6 ms·

I don't think I ever encountered that argument, and when I see people arguing against it, it always seems to be a straw man. The argument I've encountered goes

by jb17 13y ago

I don't think I ever encountered that argument, and when I see people arguing against it, it always seems to be a straw man. The argument I've encountered goes more like this: Because there has been historical oppression, we can't easily distinguish the influence of that from biology and should remove the oppression before we come up with biological theories that justify the oppression. That seems reasonable to me.

s_baby 13y ago
Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male". I completely agree with your original post but it's hard to deny there's a turd in the feminist kool-aid bowl and no one is willing to pull it out.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  I wouldn't say no one, but it's also true that the Men's Rights movement has a steep uphill PR struggle ahead of them. In part because of active attacks from parts of the feminist movement, and in part because they actively feed into the conflict. Also, it's a fact of life that men who lose their temper in any he-said-she-said conflict often receive a knee-jerk judgement from those around them, which makes it difficult for onlookers to evaluate their case from first principles. (Such knee-jerk happens to females in other contexts.) We're still subject to many illusions from the same Victorian age mentality that deemed wolves "bad" and that killing them off was an environmental good.
  - yaddayadda 13y ago
    I'm disappointed that there's a "Men's Rights" movement. My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. For example, feminists support a boy who wants to play with dolls or a father wants to be a stay-at-home parent. I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!
    - s_baby 13y ago
      >My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. That's an idealization that's not congruent with the historical culture and behavior of many feminists. Up until the 80's feminism was heteronormative and transphobic. In fact, transphobia is still a huge problem in the community.[1] These are just the more concrete examples. For most of its history feminism has been a straight white upper middle class movement. The perspective of those not fitting this demographic have been marginalized within feminism at some point. >I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place! Masculism was started by a group of feminists who were kicked out of National Organization for Women(N.O.W) for advocating equal custody in divorce. Gender Studies is inclusive in theory but not in practice. 1. https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+transphobia https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+transphobia
      - yaddayadda 13y ago
        I was raised in the 70's and am FTM. I can't speak definitively for the movement at the time, but my mother was absolutely aware of MTFs and was fully supportive. She was aware of MTFs because of women's studies classes, and her definition of feminism came from those same classes. So there was at least a sizable feminist subset that subscribed to that definition. Frustratingly, FTMs still weren't widely acknowledged, and while she was supportive she chalked what I said about myself up to being a tom-boy, while trying to stay open to the possibility that there could be FTMs.
        s_baby 13y ago
        I hear what you're saying. Let me show you how it looks from my perspective. Imagine if the History department had an aggregation of white supremacists. They were allowed to have their own department, their own academic journals, and even held positions of power like Dean. Would their more inclusive peers not hold some responsibility in enabling these bigots? I know you're pointing out the good side of gender studies but you're also being apologetic and enabling radicalized feminism. Every feminist and their mom is quick to point out how feminism is inclusive whenever this discussion comes up. Very few of them actually stand up to transphobia, misandry, and countless other forms of bigotry in their circles.
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  Sounds a bit like child abuse. And when I say a bit I mean a lot.
  - phaer 13y ago
    Care to elaborate?
    - adamnemecek 13y ago
      "... couple that forces their boy to ..." Is that sufficient?
      - phaer 13y ago
        Depends on what 'forces' means exactly in this case.
      - sjtrny 13y ago
        "...eat their vegetables" is that abuse?
        adamnemecek 13y ago
        Do you really want me to explain to you why those are different scenarios? Would you think that it's child abuse if the parents made their kid wear a gimp suit with a gag ball? Also would you think it was abuse if they made the kid undergo some hormone therapy?
        phaer 13y ago
        You don't need me to explain to you why your examples are completely different scenarios than letting your (male) child play with dolls or wear dresses, right? Please find some better examples if you are interested in a constructive discussion and you are not on some kind of crusade about your idea of parenting.
        13y ago
- phaer 13y ago
  > Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male". I am sorry, I don't see how that would be the same as "denying any difference between men and women". Do you really think, or even have proof which shows, that playing with dolls or wearing dresses is biologically, not socially, "male"? A lot of clothing conventions for males in past centuries would pass as "female" today. Until the late 19th century it was common for small boys to wear dresses, see [1] for an example. Besides, I myself played with dolls as a small boy and as far as I can tell did take no harm. That might be different if those boys grow up around homophobic people who bully them for playing with dolls or wearing dresses. [1]: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-st...
  - s_baby 13y ago
    If it's wrong to force traditional roles/identities onto those with a "queer" predisposition then the opposite is also true.
    - phaer 13y ago
      That's true, I'd oppose it if they really force the boy against his wishes to wear dresses, etc. But that's not clear from what I read because it's often described as 'forcing' when parents buy non-traditional toys and cloths for their children. So I'd need more context to say something about the described case. Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference. Does someone have recommended readying about that?
      - phaer 13y ago
        A response would be even more appreciated than a down-vote ;)
      - s_baby 13y ago
        >Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference. A) Queerness and sexual preference aren't equivalent ideas. B) Saying something is a predisposition is saying it's a product of nature+environment. There are clear cases of socialization(Greeks, Papua New Guinea). On the other hand the drive to procreate is pervasive, overpowering, and considered nature. C) I don't downvote. But I imagine it's because this thread is orthogonal to the dialogue.
stcredzero 13y ago
Unfortunately, the line between nature and nurture isn't delineated by mathematical sets, any more then the membership of a particular rock to North or South America. How do we remove something we can't cleanly delineate? The answer is pragmatically, but while holding to our other principles. If you wish to find oppression, after following the money, note who is silencing those who are tolerant and sincerely wish to trade in ideas and the truth.
AutoCorrect 13y ago
It's a complex situation, one we're not going to resolve any time soon, if ever. I believe (and it's just from my observations) that the cultural 'oppression' grew out of very real biological differences. But as our population has grown, the reasoning behind the gender roles has lessened in importance to us for survival as a species. There may yet come a time when the roles are again needed, but for now at least, it's time to relax and let people be who they want to be.

by jb17 13y ago

s_baby 13y ago

Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male". I completely agree with your original post but it's hard to deny there's a turd in the feminist kool-aid bowl and no one is willing to pull it out.

stcredzero 13y ago
I wouldn't say no one, but it's also true that the Men's Rights movement has a steep uphill PR struggle ahead of them. In part because of active attacks from parts of the feminist movement, and in part because they actively feed into the conflict. Also, it's a fact of life that men who lose their temper in any he-said-she-said conflict often receive a knee-jerk judgement from those around them, which makes it difficult for onlookers to evaluate their case from first principles. (Such knee-jerk happens to females in other contexts.) We're still subject to many illusions from the same Victorian age mentality that deemed wolves "bad" and that killing them off was an environmental good.
- yaddayadda 13y ago
  I'm disappointed that there's a "Men's Rights" movement. My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. For example, feminists support a boy who wants to play with dolls or a father wants to be a stay-at-home parent. I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!
  - s_baby 13y ago
    >My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. That's an idealization that's not congruent with the historical culture and behavior of many feminists. Up until the 80's feminism was heteronormative and transphobic. In fact, transphobia is still a huge problem in the community.[1] These are just the more concrete examples. For most of its history feminism has been a straight white upper middle class movement. The perspective of those not fitting this demographic have been marginalized within feminism at some point. >I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place! Masculism was started by a group of feminists who were kicked out of National Organization for Women(N.O.W) for advocating equal custody in divorce. Gender Studies is inclusive in theory but not in practice. 1. https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+transphobia https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+transphobia
    - yaddayadda 13y ago
      I was raised in the 70's and am FTM. I can't speak definitively for the movement at the time, but my mother was absolutely aware of MTFs and was fully supportive. She was aware of MTFs because of women's studies classes, and her definition of feminism came from those same classes. So there was at least a sizable feminist subset that subscribed to that definition. Frustratingly, FTMs still weren't widely acknowledged, and while she was supportive she chalked what I said about myself up to being a tom-boy, while trying to stay open to the possibility that there could be FTMs.
      - s_baby 13y ago
        I hear what you're saying. Let me show you how it looks from my perspective. Imagine if the History department had an aggregation of white supremacists. They were allowed to have their own department, their own academic journals, and even held positions of power like Dean. Would their more inclusive peers not hold some responsibility in enabling these bigots? I know you're pointing out the good side of gender studies but you're also being apologetic and enabling radicalized feminism. Every feminist and their mom is quick to point out how feminism is inclusive whenever this discussion comes up. Very few of them actually stand up to transphobia, misandry, and countless other forms of bigotry in their circles.
adamnemecek 13y ago
Sounds a bit like child abuse. And when I say a bit I mean a lot.
- phaer 13y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - adamnemecek 13y ago
    "... couple that forces their boy to ..." Is that sufficient?
    - phaer 13y ago
      Depends on what 'forces' means exactly in this case.
    - sjtrny 13y ago
      "...eat their vegetables" is that abuse?
      - adamnemecek 13y ago
        Do you really want me to explain to you why those are different scenarios? Would you think that it's child abuse if the parents made their kid wear a gimp suit with a gag ball? Also would you think it was abuse if they made the kid undergo some hormone therapy?
        phaer 13y ago
        You don't need me to explain to you why your examples are completely different scenarios than letting your (male) child play with dolls or wear dresses, right? Please find some better examples if you are interested in a constructive discussion and you are not on some kind of crusade about your idea of parenting.
        13y ago
phaer 13y ago
> Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male". I am sorry, I don't see how that would be the same as "denying any difference between men and women". Do you really think, or even have proof which shows, that playing with dolls or wearing dresses is biologically, not socially, "male"? A lot of clothing conventions for males in past centuries would pass as "female" today. Until the late 19th century it was common for small boys to wear dresses, see [1] for an example. Besides, I myself played with dolls as a small boy and as far as I can tell did take no harm. That might be different if those boys grow up around homophobic people who bully them for playing with dolls or wearing dresses. [1]: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-st...
- s_baby 13y ago
  If it's wrong to force traditional roles/identities onto those with a "queer" predisposition then the opposite is also true.
  - phaer 13y ago
    That's true, I'd oppose it if they really force the boy against his wishes to wear dresses, etc. But that's not clear from what I read because it's often described as 'forcing' when parents buy non-traditional toys and cloths for their children. So I'd need more context to say something about the described case. Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference. Does someone have recommended readying about that?
    - phaer 13y ago
      A response would be even more appreciated than a down-vote ;)
    - s_baby 13y ago
      >Personally I am not really sure if there even is something like a predisposition for sexual preference. A) Queerness and sexual preference aren't equivalent ideas. B) Saying something is a predisposition is saying it's a product of nature+environment. There are clear cases of socialization(Greeks, Papua New Guinea). On the other hand the drive to procreate is pervasive, overpowering, and considered nature. C) I don't downvote. But I imagine it's because this thread is orthogonal to the dialogue.

stcredzero 13y ago

Unfortunately, the line between nature and nurture isn't delineated by mathematical sets, any more then the membership of a particular rock to North or South America. How do we remove something we can't cleanly delineate? The answer is pragmatically, but while holding to our other principles. If you wish to find oppression, after following the money, note who is silencing those who are tolerant and sincerely wish to trade in ideas and the truth.

AutoCorrect 13y ago

It's a complex situation, one we're not going to resolve any time soon, if ever. I believe (and it's just from my observations) that the cultural 'oppression' grew out of very real biological differences. But as our population has grown, the reasoning behind the gender roles has lessened in importance to us for survival as a species. There may yet come a time when the roles are again needed, but for now at least, it's time to relax and let people be who they want to be.