between two things, namely private life and political opinion (used broadly).

We are all stuck in the societies we live in. The norms they have, the rules and roles they impose. One should recognize these things and step away from the worse forms of it. But one should also recognize that one cannot change the world through individual action. If you want to have a loving relationship with a real human being in the actual world, you'll have to conform to at least some of the things that society stipulates for it.

What battles you pick and what deal-breakers you have is individual. I could never date a girl whom I didn't percieve as intellectually equal to me. I could never date a girl who didn't have her own life in terms of career goals and interests. I don't want arm-candy or a trophy wife.

But if she wants to feel protected by me, make more decisions, throw her around in bed, buy dinner a bit more often and so on...well, I can live with that. Some of those things I don't particularly like, due to feminist convictions, but fine. You win some, you lose some.

The issue of being 'masculine' and 'assertive' is a bit complicated. It's been said before by many people, but basically, defining yourself and your existence based on others is psychologically unhealthy and sexually unattractive. If you are not ready to piss someone off you will always look a bit weak and like a person of self-worth.

That doesn't mean you need to be a 'bad boy' or an 'asshole'. It does mean that you may need to occasionally tell your girlfriend to shut up and  off rather than say that you're sorry and it was your fault. If you're not a jerk, there are of course plenty of cases where you should apologize as well.

Every girl I've been with has seen me as nice and kind, but I am still fairly assertive at times. You need to strike a balance between those behaviours. Interacting with people and being socially competent helps to pick this out.

You are absolutely right that it's unavoidable to abide by at least some of the less morally abhorrent norms of a society. I acknowledge this and I've been for a while trying to figure out what my "deal breakers" are (not only with regard to gender norms, but to all sort of social pressures I have a hard time accepting). As I think I said earlier, I think I can become pretty assertive in circumstances where I'm really comfortable (for example in political discussions) so the problem might be less fundamental than I'm making it out to be. Also, I completely agree with the criteria you set and these are indeed more important than assertiveness per se.

[Franknburger]

Let's try to put the discussion into a more general framework:
1. The two sexes are biologically different as concerns their reproductive functions, physiognomy, health risks, life expectancy, etc. Around these biological differences, social differentiations, i.e. gender roles, have evolved. Some of these are biologically unavoidable - pregnancy, birth, post natal depressions, breast feeding etc. considerably limit a woman's scope of activity before and after giving birth. Others, such as women's traditional focus on household-related activities, are social constructs. But the border between biological necessity and social convention is anything but clear-cut.

2. As the two sexes are biologically different, gender equality can't be the objective. The same applies to 'gender neutrality' . Avoiding gender discrimination sounds better, but is in fact just a means without an end. Take women's army service as an example. To the extent it ensures that equal numbers of men and women get killed in wars, it obviously reduces discrimination. But the ultimate aim should be that nobody, neither men nor woman, is killed in wars. Hence, the approach should be to set up human, non gender-specific aims, and design gender-sensitive strategies to ensure these aims are achieved for women and men alike.

3. Societies, and with them gender roles, evolve and change. This affects both individuals and society as a whole. A few decades ago it was a sign of politeness for a man to hold up the door for a women, today it is often regarded as patronising. When it comes to building a family, however, most women will still look for signs that the man is going to stay with them during pregnancy and birth, and actively participate in raising and educating the child(s). The nature of these signs, be it fighting with rivals, presenting red roses, or discussing education ideals over a bottle of red wine, will vary from individual to individual. As has been stated here before - it is not about assertiveness (especially not about specific ways of being assertive), but about authenticity, sensitivity, and also the ability to compromise (including making clear which points are not for compromise).  

4. Most cultures tend to have a professional segregation by gender along the following lines: Women focus on activities in or close to the household (and the children/ grandchildren), including child and health care, gardening, food preparation, purchasing, retail, and managing household finances. Men do the out-of-house activities (fieldwork, forestry, hunting, mining, army/security) and those requiring physical strength (metallurgy and metal processing, construction, etc.). Industrialisation increased demand and income opportunities for "male" professions, while women remained in subsistence activities.  Over the last decades, however, many countries have changed from an industrial to a service economy, which means higher labour market demand for female professions and skills.
The changes are most  profound where gender segregation is strongest, namely the Middle East. "Female" sectors tend to outgrow manufacturing. Last time I checked (already a few years ago), e.g., the education market in Pakistan was growing by more than 7% a year. Similar trends apply to the financial and health sectors, which are (at least on the operational level) much more a female domain there then in the West. The effect is a reversal of employment and income opportunities. Add in globalisation - a multinational company will fill senior management with expats, but hire local office assistants (female), and drivers / gardeners (male). Guess who earns more. [In Arab countries, women currently account for roughly a quarter of the labour force, but around a third of professional and technical workers].
Effects: Men see their economic opportunities, and also their traditional role as main income earner, endangered. Who is to blame - the West (those multinationals and banks that give the good-paying jobs out to the women). And the women - they put on a scarf, pursue their careers, and keep quiet otherwise as they know they will be on the winning side anyway (women tend to be well trained in waiting patiently for their time to come).

5. Another area where gender fortunes have switched is education. Only a few decades ago, women had substantially lower access to education then men, as many parents believed them to anyway become housewives and mothers. In the meantime, not at last due to improved income opportunities for women, almost all countries around the world, except for a few though populous countries in South Asia and West Africa, have come close to achieving equal and universal female access to primary and secondary education. Suddenly, trends that were thought to be country- or culture-specific become visible worldwide: Boys are significantly more likely to drop out of school than girls, in the USA as in India. And women are over represented among fresh collage graduates in Norway, Barbados, Argentina, Georgia (Rep,), the Phillipines, even Saudi Arabia (plus more than 80 other countries around the world).
Obviously, the concept of formal education that is prevailing worldwide(classroom-based, frontal teaching) is hostile towards boys/men. In fact, it is as well hostile to girls/ women. They just have found "better" ways to deal with it (listening quietly and patiently, producing sketch after sketch in their exercise books), while boys rebel, start talking to each other or fooling around, and may ultimately get kicked out for lack of discipline. As such, the objective can't be having equal drop-out rates for boys and girls. Instead, there is need to develop models of formal education that are conducive to boys' and girls' specific ways of acquiring relevant knowledge and skills.

6. The fact that female opportunities have improved with respect to education, jobs and income does not mean there is no room for further improvement. Women are still under-represented in politics and senior management, face problems in combining motherhood and career, tend to earn less than men, etc. However, the answer is not "feminism" vs. "patriarchy", and especially not gender struggle. The answer is with defining objectives for human development, and acknowledging that both genders have to overcome constraints in this respect, some of which are gender-specific, while others are universal.

That was quite long. Hope I did not kill the thread with it..

[tik 🪀✨]

Your second point's example is silly, Franknburger. When we make "gender-sensitive strategies" for how soldiers are used based on their gender or sex we are making an assumption that the physical, mental, or emotional characteristics of the stereotype are correct. Exceptions to the rule are the rule, therefore basing the abilities of a person on qualities that allow for massive variation (such as various measure of intelligence and skill by relying on gender) is inefficient and easily outdated. We need to evaluate the individual individually. Might it then occur that one sex is more capable of some tasks than the other sex when we aggregate them? Of course it will - but those who can be best utilitized in other ways will be properly allocated immediately. Also, the ways one sex differs from the other, on average, can easily shift based on the way society has unconsciously influenced them over time. The model of our "gender-sensitive strategy" would become outdated in only a short time. No, we need an "individual-sensitive strategy" to truly make the best of what we have. You say as much in later points which confuses me. How does a woman's ability to become pregnant influence her ability to scale a wall, have a fast reaction time, or think laterally? It doesn't.

I can't be bothered replying to anymore than that, so I apologise if I missed something.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Of course, some people see things differently



Just Sayin'

(* No, pedants, these aren't my views)

[angus]

"Freedom of speech" is overrated.

Indeed.  So is democracy.  And sushi.  And mobile phones.  That fact doesn't make any of it less worthy of the occasional nod.  Especially when we get so caught up in some crusade that we overlook their intrinsic values, warts and pimples and dropped calls aside.

[Franknburger]

Your second point's example is silly, Franknburger. When we make "gender-sensitive strategies" for how soldiers are used based on their gender or sex we are making an assumption that the physical, mental, or emotional characteristics of the stereotype are correct. Exceptions to the rule are the rule, therefore basing the abilities of a person on qualities that allow for massive variation (such as various measure of intelligence and skill by relying on gender) is inefficient and easily outdated. We need to evaluate the individual individually. Might it then occur that one sex is more capable of some tasks than the other sex when we aggregate them? Of course it will - but those who can be best utilitized in other ways will be properly allocated immediately. Also, the ways one sex differs from the other, on average, can easily shift based on the way society has unconsciously influenced them over time. The model of our "gender-sensitive strategy" would become outdated in only a short time. No, we need an "individual-sensitive strategy" to truly make the best of what we have. You say as much in later points which confuses me. How does a woman's ability to become pregnant influence her ability to scale a wall, have a fast reaction time, or think laterally? It doesn't.

I can't be bothered replying to anymore than that, so I apologise if I missed something.

You obviously miss the difference between strategy and tactics. I never intended to speak about how soldiers are being used (tactics). My point was about human development objectives (and winning a war is not a human development objective, but maintaining peace is), and pointing out that ways to achieve these objectives (i.e. strategies) may, in most cases even have to vary by gender. That this is not a "once for all" thing, but needs regular adaptation as gender roles themselves are fluctuating, goes without saying. An  "individual-sensitive strategy" would, of course, be nice,  but meets practical difficulties, as we are dealing with billions on individuals on this world.

Before we go further on this line of discussion, may I suggest you to take a look at the current mainstream of discussion, e.g. by the World Bank, the UN, or US-AID.
Essentially, my aim was to give an overview on the concept of gender mainstreaming, without becoming too theoretical. If that has lead to misunderstanding, I apologize.

[Kitteh]

Some interesting points here, can't write something long because on phone, maybe later;

Angus: "free speech" doesn't mean "I can say whatever I want and nobody can criticize me for it". it means "I can say whatever I want and the govt can't put me in jail or kill me for it". Obvs you can believe that people should have the right to say idiotic bullsh!t and still tell them that what they're saying is idiotic bullish!t.

Gustaf: I absolutely agree with this. For me, I think about it a lot in relation to having very submissive and somewhat masochistic sexual/romantic preferences and how that relates to my own gender. Or that I actually *like* shaving my legs and...other areas, despite the fact that I dislike the social pressure on women to stay clean-shaven. Is that "my own preference" or have I picked it up from society? Yeah in the end it is impossible to separate out what is "really you" and what is socially influenced. I guess the best answer is just to do whatever works for you and others, don't do things because society tells you to if you don't want to but if you don't mind fitting into social roles than w/e. Not 100% satisfied with that answer but it seems alright. Still something I ponder a lot.

[Oak Hills]

Gustaf: I absolutely agree with this. For me, I think about it a lot in relation to having very submissive and somewhat masochistic sexual/romantic preferences and how that relates to my own gender. Or that I actually *like* shaving my legs and...other areas, despite the fact that I dislike the social pressure on women to stay clean-shaven. Is that "my own preference" or have I picked it up from society? Yeah in the end it is impossible to separate out what is "really you" and what is socially influenced. I guess the best answer is just to do whatever works for you and others, don't do things because society tells you to if you don't want to but if you don't mind fitting into social roles than w/e. Not 100% satisfied with that answer but it seems alright. Still something I ponder a lot.

Both. It is a personal preference you have picked up from living in your society. I would argue that that is the case for most personal preferences. I think whether something is "really you" or "socially-influenced" is a false dichotomy. Everyone internalizes the society they grew up in, and "you" wouldn't be "you" without your society.  I fail to see any conflict between social influence and personal autonomy.

Similarly, I think there is a false dichotomy between what is socially-constructed and what is natural. I think people tend to forget that what they're calling "social constructs" have influenced biological evolution and been influenced by biological evolution. I don't think it is even possible, and perhaps not even desirable, to separate out nature from social constructs. I actually think there is nothing wrong with having social norms, and indeed humans could never function without social norms. The only problem is when social expectations become too rigid or unrealistic.

[Kitteh]

Gustaf: I absolutely agree with this. For me, I think about it a lot in relation to having very submissive and somewhat masochistic sexual/romantic preferences and how that relates to my own gender. Or that I actually *like* shaving my legs and...other areas, despite the fact that I dislike the social pressure on women to stay clean-shaven. Is that "my own preference" or have I picked it up from society? Yeah in the end it is impossible to separate out what is "really you" and what is socially influenced. I guess the best answer is just to do whatever works for you and others, don't do things because society tells you to if you don't want to but if you don't mind fitting into social roles than w/e. Not 100% satisfied with that answer but it seems alright. Still something I ponder a lot.

Both. It is a personal preference you have picked up from living in your society. I would argue that that is the case for most personal preferences. I think whether something is "really you" or "socially-influenced" is a false dichotomy. Everyone internalizes the society they grew up in, and "you" wouldn't be "you" without your society.  I fail to see any conflict between social influence and personal autonomy.

Similarly, I think there is a false dichotomy between what is socially-constructed and what is natural. I think people tend to forget that what they're calling "social constructs" have influenced biological evolution and been influenced by biological evolution. I don't think it is even possible, and perhaps not even desirable, to separate out nature from social constructs. I actually think there is nothing wrong with having social norms, and indeed humans could never function without social norms. The only problem is when social expectations become too rigid or unrealistic.

I generally agree, and I'd also add along the "'socially constructed' vs 'biologically innate' is a false dichotomy" line that given increasing understanding of neuroplasticity it's very possible that social influences can lead to biological differences within an individual's lifetime. Like for example it seems like it'd make sense that if girls are socially pressured away from math beginning in childhood than that would result in physical differences in regions of the brain having to do with mathematical processing by adulthood.