[quote=CA renter]
ZK, these parental behaviors ARE explicit, but it doesn’t mean that everyone will notice them, especially if they think that these beliefs and behaviors are “normal” and socially acceptable.
[/quote]
I notice sexism all the time. I notice misogyny when I see it, too. I have a daughter. And when she was born, I was quite concerned with how society would treat her. I still am. I think the objectification of women is rampant. My first facebook post was about a feminist champion doing great things for the cause of women. (In fact, other than pix of vacations that my wife posted, and a few posts about my favorite baseball team, that’s my only facebook post.) So I’m actually on your side in general. I’m a feminist who is pretty sensitive to how women are treated. But I’ve never noticed any of the types of examples you’re talking about. The discussion isn’t whether there’s misogyny out there. Of course there is. But the manifestations you’re talking about just aren’t there, especially to the extent that you see them.
[quote=CA renter]
Why is guiding girls to pink things sexist while guiding boys to blue things not necessarily sexist (though I don’t agree with guiding kids to or from anything based on gender)? Because there is no stigma to liking blue. Why? Because it is the color of power and prestige between the sexes. Nobody will chastise a girl for picking up a blue piece of paper or blue paint, but they will most definitely chastise a boy for using pink. That’s because the things that are deemed “feminine/submissive” are considered inferior.
[/quote]
Blue is the color of power and prestige between the sexes? You say these things like they’re facts. You’re imagining things.
[quote=CA renter]
And the fact that you think that it’s rare for a parent, teacher, etc. to rip a pink piece of paper out of a boy’s hand shows that you are not paying attention, which explains why you don’t see the very explicit and obvious sexism and misogyny in our society. This type of behavior happens every day, all day long.
[/quote]
Or it shows that you’re imagining it. I say it only seems explicit and obvious to you because of your glasses. Again, I’m not talking about sexism. I’m not talking about misogyny in general. I’m talking about parents and teachers commonly segregating children for fear of feminizing boys. And teachers/parents commonly ripping pink away from boys because blue is powerful and pink is weak. You’re imagining those things.
[quote=CA renter]
While males and females have different gender roles because of their biological/reproductive roles, these differences are not nearly as dramatic as you seem to think they are. Sexuality and gender roles, like most things in life, lie on a spectrum. One side has a higher concentration of males, while the other has a higher concentration of females, but there is a lot of overlap in the grey area between the two, with some males going way out on the far end of the “female” side of the spectrum, and some females on the extreme side of the “male” end. Every individual is different.
[/quote]
I concur with all of that, except the part about “not nearly as dramatic as you think they are.” I think there’s a spectrum, and that both genders are sprinkled throughout the spectrum. But I think it’s a very wide spectrum, with all but the part near the middle populated mostly by one gender or the other.
[quote=CA renter]
And you keep asking about why *I* think that exposing boys to girls will feminize the boys. It should be more than clear, based on all of my posts, that this is not how I feel at all. This is the assumption and belief that I am fighting against; I am on the opposite side of that argument. I’m calling out the people who do this.
[/quote]
Ok. You claim that “the ultimate goal in every case is to keep their sons from becoming ‘feminized.’” How do you know that? Has one of the parents, in every case, told you this? Or did you imagine it? Or did you assume it?Since this happens all the time, let’s get some information. Next time it happens, ask the parent doing it why they think exposing Johnny to Susie will make Johnny more like Susie. Better yet, since you’ve seen so many examples of it, ask one of the parents you’ve seen doing it what they’re thinking. I think parents do all kinds of wacky things for all kinds of wacky reasons. And your upbringing-distorted mind twists many of those things around into sinister, misogynistic schemes.
[quote=CA renter]
And the reason why feminists have downplayed the differences between the genders is because they know, without a doubt, how these differences are often forced on people by society, and then these differences are exacerbated and amplified by a society that seeks to maintain one group’s position of power over other groups.
[/quote]
Dealing from a position of non-reality isn’t helping anybody. Reality (differences between the genders) has to be acknowledged by anybody wanting to be taken seriously.
Again, you’re trying to have it both ways. You say,
“Do you honestly think that the orientation of our reproductive organs makes us more inclined to want to shop or get our nails done or play/watch football or go fishing or play golf? Really?”
as if the orientation of our reproductive organs is the main difference between the sexes. And you say,
“What you see as “natural” gender-based behavior is due almost entirely to socialization,”
as if there’s minimal difference between the behavior of the genders.
And now you say that feminists have to downplay the differences between the genders. If they’re almost entirely due to socialization, what is there to downplay?
[quote=CA renter]
Even our economic and political systems — designed and reinforced by men — are set up to devalue the contributions of women and other minorities. What we call “low-skill” work is actually the most dangerous and distasteful work that has traditionally been done by people who were owned and/or controlled by men. The very valuable work that has traditionally been done by women has been accorded little to no prestige, and are some of the lowest-paid professions in our society. It’s not because this work is any less valuable than the work that men have traditionally done — after all, the human race would no longer exist without the women who carry out these tasks — but because our political/economic systems have been set up from the beginning to devalue this work and keep women and other minorities oppressed.
[/quote]
This is a tangent. What I’m arguing is that parents don’t segregate their children for fear of feminizing boys. And that teachers and parents don’t rip pink paper from boys’ hands. You’re obfuscating that issue by getting on a soapbox to rail against sexism and misogyny in general. Because you’re angry. Which, again, is getting in the way of you seeing clearly.
[quote=CA renter]
As for this quote:
[quote=zk]You missed my point entirely. My point was that the basis of insults for each gender is not proof of misogyny. And that you apparently need very little evidence to declare “proof” of misogyny.
[/quote]
Yes, the fact that the most insulting words/names in our society refer to the feminization/emasculation of men (in the case of men), or consist of disparaging references to a female’s anatomy or sexual behavior (in the case of women…and, sometimes, men) do indeed prove that misogyny is alive and well in our society. The fact that you can’t see this might help explain why you don’t notice sexism/misogyny, even when it’s entirely explicit and in-your-face.[/quote]
Just because you say it’s proof that misogyny is alive and well doesn’t make it so. You claim it’s fact, and then use the “fact” that it’s a fact to make your argument. It doesn’t work that way. In any case, I never said misogyny wasn’t alive and well. I said that the examples you cite as manifestations of misogyny are either nearly non-existent or aren’t due to misogyny.
[quote=CA renter]
“Bonobos are unique in that the migratory sex, females, strongly bond with same-sex strangers later in life. In setting up an artificial sisterhood, bonobos can be said to be secondarily bonded. (Kinship bonds are said to be primary.) Although we now know HOW this happens–through the use of sexual contact and grooming–we do not yet know WHY bonobos and chimpanzees differ in this respect. The answer may lie in the different ecological environments of bonobos and chimpanzees–such as the abundance and quality of food in the forest. But it is uncertain if such explanations will suffice.
Bonobo society is, however, not only female-centered but also appears to be female-dominated. Bonobo specialists, while long suspecting such a reality, have been reluctant to make the controversial claim. But in 1992, at the 14th Congress of the International Primatological Society in Strasbourg, investigators of both captive and wild bonobos presented data that left little doubt about the issue.
Amy R. Parish of the University of California at Davis reported on food competition in identical groups (one adult male and two adult females) of chimpanzees and bonobos at the Stuttgart Zoo. Honey was provided in a “termite hill” from which it could be extracted by dipping sticks into a small hole. As soon as honey was made available, the male chimpanzee would make a charging display through the enclosure and claim everything for himself. Only when his appetite was satisfied would he let the females fish for honey.
In the bonobo group, it was the females that approached the honey first. After having engaged in some GG rubbing, they would feed together, taking turns with virtually no competition between them. The male might make as many charging displays as he wanted; the females were not intimidated and ignored the commotion.”
——————–
[/quote]
The fact that there are clear gender roles in bonobo society makes my point for me. Nature provides gender roles. It provided them for bonobos, chimpanzees, humans, and most other animals.
[quote=CA renter]
Though I would argue that how chimpanzees, or other animals, relate to one another doesn’t necessarily apply to humans. Our ancestral lines diverged millions of years ago, and we have evolved to become very different animals.[/quote]
The point isn’t that the particular behaviors of other animals applies to humans. The point is that nature provided clear gender roles for all those animals, and it doesn’t make sense that humans would be an exception to that rule.
[quote=CA renter]
Back when my husband and I first got together, he thought I was full of it, too. Now, after having three daughters and living with me pointing things out to him, he’s become one of the greatest feminists around. The way girls and women are treated in our society really makes him angry. Once you start to look for it, it’s overwhelming, but these behaviors and beliefs are so much a part of our human existence, most people don’t even notice the depth and breadth of it. It’s more systemic than racism (also note how women obtained the right to vote and own property after black people did), is more global, and has a much longer history, so people excuse it as being “normal” or “natural.”[/quote]
[quote=CA renter][quote=scaredyclassic]
Dare mr. Car disagree?
I can tell you this. Things go a lot smoother when we agree with Mrs scaredy. As they say, you can be right. Or you can be married. But you can’t be both. I think that advice is generally understood to be directed at males attempting to argue with females.[/quote]
Sure, he disagrees with me about things all the time. But where sexism and misogyny are concerned, he’s the one who will often come to me to discuss situations at work or he’ll bring up a situation that has happened with the kids, etc. He notices it on his own these days.
FWIW, I would never want to be married to someone who agrees with me all day long. I just want someone who is able to back his positions with facts and logic, with a little bit of emotional reasoning to smooth out the rough edges.[/quote]
When you’re married, your battles should be chosen carefully. When your spouse is sensitive and angry about something (that doesn’t directly affect your marriage), which, it seems clear to me that you are on this issue, that’s a battle best avoided.
