It’s time for the annual discussion about the lack of women in the Australia political blogosphere.
But with all the talk about how women are doing political blogging – they just aren’t being recognised – why is the question never: why are so many women avoiding the men of the political blogosphere? As I wrote over there in response to the suggestion that Crikey create a Double X style blog for women:
Women are blogging about politics in very high numbers now, it’s just that they are being ignored or not counted as “political”. A new women’s blog won’t stop that, it will only help reinforce the reasons many women don’t feel welcome in the more male-dominated commenting spaces if a new space is created just for them; and I doubt it will bring in any of the blokes who’ve been ignoring the huge number of female bloggers who already exist.
My feeling is that the number one reason women either stay away from the hard politics blogs or don’t identify as women on them is the sexism that they frequently encounter, whether from unfair and irrelevant comments about their appearance, their “shrill” and “angry” tone, and the dismissal of women’s experience, to the more apparently benign but still as frustrating sense that women are “above” that sort of thing that makes them feel judged as being unwomanly if they appear to enjoy it.
The women aren’t missing from the political blogosphere. If there are men here who are noticing their absence from wherever you are, then perhaps the more relevant question is why they are avoiding you and the places you go.
I suppose we lawbloggers don’t count by Crikey’s metric. Not that law and politics have anything to do with each other… nothing at all
Ugh, a separate “women’s”, like that hasn’t been done before in the MSM. And then they stick in a lot of fluff about fashion and diets and pop psychology and “lifestyle” because women can’t stand to bother themselves eith the “hard issues”. Same shit, different day. No thanks.
Why bother trying to discuss an issue with a bunch of fellas who [mostly, not all of course] have no real understanding or sympathy with what half of the population of Australia have to put up with on a daily basis?
Easier to go to one of the many sites where women can discuss matters without having to explain in simple baby steps that which has been explained umpteen times before.
Where there is a commonality of experience and understanding and knowledge and women don’t have to put up with inanities and snark.
Women, well lots of them, are loth to post here for the same reasons I have absolutely no interest in going to read or comment at Blair or Bolt or watch the footy show on 9 [despite being a footy fan].
Those that do come here, such as Anna, are pushing shit uphill being they start against entrenched male myths [have I got that right Anna?] and prefer to have intelligent informed discussion eleswhere rather than run the barrage of being called feminazis, lacking a sense of humour, getting some perspective, and just to give an example the person on the other computer right now has just said “My dictionary does not recognize the word ‘familicide’.
I think it’s true that a lot of the political stuff women write isn’t recognised as being political. I’d give a shout out to Helen’s blog as another political blog by a woman. And no, I don’t want a special little space for me.
Just a minor gripe, Anna. It’s my cinema studies background showing, but the ‘male gaze’ has quite a precise meaning which is about audiences’ relationship with the cinematic apparatus (as it was called) and I wince a little when I see it used as a catch all phrase to do with the absence of women. Neither is it about the way men look at women, for that matter. Anyways, don’t want to derail, but I needed my little moment of whinge.
Anna, I can only tell you why I asked the question I did.
And that’s simply because however one wants to define politics, wherever I go males seem to outweigh females in the blogging stakes on the numbers. Hence, if that result came about because of my surfing patterns, I asked what those blogs were so I could give them a bit of exposure from my traffic that they might not ordinarily get.
On something slightly different, but related – does anyone know of a hard politics mag in the US aimed squarely at a female market that wasn’t or isn’t filled with the fluff that Helen mentioned?
I regret the disparity from both a social and a purely selfish perspective, the latter being that I feel the lack of a hell of a lot of comment (some of which would have been of immense value to me and society at large).
However, I can’t help but think that Anna Winter’s point suggesting “…if they’re not here then it’s obviously your fault, you farting fighting barbarians!” might not be a goer. Even if it does have some truth in it…
hannah’s dad, you’ve just made me realise that women feel the same way about most blokes as most of us here feel about climate change deniers, and for the same reason.
Hannah’s dad – while I understand and support the need for female spaces, for all the reasons you suggest, for me it’s not enough. It’s why I didn’t see “stop listening to commercial/Triple J radio” as an adequate response to the Hottest 100 thing; why I don’t see slash as an adequate response to the lack of women in science fiction writing etc. and why I don’t see women’s blogs as an adequate response to them being unwelcome or ignored on male dominated ones. Important, but not enough.
Fine – I understand your issues; I have the same ones when people uses philosophical terms in generic and innaccurate ways. But I found it a useful analogy for this type of discussion which almost always is about men’s perspective of where “the women” are and what they are doing.
Possum – I appreciate your comments and your post. I’m not saying you should stop doing it, but I am suggesting that people also consider the way the question is so often framed.
Well, yes, it IS time for the annual airing, how about that!
I couldn’t be bothered registering to comment at wherever it was that started off Round 1 2009. But I do have a theory about this. It’s a bit byzantine so I’m going to reduce it down to a set of remarks without specifying how they all link together.
* Feminism is politics.
* The personal is political. No really, it is.
* ‘Politics’ in the sense of Parliament, or Lateline, or the latest Opinion poll, is not bigger than gender. It is in fact structured by gender (along with a number of other identity categories.)
* Adversarial debate, and jostling for status, is gendered masculine (ie, ‘masculine’ stuff – like being ’strong’ – is valued, and what’s valued is then in turn more intensely coded ‘masculine’) and thus it’s not too surprising that women are less keen to do their political discourse and engagement this way – the fighting on blogs way – than men are.
* A key reason women mainly opt out of masculine hegemonic environments (eg Catallaxy, Club Troppo) is that in those places the simple fact of presenting as feminine marks you out as abnormal. It doesn’t much matter what you are actually talking about.
* In practice, the governmental-political discussions I have on the internet are had with women at least as often as they’re had with men. But, this place aside, they tend to take place in decentralised locations. I don’t think that’s an accident.
* Yes, I know these are generalisations, and plenty of women are just as into fighting on the internet as men are. And boy do I know it.
Finally: if you’ve been around for a while and you’ve paid attention to gender matters, you will have observed the withdrawal from political blogging of numbers of Australian women who made the eminently sane decision to walk away from harrassment thinly disguised as ’stoushing’. Other people here have pointed this out. I call it not so much a loss for the blogosphere as a win for the rest of the world.
Well said hannah’s dad.
Also when I venture to certain sites, and even parts of this one, it seems to me that an element of it is that many women probably feel that they have better things to do than engage in seemingly endless stoushes that some males revel in.
Yeah, Dave [can I call you Dave for short?] it only took me about 20 years of being constantly educated to wise up and I should not, of course, be presumed to be able to speak for women, its just my perception.
Possum,
I have recently taken to reading “Hoyden about Town”, full of politics and only a few blokes in sight.
Another good site is by someone who swears a lot, its called something like ‘fuck politeness’ or similar [I found it and lost it], its bloody brilliant and before I comment [after I find it again] there I will be ultra careful about what I say cos I’m kinda sentimentally attached to my male bits and I don’t want to lose them cos I accidentally or from decades of unconscious and unidentified socialization write something stupid.
In some respects I can see the point. The most popular/infamous political blogs are essentially exclusively written/operated by men.
My blog may not be particularly well known or popular but I like to think it is a good example of a female operated/written blog that deals with political issues.
Ultimately though, I don’t really think about gender and blogging that much. It’s more about the content and the quality.
I also see the male gaze at work. (Speaking as a male, seeing your own gaze reflected in your own gaze is rather recursive: just so you know, OMG IT’S FULL OF STARS).
…
Seriously though: there’s an importance difference to be drawn IMO between women bloggers and women in the comments fields; two utterly separate but mutually dependent fields in the blogosphere. As everyone’s been pointing out, there are stacks of women political bloggers already; the entry barrier to blogging these days consists really only of the energy a blogger needs to keep finding new things to write about. In comments fields on the other hand the entry barrier at good blogs is rightly higher and more social. Blogs with great comments fields tend to be the ones with—for lack of a better word for it—intimacy.
I mean, anyone can jump into the [submit comment] field and bash out whatever ignorant bunch of cock they can manage to type out with their footpath-scarred knuckles. Any blog can leave it to laissez faire and point to the inevitable sewerage as a virtue, but it takes a great deal more energy and skill to keep interesting, productive stoush going, and also requires a certain amount of militant moderation. The line between overmoderation and permissiveness of chauvinism can get pretty hazy, and it’s a considerable talent. I’m not sure than many bloggers, especially those set up at commercial sites, understand it at all.
Without wanting to dance the one-man suckhole conga, I’ll just say that lots of bloggers do it well. You know who you are.
Speaking for myself (a woman) I like to read what other women have to say about most political issues, probably more than what men have to say. This is because there are so few spheres including on general political blogs, not specifically feminist or run mostly by women, where it is possible to hear many women’s voices.
And I firmly believe women do have insights and knowledge men don’t because of their life experiences, the work they tend to do, books they read, the different perspectives they have because of the nature of the family and personal relations they enjoy. Because of the way they view the world.
But when a blog such as LP has relatively few women commenting and when they often get drowned out or pushed out by the big loudmouth males who hog the threads or give them a hard time if they’re perceived to be square pegs in round holes, for what ever reason, or because their overt feminism offends – and this then drives women away, or means even fewer women then want to comment – well it becomes a bit circular.
Women then don’t comment because they can’t see women commenting or can’t hear those other female perspectives they look for and enjoy reading.
Another possibility that occurs to me is that the female demographic that is drawn to comment on political blogs is probably less diverse than men for the reason that men may seek community and friendship on even political blogs in a way that women don’t so much because women in general are more likely to have more than enough “communities” and friends than they can functionally deal with. Of course, the virtually all-female communities of feminist blogs can serve as a satisfying community for women in a way that the male-dominated blogs don’t and can’t.
Reminds me of a great line a female friend of mine used a couple of times when a man said told her “he just wanted to be friends”. Her response was thanks, but no thanks, I’m doing just fine for friends. A man who genuinely meant that might not often see it the same way because they simply do – in general – have less close friends than women. For many men the only close friend they have to talk about anything and everything is their wife or female partner.
Possum Comitatus at #10, your comment there shows you haven’t really grasped what Anna’s said – “If there are men here who are noticing their absence from wherever you are, then perhaps the more relevant question is why they are avoiding you and the places you go.” If there are fewer women at a blog than the blogger would like (and good on him for that, seriously, if it’s the case), then the remedy is unlikely to be making sure women bloggers know how to find his place or whatever.
It’s because there is something about the blog that excludes women. I would suggest, if any male bloggers who want to have conversations with both genders are reading this, then a good start would be to have a think about what distinctions like ‘hard’ and ’soft’ politics actually mean. And what is ‘fluff’.
It’s because of the idiots.
As usual Ms Zoe sums it all up in as few words as possible!
@ hannah’s dad – FP is in the Hoyden’s blogroll.
You never get dressmaking bloggers whining ‘but where are all the man dressmaking bloggers?’
Kindof.
Last comment for a while (I have to go teach a class about a 1930s novel set 700 years after the Nazis won WWII, where women are kept in cages and regarded as lower than animals) but Jake at #12, what do you mean when you say your blog is female operated/written? On your ‘About’ page you say you “I am a young libertarian Aussie male.”
Ta Mindy,
Isn’t it a great site!
As is Hoyden.
Sorry, by “less diverse” female demographic, I meant also that women who do regularly comment on a blog like LP, i.e. a fairly macho male-dominated blog with a diversity of regular male commenters, may be attributable to the fact that they are women who as well as having political interests they like to express do seek community in blogspheres, because unlike many/most other women they spend a fair chunk of time on their own or own the computer because they work from home, they’re studying or writing in one way or another, they have the luxury of paid jobs that allow them to write comments on blogs, they are childless and/or their partners work quite different hours. One friend I know blogs a lot a night, e.g., because she works 9am-5pm but her partner’s regular shift is 3pm-11pm, five days a week.
You have fun then, Laura…
And just remember: if it’s not perfect, it’s someone else’s fault!
And that’s simply because however one wants to define politics, wherever I go males seem to outweigh females in the blogging stakes on the numbers.
Hmm, Possum, I note in your post you seem to semantically confuse women *commenters* with women *bloggers*. And saying that men ’seem’ to outweigh women is a rather subjectively-laden statement. Certainly, the blogosphere doesn’t seem that way to me!
Also from your post:
We have Kim and Anna over at LP as a group blog, while Tigtog and Lauredhel at Hoyden touch on politics occasionally and do it well – but where are the dedicated Australian political bloggers of the likes of Wonkette or Pandagon that we see in the US?
Sounds to me perilously close to saying ‘if we ignore these examples of political women bloggers, where are the political women bloggers’ – I hope not, the argumental flaw is obvious.
It’s because of the idiots.
Perhaps we need a proactive strategy to recruit more women idiots to the Australian blogosphere to even up the idiot numbers.
Then again, as those familiar with the contributions of Birdy at Catallaxy would know, proportional idiot representation is not always necessary. Sometimes, one idiot can make all the difference.
Laura,
I think you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said.I’m not trying to make *my* blog more visible to females, but to make Australian female political blogs more visible to my audience.
hannah’s dad,
is this the one you were thinking of?
http://fuckpoliteness.wordpress.com/
TimT,
I was actually talking about both – in that the imbalance seems to exist in the numbers of both comments and authors in the general political blogosphere. Far from ignoring the few examples, a few is still a *comparative* few.
I blame Gen Y.
Laura #20 Ahh yes good point. It was originally something of an in joke as a play on the old definition of man from when my blog was infinitely obscure as opposed to its current ‘ridiculously’ obscure. It wasn’t until later that the history of man and male are separate ruining the joke, necessitating amendment.
I of course promptly forgot about the entire thing anyway until you just brought it up (I must take more care with my blog). Shalt be promptly fixed, thanks for pointing that out.
Possum, yep, ta.
Possum. Stop calling women “females”. That sort of shit is a good part of the reason that comment threads feel unwelcoming to women. It’s othering language, and it makes it very clear that deep down you regard women as being in a separate category to your default, men.
That’s why I don’t have much to do with the political blogosphere: I would rather speak with people who don’t have to remind themselves I am a person.
Jet, someone said the same thing over at the thread on Pollytics and Anna disagreed.
So which is it?
Females? Women?
Ultimately, since I do a blog that deals clinically with statistics and demographics and whatever I call females/women will cause disagreement, I may as well use the same terminology that’s used in the polling, census, and any other data repository.
If I’m going to get in trouble, I may as well do it consistently!
Possum, I actually hate the word ‘female’. It’s something quite visceral, so I can’t give you an explanation. It’s just that seems that men who think of women as aliens often seem to use it, when they’re trying to be polite. Not that that’s what you’re doing.
Fine – It makes me feel like something being described by David Attenborough. “The females are shy, but feed on leaves and small fruits.”
Of course, the virtually all-female communities of feminist blogs can serve as a satisfying community for women in a way that the male-dominated blogs don’t and can’t.
This is incorrect. Feminist blogs like Shakesville, Feministe and HAT all have regular and not so regular male commenters. Even Twisty, the terrifying radfem!! has regular male commenters. Norbizness is a regular there.
Clarification: “Female” is OK as an adjective, of course, it’s just its employment as a noun that gets up peoples’ noses. I notice it all the time in the media.
It’s also used by men who’ve had their heads figuratively torn off for saying lady, girl, etc etc, and leap to the as-technical-as-possible end of the verbal spectrum in terror, but I see where you’re at Fine & Jet. Somehow it sounds zoological in a way that ‘male’ doesn’t. OTOH “woman” probably only gets a pass because it’s not pronounced how it’s spelt.
hmmm, this may dilute the specific point being made in the OP, sorry, something occurred to me reading the post and the comments is that the inverse of this issue needs to be expressed as well, that ‘political blogs’ do ‘politics’. It is a certain genre of blog writing that has its own unspoken rules and wingnuttery. The more general point is that the ‘political blogs’ may not be political, in the sense of actually effecting change or reproducig the status quo or whatever, but they are very good at ‘politics’ as a discursive game. I find this game entertaining, not political.
Actual politics in my life happens elsewhere, and often not on the blogs I read every day. Normally I have to search for it and sometimes it is not online at all. I am talking about seeking out certain bits of information or commentary about an issue that is directly affecting my life, someone else close to me, or whoever it is I care about. I need to go search for this to access it because often it is information or whatever that is not part of my daily existence. The information is used as leverage in a situation to multiply the effect of my (or our) capacity action to produce a certain outline.
Now, to get back to the OP, I am not sure what is actually being asked here. Why do men who participate in the political blogosphere not engage with female/feminine/women-run blogs? Or we need more female/feminine/women-run blog writing that covers specific issues that relate to actual politics of being female/feminine/woman?
The stoush above about the naming of the missing gender is typical of the discursive games I am talking about. My apologies to my post-structuralist colleagues, but this is not politics; it is bourgeois entertainment. Not all discursive battles are entertainment. Helping or supporting a woman to help determine how she is referred to in a sexist workplace is political. I think some people get caught up playing at politics like a kind of fancy dress which they are affectively invested in. Commenters express their attachment to certain debates or whatever, and don’t need them resolved or even properly addressed. Ok, this is a game, not politics.
Can you clarify what is meant by ‘political’ Anna? Is it qualitative/qualitative? Crikey is just talking raw numbers and their initial post seems like a marketing exercise more than anything.
What Helen said. Female blogger, but women who blog.
I don’t have a copy of Dale Spender’s Man made language to hand, but what I recall vaguely, fuzzily, is that the appropriate equivalents are lord / gentleman and lady, man and woman, male and female. Using “lady” instead of “woman” is othering, putting women on a pedestal, being hyper-polite in language, but ignoring the real world inequalities to which women are subject. A “woman” is a full adult equivalent of a man, but really, a bit of a scary term to use, because the speaker in using it has to treat women as adults. It can also have sexual overtones (I think… this is getting very fuzzy now). So speakers can feel uncomfortable using the term, because they feel both impolite, and threatened. “Female” is often used as a substitute, but as Helen says, it turns women into some sort of specimen to be examined by fascinated zoologists.
I loathe “female” as a noun. Do me a favour, and refer to me as the adult woman that I am.
Interesting questions, Glen. This is one of those posts where I’ve found a problem rather than plenty of answers though, so I’m not sure I can really answer them. I’m mostly pointing out that whole debate itself is often framed as men asking why the women aren’t there with them, rather than what are the women doing instead (perhaps it’s because then they might have to admit she’s cleaning their house while he blogs?) or what are he’s doing wrong to make them go elsewhere on the internet? It all seems like a way to conveniently erase anything that men need to change.
Actually, I feel much the same way about being referred to as a ‘male’.
Nothing I can really put my finger on, but it feels like an adjective being misused as a noun.
Like ‘illegals’, it’s just dehumanising.
One of the reasons it doesn’t much matter what you are actually talking about is that if you read enough threads on enough group blogs for long enough, you begin to realise that a very large number of male participants in the discussion simply do not read the comments made by women.
Clrl nn wnts blgsx, nd th lsbn-dmntd chck blgs sh frqnts wn’t pt t. ss chck blgs r ppltd b blr-std scnd rt ntllcts. nn wnts th crm nt th crdl. Y G Ht Grl.
[image inserted by moderator ~ tigtog]
I think that they said it all in “that 70’s show” the other night. “Girls don’t know how to play fight”. Thinking out loud, open thought building, and hyperthetical role playing, all lead to a minefield of hurt feelings far too rapidly when bipolar egos come to the party. That is not to say that women are bipolar, but feminism is.
No idea bilb
female is reductive to biological sex. Woman is the term for the social human being which I believe is what we’re concerned with here.
Glen point taken. I do think it’s fair to say in reply though thatif political blogging is a sport, it’s still generally practised like rugby league or graeco roman wrestling rather than netball, or dressage.
I’ve taken to affecting a Ferengi accent and asking “do you mean hoo-man females?” when someone around me uses “female” as a noun.
Doesn’t make a blind bit of difference, but I don’t think I’ll stop doing it.
Possum I know you weren’t asking why women don’t take part at your blog. For the record I think it’s perfectly ok for men or women to like blogging with whoever shows up regardjess of gender. The thing is there’s no point trying to direct traffic to woman bloggers. Traffic goes where it wants. And obvs your traffic is happier where it is.
More generally: you are asking questions which can’t be meaningfully answered outside feminism -that’s what makes gender visible, and gendering processes intelligible. So as long as you regard feminism as a niche interest quite separate from politics, you’ll continue to be puzzled.
Hyperthetical, adj.: overrun by thetans.
Sorry, just play-fighting.
This is incorrect. Feminist blogs like Shakesville, Feministe and HAT all have regular and not so regular male commenters.
Since it’s wish list time and without wanting to give offence. I think the point I’d agree with here is that many women yes want to read much more from women on political blogs but we don’t necessarily want to be hived off to feminist blogs that may or may not have lotza regular male commenters.
I look at almost no feminist blogs regularly, mainly because of competing attractions blog-wise. But more, I don’t want to hear exclusively women’s voices either commenting on things from a feminist perspective. I totally accept that feminist blogs fulfill a need and are very valuable. But what I and possibly many other women want – if they’re dissatisfied as I am with what’s on offer – who don’t frequent feminist blogs for the reasons I mentioned, is a broad ideally leftish political blog full of diverse voices, including proportionately those of half the human race and where women commenters if they should offend the boundary policing male rulemakers don’t get treated like the cyber equivalent of a piece of excrement.
If the content of someone’s remark is jettisoned in favour of obsessing over what they might have meant by the word “female”, then how the hell are you treating them? There is nothing wrong with using male and female as nouns, as long as they are used consistently. A person who uses English differently from you is not necessarily eager to reduce you to a zoological specimen or an alien. And your preference is not necessarily any more valid than theirs…
Nick, I suppose Trekkies might come across non-human female bloggers & commenters more often than the rest of us. “Hoo-man”? Sure you don’t sound more like a seppo talking in a funny voice?
PS- Netball = Civilised? Tosh…
PPS- Isn’t Ferengi an old Arabic/Farsi word for Westerner?
Dressage
Sorry, you just don’t get many opportunities to use that clip. As you were.
“A person who uses English differently from you is not necessarily eager to reduce you to a zoological specimen or an alien. And your preference is not necessarily any more valid than theirs…”
Sentence #1 – spot on.
#2 – not so much. How I wish to be referred to is more important than what you think I should be called. It’s axiomatic in any situation calling for diplomacy.
Helen@34: Bitch, PhD is yet another woman-with-opinions blog with the odd male commenter. One thing I have noticed is that the men in those places are much more polite than they are in generic blogs. Moderation is a bit part of that, and it does somewhat impede the flow. But it makes such a difference that it is I think worth it (but then, I’m not the one faced with the moderation task). The Hand Mirror goes that way and is very valuable IMO.
Pavlov@42 you begin to realise that a very large number of male participants in the discussion simply do not read the comments made by women.
For many of them it’s not just the female commenters that they don’t read. Many of them are just there to comment, often perilously close to trolling. Other times to participate in a race to the bottom. But then I get exposed to the sewers of NZ blogland a bit through other blogs.
There do seem to be a lot more male police in blogland than female. I mean men who spend a lot of time going around being actively hostile to any woman they can find who blogs or comments. The fact that they’re a small proportion of all men doesn’t matter – they’re there, they’re very active and they’re effective at shouting down anyone who comes to their attention.
#50 & #51 both add zero to the blog topic or the sum of human knowledge more generally.
Why did they post these men then post these comments on this thread?
sorry, train lurched – why did these men (obvs) post these comments…
I didn’t know you could post men on Larvatus Prodeo, anyway. It sounds like an exciting new blogging feature. I thought it was just comments you could post, but you can post men, too!
Is there a html tag for it, or something?
FDB made a reasonable and relevant point. Sir Bob provided us with entertainment.
Both of which add more to the thread than insults with no purpose.
Laura – let me ask another way.
The MSM has a rather solid proportion of females/women (cross out offending description) that focus on the electoral end of politics – Laura Tingle, Michelle Grattan, Lenore Taylor, Karen Middleton, Ashleigh Gillon, Annabel Crabb, Adele Ferguson, Janet Albrechtsen, Caroline Overington, etc as well as a bucketful more men.
Yet, when we look at the Australian political blogosphere that covers the *same issue spread*, what we find is that it seems to be even more heavily weighted towards males than the MSM is – which is what I found strange, particularly when the US has a pretty strong female political blogosphere that competes on the same issue spread as their MSM.
Do you reckon there’s something peculiarly Australian about the way female/women political bloggers here have largely chosen different areas of political interest to focus upon?
Anna Winter@55
I would suggest this is a big part of the problem at least on LP, possibly everywhere.
Women bloggers like Anna Winter who’ve joined up as part of a male-dominated collective routinely and habitually do not support other women even when they are under sustained male anti-women attack. They’d rather slight other women than offend the ruling male honchos like the idiot FDB and the derailing misogynist idiot with the red hair.
It Happens All the Time. Another reason women get worn down and driven off male dominated blogs.
e.g of regular commenters here only Adrian, a man, made the effort, or had the guts to defend Fran Barlow from the right-wing male pile on on the thread discussing Hiroshima.
wow talk about being late to the party…Laura @9 I never understood that comment (the personal is the political) until a women explained it to me slowly (I owe her) over the period of a year or so, yet remains one of the more enduring truths in any political debate IMO. For that reason alone any lack of female voices in almost any debate seriously detracts from the variety of viewpoints that might get canvassed. Men and women have different perspectives but the last time I looked there were as many women walking around as men so it seems sensible that debates and decisions should involve a similar equality. I don’t think segregation of men and women to their own little blogspheres either by design or default is particularly healthy, like sending naughty children to separate rooms and telling them they need to learn to play together!
females/women (cross out offending description)
neither one offends (well, not me anyway) but one makes me think you are uncertain how to use a dictionary. I can help with that. OED says:
FEMALE
A. adj. I. Belonging to the sex which bears offspring.
a little further on, after a lot of entries about pistils and stamens and electrical connectors &c &c, we find:
b. As a mere synonym for ‘woman’. Freq. in phr. the female of the species.
The simple use is now commonly avoided by good writers, exc. with contemptuous implication.
and also:
WOMAN
I. 1. a. An adult female human being. (The context may or may not have special reference to sex or to adult age: cf. MAN n.1 4 a, c, d.)
Possum, I think the answer to your question has got to do with the widespread acceptance of EO principles among creative classes especially the media in this country, and with the fact that Australian culture is gendered in different ways to American culture. We have our own special kinds of boys clubs here.
I also would hazard a guess that because we’re a significantly smaller community here in the AUstrlain blogosphere, the people without much interest in the available scrums don’t need their own big town squares to connect. We know where to find each other.
@Fine:
Years ago I dated a girl who once all but spat at me, insisting I should be ashamed – yes, ashamed – of my gender, by default for all the rotten things people with those disgusting penis things had ever done to upset women since the dawn of time. So in response to your queasiness about being called a “female”, I’ll thank you for refraining from describing my gender as “male”, as the connotations and memories I associate with that biased word are so demeaningly inhumane that I can’t see its usage as being anything other than an institutionalised misogynist attack against my person.
Phew!
Now that everyone who’s superficially offended has been offered a superficial apology, can we please get back to the point already?
I don’t have time right now to read all of the above responses – but for me, the misogynistic responses to anything vaguely feminist here at LP also warrants debate. I mean, are these guys from the left or just trolling? Some of them do write reasonable comments on other topics so you have to wonder what’s going on there in terms of their attitudes to women and women’s issues. DV seems to be a case in point, when it’s raised here you get guys posting about all these feral women who’ve done unspeakable things to the male of the species.
Astonishingly low bar on this thread for being labelled sexist/misogynist/rightist/troll.
I’m having trouble getting my big toes under it. Perhaps I have led a sheltered life…
** “Misogynist” should read “misandrist”. Thanks.
Jake, you wrote your name on the front page of your blog so I googled it: your facebook page also identifies you as a man, so um WTF.
In an interview Hannah Arendt objected to her host’s assertion that she wished to be influential. She said that influence was man’s word. That men sought to be influential. She merely wished to understand. Is the jockying for position, the predicilation for pissing contests part of the capacity to be recognized? A woman’s ego doesn’t require triumph hence not so mucn striving for recognition?
.
I’m not sure. But I do know that Martin Heidegger is listed in the philsophy books and Arendt not so much. And that that’s the opposite of what should be.
He appears to be one of the idiots.
Well, I meant Jake, but that’s the internet for you.
.
heh
Well, I meant Jake, but that’s the internet for you.
.
heh
Kersebleptes @62, perhaps pole vaulting is the answer?
Does it make a difference if toilets are labelled, Male/Female, Men/Women, Gentlemen/Ladies?
Sheesh, some things seem hardly worth arguing over…
Maybe there are less women on blog sites generally? Maybe it has something to do with them still having the lion’s share of work in the home – less time to blog? Not trying to start a fight here – just giving a possible neutral explanation for an apparent statistic, unrelated to interests or the behaviour on blog-sites.
Too Cool to Fight Feminist Ozblogger,
Muphrey’s Law strikes again!
“Astonishingly low bar on this thread for being labelled sexist/misogynist/rightist/troll.”
Kersebleptes, I wrote “here at LP”. I was unambiguously referring to LP in general, NOT this thread.
Laquered Studio, you’ve proved my point. Thanks.
Lordy this one is sinking fast. I, too, wonder about the definition of political in this bloggish context. I do think, cf. Laura, the framing is somewhat of a problem, in that – as Helen also alludes – when we talk “political blog” it’s actually a cosign for a particular type of often male blog. There are plenty of political female blogs.
I would, however, be hesitant to take a gender imbalance on some blogs as necessarily concomitant with chauvinism, misandry, generalisations about the commenters, or their nature, etc.
OT, but Bat said:
“e.g of regular commenters here only Adrian, a man, made the effort, or had the guts to defend Fran Barlow from the right-wing male pile on on the thread discussing Hiroshima.”
If the comments had been made by Fred Barlow they’d have attracted scorn. The arguments were weak. Not sexist to point out their flaws.
Oh and something anti-feminist I wouldn’t wanna disappoint those who love to hate me.
I am not that fond of any classification of the human race,that I specialise on male company by visiting blogs.I came to a rapid conclusion about Anna Winters when the ALP was mentioned.The usual big wolfed mouth in a sad little lamb’s clothing.If you said something about the history of what is known as Israel today here,on the same matter,the accompanying parade of Israeli sympathisers would cry attack mode.I have cried real tears for Iraqi women and Palestinian women,no-one gave me permission to do so.To feel a gruff attitude by an Australian male because they wont tally your thoughts like you do yourself,isn’t weak,it is connivance.I will be a type of Bastard on Blogs,if I think some sort of reduction of me is taking place.After all one finger typing isn’t exactly as loud as I can get,and my throat singing practices with large trucks rolling through the hills here.. my location,would frighten the faint-hearted here,until they laughed.I collect ironing boards for somebody’s sake!
Is that one of ‘em stream of consciousness poems?
Elise – I just checked at Hoyden after Possum mentioning it in crikey today.
Wow, there were some claws out there because I commented to Poss that women (unless retired) may not be able to fit blogging in around working/family life. You have said the same thing above so watch out.
It’s a fact of life – most women have to juggle many things at the one time. Most of us enjoy doing that. The blokes are more one dimensional. Doesn’t mean we are less politically aware. In fact some of my most interesting and heated debates have been with women about comments I have seen on various websites.
Time constraint is probably the problem
mbgls s prsng Frn Brlw stll frm th thr thrd whr h wnt fr hr jglr t hr. Th mnd bggls t sch msgyn.
Possom, Tim T quoted you from your orig post ” but where are the dedicated Australian political bloggers of the likes of Wonkette or Pandagon that we see in the US?”
I think that a fair bit of the influence for this is ERA. The battle over the Equal Right Amendment during the seventies and eighties in the US produced hundreds if not thousands of organisations run for and by women that were designed to engage with all aspects of the polity, including and perhaps most importantly, the forth estate. After ERA was done and dusted many of these organisations found that they still had a funding base, so they had a stiff drink and got back to work. Many of them are still working.
Wonkette and Pandagon are part of that tradition.
Dont be silly JillianS. Ambigulous told you already it’s not about gender it’s about basic stupidity, and looking the thread over I can well believe it.
The housework explanation really doesn’t hold water because women certainly do blog and comment on blogs but not the ones considered to be political.
It’s not just a question of gender then, it’s genre as well. Not that you can really separate those, either.
Thinking about my own blogging, in the years when i did it properly (c.2005-2007?) I would often comment on the doings of the Canberrans but I’d seldom do it in the 700 word hardboiled op-ed style. Perhaps I’d tell a story about something seemingly unrelated and trust that readers with half a brain would make the connection. And they did.
I just thought I would gender-sterotypically ninja this link into the thread, then head on my hegemonic masculinising way.
Lr – Dnt b sll JllnS. mbgls tld y lrd ts nt bt gndr ts bt bsc stpdt, nd lkng th thrd vr cn wll blv t.
Wht n ppllngl ptrnsng, nsltng nd pthtcll nv thng t s. Frn’s pstn (wth whch whlhrtdl gr) jst ls hppns t b th bg stndrd (knwn s “rvsnst”) hstrcl pstn n ths ss tht’s xstd fr svrl dcds nd stll cnsttts th cdmc cnsnss glbll. mbgls cm n t LP cpl f yrs g nd rmmbr hs dbt vr wll. H’s tnd t dwn lt nw bcs thr r vr fw lftsts n LP bt h s whn prmptd n hystrcl nt-lftst lng th lns f hs mt, jpz nd Fydr. Tht’s wh h nd th ttckd Frn Brlw s vcfrsl lng wth th thr sl ml sspcts nd wh h jnd n th xclsvl ml rght-wng pl-n t Frn vr n th Strd Sln thrd. nt tht sh hs dspprd. Wll dn, LP.
I just realised that one of the key sentences in my comment above is nonsense (teach my to sneak in a blog comment when i have my editor breathing down my back!!!)
“The information is used as leverage in situations to multiply the effect of my (or our) capacity for action to produce a certain outcome.”
That is better.
/writer fail
Elise,
I’m up for anything. A bit of gumption, a run & a jump and I could reach the sunlit uplands where no-one cares about nouns and adjectives!
I’ll do it.
Why are there fewer women in the Australian politics blogosphere?
Isn’t it because not as many women are as interested in politics as men? If you look at health, craft, family history, gardening, spirituality, poetry etc etc blogs you find more women than men, in my experience. That’s where they are – they can’t be everywhere.
Laura, I can’t believe that you said that.
If you care to examine the thread in question, this much is clear:
1. The question on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is open to debate.
2. Fran Barlow argued from a perfectly reasonable position.
3. She was subject to concerted criticism from a number of right-wing male commentators, some of whom engaged with her in a personal and offensive manner. The fact that all the criticism came from male commentators may or may not have been coincidental.
4. The thread ‘evolved’ into the usual ‘witty’ interaction between the usual suspects and you tube clips and funny monickers that most might find amusing, but some find tiresomely predictable.
6. Fran stops commentating. Others of course can’t let it go.
5. You term Fran’s position one of basic stupidity.
Now if LP wants to evolve into a milder version of Catallaxy, or an ever so slightly left leaning Club Troppo, that’s fine, but please spare us the agonising over why you have fewer and fewer female contributors, or fewer contributors at all.
Russell @85: “That’s where they are – they can’t be everywhere.”
Good grief, we all seem to be indulging in generalisations.
I’m outa here…before I get nobbled too.
Oh goody, a nice old-fashioned “methinks she doth protest too much” stoush!
*slaps on sou’wester, bullet-proof codpiece, Geo. Trumper’s bay rum and designer condom “Armani’s “Rise”*
I agree with TimT @26. What the blogopsphere needs is more belligerent, blinkered, self-obsessed, ideologically smitten and socially maladroit lady commentators.
JillianS/JillS/Jinmaro/Woulfe/Posey/Phil is doing what she can here but she’s only six women.
Or perhaps not. As that lovable little minx Liam (don’t you just wanna pinch his cheek) observes, a lot of what this is about is how you manage and behave in online social spaces.
And women, whether through nature or nature or both, better understand that in such spaces, pain shared is lessened, joy shared, increased. Being surrounded by larger and often more violent members of the same species, they’re just generally better at understanding how and why cultivating civilized social interaction in all forms is an often necessary common good.
Whereas many blokes (looking at m’self here) just like to tussle. But when it doesn’t go the way we expect, then it’s interesting how many blokes turn into complete drama queens.
And discussing politics in particular is such a magnifying glass for such behavior for all concerned. Especially when so many of the major political issues in the West over the past century have revolved around the personal – from female suffrage to civil rights to abortion.
Perhaps Zoe@16 summed it up best. Unfortunately though solipsistic stupidity seems to be one resource we ain’t gonna run out of any time soon.
Mucho shorter Machokov: I’m just here for the smart and sassy dames. With guns.
Also:
“years ago I dated a girl who once all but spat at me, insisting I should be ashamed – yes, ashamed – of my gender, by default for all the rotten things people with those disgusting penis things had ever done to upset women since the dawn of time.”
U R doing it wrng! Man up man. You’re letting the side down here. Use your penis right and she’ll think men are fantastic. Ar least for 45 minutes.
Speaking of which, let me close with a song dedicated to certain commentators here now and to come.
Now I’m off to drink whiskey, smoke cigars and watch Dietrich ensorcel Jannings in “The Blue Angel”.
I wonder if a lot of the reason is that most blokes (including me, to be brutally honest) have to be right, even if their initial position is actually untenable.
“there are very few leftists on LP”
Arguments about the bomb aside, you and I must be livin’ on waaaaaay different planets.
“that most blokes (including me, to be brutally honest) have to be right, even if their initial position is actually untenable.”
“It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”
- Epictetus
Unchain my big comment you heartless female cold winter you.
“Russell @85: “That’s where they are – they can’t be everywhere.”
Elise, I meant that in the sense that none of us can be everywhere – we all have our long list of bookmarked blogs/sites, and visit the ones were most interested in, most often. I think, generalising, that women have different interests to men. When I worked in the State Library, surrounded by hundreds of magazines on racks, you could see clearly who was reading what. Never had a woman ask where the latest issue of Jane’s Defence Weekly was. Men think they should run the world so they need to know what’s going on, politically.
I’ve come across radical political discussions among craft bloggers, on craft blogs. Those political conversations involving women are happening, in a space where it’s safe to be female.
Yeah, yeah Machokov, the feminazi has freed you now.
Adrian @67 – I’m closer to the view Joan Kirner expressed in one of her books (Women’s Power Handbook, I think) which was “I’ve had both power and influence. Power is better.”
Russell @95, understand what you mean, but it is still a generalisation… and I’m still officially outta here!
Thank you for releasing my comment from captivity Air Vice-Marshal Winter.
In return you might enjoy this.
The line that gets me is “there are stories of enemy troops hearing singing as the silent aircraft passed overhead”.
““Hoo-man”? Sure you don’t sound more like a seppo talking in a funny voice?”
Um, no?
That really adds a fresh take Elise @ 71. I think that some f… w… ladies who blog, carry around a little much baggage to freely explore the ideas in play. It must be a little like getting around in a Elizabethan dress, perpetually needing to be careful to not tear the fabric, or get it dirty. Tripping off through the forest to find natures pearls? Not possible in an outfit 6 foot wide at the base.
Fling off that gown, leave the semantics and minutia behind, fuzz up a little and run freely see where it all leads, (this time).
I think that your point is valid, Elise, f… w… l… um… wives, and non wives, in my experience (mine aside) generally pay much more attention to detail, and, create and operate routines far better, than husbands and non husbands. Blogging is a ragged end that does not lend itself to neat closure. This leads to frustration, which would cause avoidance. That may be a deterent, and have something to do with it. Filtering out the less determined.
I think that some f… w… ladies who blog, carry around a little much baggage to freely explore the ideas in play. It must be a little like getting around in a Elizabethan dress, perpetually needing to be careful to not tear the fabric, or get it dirty. Tripping off through the forest to find natures pearls? Not possible in an outfit 6 foot wide at the base.
“I find your insistence on bringing up inconvenient reframing and centring things we like to ignore (’semantics and baggage’) inconvenient and a lot of hard work, so I’ll disparage it using a metaphor of female thought as a cumbersome, dragging thing.”
Disparaging is the point. Move back 3 paces.
In which I hate to point out, you participated, “stoush awards inc”, aka “you asked for it sans wit”.
To mangle at least one metaphor, we all of us are in the male gaze, but some of us are looking in the mirror.
That is another tendency that I think is not confined to blokes. I really like to be right and even if I stubbornly continue to think that I have a reasonable point, it stings when I have not convinced anyone else.
I blame language (not my lack of facility with language, no never that) for making it very difficult to maintain a discussion without it devolving into a fight to the death between polar opposites. And that can be wearisome.
BTW Bernice Balconey has the best analysis of the parallel imports furore that I have seen, is she on your blogroll Possum?
Is now Su!
Well said, su @105 — my recommendation of Bernice as a really exceptionally good and unaccountably oft-ignored (in these discussions) female blogger about, among other things, hard-core politix was a feature of one of the 20 or so comments for this thread that I wrote and then deleted last night.
And here’s one of the others:
You can’t have it both ways, Bat: hostile, aggressive, personal attacks on another woman in the name of female solidarity basically don’t make any sense. I know it’s the sign of a true ideologue to be able to hold two mutually exclusive correct lines at the same time, but it really just makes you look kind of stupid.
That’s in the nature of ideology, Dr Cat! It’s actually impossible to totalise but ideological thought always conjures up the illusion of a universal key or hermeneutic. And provides the concomitant blindness…
I question the entire premise to begin with.
How does Possum (or anyone else) know the gender of bloggers/commenters anyway? By admission? Or by an assumption based on the person’s handle?
I wonder whether there is a default “male” assigned to every person on the internet unless they have a specifically female name. Almost everyone would assume that “Christine’s Mega Politics Blog” was written by a woman, yet I also bet if it was just called “Chris’ Mega Politics Blog”, most people would assume it was written by a man.
I have a non gender-specific handle and I find it interesting that when I comment on issues like health, education, childcare, breastfeeding, rape etc comments in response assume that I am a woman; when I comment on politics, economics or science it is usually assumed that I’m a man…
Of course both Liam and Anna Winter are mates and members of the ALP Right so Anna Winter would support the Fran Barlow headkicking that Liam et al indulged on and the sustained attempt to derail the discussion about Hiroshima, without (how hypocritical is that??) any attempt by the moderators to enforce their own comments policy.
I’d call it realpolitik LP style.
Liam @ 104. Don’t really see how the fact that I made two light hearted comments on the thread in question invalidates my observation.
If you’re accusing me of hypocrisy then you obviously haven’t realised that if there was any (mild) criticism inherent in that point then it was obviously directed at me also.
I guess the point that I was trying to make is that that sort of behaviour on a thread, while amusing to many, can get exclusionary in the sense that people may feel that their serious observations are being trivialised. So it was in the context of the general feeling I had that a particular commentator was being unecessarily vilified. I find it pretty tedious in its predictability myself, but hey that’s just me. The STP clip was amusing though.
Getting back to the topic, I think much of this comes down to ego. Dare I say that too many male commentators in particular seem to have too much of their probably fragile ego invested in their on-line persona. This can lead to unecessary aggression that can put off other commentators.
Mind you, sometimes necessary aggression is called for. (Gives up searching for Greensleaves link. Interesting to see on another thread that even the super tolerant Jason Soon is tiring of Mr Greenfield).
Can we cut out the thread drift, and commentary about people’s practice, please?
I’ll delete any further such comments. And nonsensical claims about the impact of people’s supposed political affiliations (wrong in both instances) and their purported affect on their commenting styles are hardly helpful.
Look, to be frank, I don’t look at the blog on weekends. I haven’t as much glanced at that thread since, as I’m assuming it’s a train wreck. People have to realise that there are no full time moderators here, and a lot of us are much busier with work and other commitments than the people who spend all day stoushing are. It’s far too simplistic to start banging on about mods. Adults ought to be able to take some responsibility for what they themselves say, and be able to resolve conflict without an appeal to authority, or without personalising the discussion. Some self-moderation, in other words, might be in order.
Now I would very much appreciate it if this thread got back on topic. Thanks very much.
For my money the best female blogger in Austalia by a long shot is Alison Croggan.
While she mostly writes – exquisitely and passionately – about theatre and related arts, she usually manages to inject a broad humanism, social concern and consciousness into her writing which in turn is usually very much in tune with contemporary political issues, history and philosophy all of which constitutes a rich and satisfying brew and is, dare I say it, inspiring – and nourishing – to read.
Her blog, theatrenotes, also attracts a classy group of thoughtful, decent and informed commenters and her comments back to even antagonists always attempt to engage not slam down in the way favoured too often by men and some women bloggers.
Adrian, which were Fran’s serious observations about the contested topic, as opposed to her totally bogus uninformed conspiracy-theory ones?
Honestly, the idea that women should defend other women at all costs is pathetic. It’s just gender supremacy turned upside down from the usual configuration.
“How does Possum (or anyone else) know the gender of bloggers/commenters anyway? By admission? Or by an assumption based on the person’s handle?”
Well, unless we’re assuming that anyone commenting on child-rearing must be a woman, by same way we know people’s genders in any other arena – by how they present themselves. Either by the name or what they say. I present as feminine – online, the name is a clue – so I would be pretty annoyed if anyone said they thought I might be a man. They’d be calling me a liar.
Gender is pretty much constructed, anyway. Did you see today’s news story about the athlete who’s going to be invasively tested to see if she’s ‘really’ female – apparently anyone who’s that good at running, and who doesn’t look feminine, is unlikely to be female. I assume they’re going to test all the other people who ran in that race, too, to see if they’ve got all their glands and chromosones in the approved order.
Sorry mark, my last comment was about all the things you rightly pointed out were off-topic. Delete it and this one.
Oh, and if anyone (including those who constantly adopt different monikers) wants to indulge in meta, then I understand that Catallaxy generously hosts regular discussions of what goes on here. As indeed one of the people who falls into the constantly morphing category knows well.
Laura #66
It’s a collaborative project now, if when I said ‘my blog’ earlier the implication was personal ownership that’s not what I intended, sorry for that. It’s my blog in terms of association not ownership.
When you say male though, are you talking about sex or gender?
Laura, if you don’t mind, I might leave it there because I think this is an on topic point:
As are your remarks about presentation of self and gender.
Laura, at the risk of offending Mark, I’ll just say that I nowhere suggested or implied that ‘women should defend other women at all costs’, which I agree is untenable.
I would hope my point was wider than that, but perhaps it’s best left for another time. Or forgotten about altogether!
It was Bat’s comment #59 I was thinking of Adrian. Not about you.
Jake, you need to try a bit harder than that I’m afraid.
Well I think it is for me to define but I understand that to be a very minority view. Nothing I’m going to get insulted over though, so yeah no hard feelings.
I’ve just been reading the defo/comments thread and it strikes me there’s another reason why women don’t show up so much on “hard” (!) politix blogs. Such blogs — even just such discussions — often attract an unfair share of hostile, abusive nutters and stalkers. When these people interact with women they almost inevitably do it in a way that is at the very least humiliating, often vomit-making and sometimes frightening.
Further to trying to guess male/female handles. Seems like a waste of time. However, surely there is something to be said for authenticity? Whether in person or online?
If someone is consistently authentic and means what they say, it would save a lot of second-guessing, suspicion and misunderstanding, and would conversely help trust, wouldn’t it? Presumably that is a desirable outcome?
For example, are the frequent criticisms of pollies using “spin” partly a complaint about lack of authenticity? Disparaging remarks about “Kev the Builder” and his phony ockerisms could be a similar complaint.
Continually changing “handles” or masquerading as the opposite sex may be amusing for psychological analysis of people’s responses, but is patently unauthentic.
For example, someone who went online by the name of ABBA for years (on a now-defunct blogsite) finally confessed (when the blogsite was closing down) that he was a man and enjoyed confusing people with gender issues. He obviously thought it was clever. Does it say something about his approach to the world? Manipulative, perhaps? Takes all types I suppose, but would you trust anything he said subsequently?
Sort of on topic:
I think Saturday Salon is the perfect place for long stoushes and the inevitable lighthearted youtube link game that follows, but it always pains me when I see a thread on feminism polished off that way. I find it trivialising and I was glad to see that the Kyle/JackieO thread did not end that way.
It’s an interesting discussion, Elise. I think it depends on how someone plays with their gender. There’s a difference between choosing not disclose something and pretending to be something you’re not.
I think a certain morphing commenter is proof that it’s not as easy to pretend to be someone you aren’t on the internet as the warnings would have us believe. So if someone did successfully fool a lot of people into believing something important then it would absolutely feel like a betrayal of trust.
But then the other issue is when male is assumed to be the default until stated otherwise (or female if it’s a pro-feminist comment or discussion of a “female issue”). Because there are also some discussions – I would put psephology in that category – where gender probably just doesn’t matter, so the misunderstandings can’t then be put down to commenters “lying” about their gender.
PC #123,
That has certainly been my experience and one of the reasons why I limit my reading to lurking at those blogs and comment only very occasionally, if at all. The highly competitive tit-for-tat that inevitably eventuates at those places is very off-putting in my view.
chinda63 went:
“How does Possum (or anyone else) know the gender of bloggers/commenters anyway? By admission? Or by an assumption based on the person’s handle?”
I see the email addresses of them as Crikey requires registration before commenting. Most of those addresses are of the form Mary.Smith@someisp.com
And sure, while “on the internet no one knows you’re a dog” is true – it’s not that true. Especially if your readership is of a type that finds no need to have a dedicated gmail account for their blog commenting activities.
Jake the Muss #122;
Do I understand that you’re queering gender, being fluid with your gender presentation? If so, why state so definitively on your blog and on Facebook that you are male while stating that you are female here? That doesn’t look fluid, it just looks inconsistent (and I can understand that the perception of inconsistency may well be part of the problem of rigid genderisation that genderqueering challenges) – surely you can see why people are confused.
On some threads it wouldn’t be of so much interest. But you made it of interest in this thread, especially as it’s hardly any surprise that you’re not counted as a female blogger when your blog bio says that you are male.
Gender should have no bearing at all on many, if not most, issues, as long as the discussion is based on what is “real”. I’m sure someone has said that above.
Hi Tigtog,
Yeah much of what you said is quite true and I understand the confusion which is why I said earlier that the reaction was no surprise and no big deal to me. The distinction of the blog being female that I originally made is definitely separate to that though. That’s female in the sense of woman.
BilB@130: Well, that’s feminism dismissed in one fell swoop! Genius!
*Disappears in puff of smoke, leaving ground frozen over*
The comment, The Groke @132, swings on “as long as the discussion is based on what is ‘real’” which makes the sarcasm “!genius!” entirely consistent with the argument @44. I discussed this with my sister at lunch, and she agrees “in general, girls just cannot playfight, egos get scratched far too quickly”. She is someone who has been in the army, the Victorian police force, and another government department where she managed a force of 450 people. That does not make her an expert, but it is fair exposure to people and their foibles.
So far, I stand by the argument. Prove me wrong with something “real”.
Your argument boils down to Woman = Humorless + Emotional. That is the same old bollocks, pickled, strained and put into a new bottle.
Like me? Am I real enough for you?
Su, that is a generalisation that makes my sweeping statements seem almost reasonable. You cannot extract “Woman = Humorless + Emotional” from what was put forward. What it does say is that when egos (as distinct from emotions) become part of the argument then rational debate becomes difficult. 44 is about how quickly that develops. Blokes are, of course, potentially the same the same. But a scratch fight (girls/Venus) versus a fist fight (blokes/Mars) are very different and tend to have different outcomes for all of the mix of possibilities.
Here’s something real for you, BilB
So, you marshal your sister, who has been in the army, the Victorian police force, and another government department where she managed a force of 450 people, to prove your point that girls just can’t cut it.
I’m sorry, I’m having trouble understanding people today. My cognitive dissonance must be malfunctioning.
Is this the first time someone here has referenced John Gray with a straight face?
-Too stunned to comment Feminist Commenter-
BilB, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Are you saying ‘girls’ re too ego-drives (as opposed to say ‘boys’?) Girls scratch, boys punch? It’s beyond me. As for saying gender is irrelavant, or not real, again – what does that even mean?
“Su, that is a generalisation that makes my sweeping statements seem almost reasonable.”
No, I can’t imagine anything that would make your sweeping statements appear reasonable, or indeed comprehensible.
What the hell are you talking about BilB? This is the internet where we can’t scratch anyone’s eyes out, no matter how much we want to.
Anna – Adrian @67 – I’m closer to the view Joan Kirner expressed in one of her books (Women’s Power Handbook, I think) which was “I’ve had both power and influence. Power is better.”
.
Indeed.
.
Camille Paglia (do I hear a boo hiss?) put it fairly well in a Freudian way. Men as males who typically must compete with each other for female attention (please indulge my sociobiology) have a certain disbalance of ego. The phrase: you aren’t a real man, for example, doesn’t translate commonly to women. Men have something to prove. This manifests amongst most of us a contest for power. Women can compete but don’t need to and hence often don’t.
.
Over-simplistic yes, but I think the basic point’s apt.
.
Naturally the jockeying for power situation is then male heavy and it becomes a question of whether the boys’ll let the girl play. Which is why a lot of women who trailblaze are often twice as tough as everyone else. They have to be.
.
There’s a cretain psychological speculation to the effect that men sub-cinsciously are aware that they’re pretty much peripheral to the business of the species and make the corridors of powwer their exclusive province as a way of ensuring their own relevance. It’s just speculation. However you can consider the self-esteem problems suffered by men who’ve been brought up to be the breadwinner when they’re laid off and their wives are the ones that pay the bills.
“The phrase: you aren’t a real man, for example, doesn’t translate commonly to women.”
I think it does Adrien. Women’s femininity is constantly policed, called into question. I read about a survey recently about women in business (no link sorry), in women with children were seen as too soft and feminine to compete in business and women without children were seen as unnatural dangerous freaks who couldn’t be trusted. Whtever they did it seems they couldn’t hit a correct mid-point needed for proper womanliness.
Gah. John Gray, now Camille Paglia. What is this, the silly season?
Good point Fine, and true. Arendt when asked certain questions about feminism expressed her feeling that to give orders was unfeminine. She acknowledged that this was because she was old-fashioned and that she’d pretty much always done what she wanted to do.
.
And female pioliticans still have to address the ‘girliness’ issue. I read some comment by one of Rudd’s ministers (I think it was Kate Ellis) doing exactly that.
.
It’s qualitatively different. To be a man is traditionally supposed to be something one must strive to accomplish. To be a woman is the natural result of being a female human unless you’re lacking in some way.
.
I’m not endorsing any of this just saying this is what appears to be the ‘common sense’ of the matter.
.
But I do think the important point is the idea that men have something to prove. Boys must establish status in a pecking order, girls don’t operate that way.
Gah. John Gray, now Camille Paglia. What is this, the silly season?
.
Perhaps. But I’d like to see the human race pass that stage where we categorically reject writers because they happen not to belong to our political religion. I say exactly the same thing over at Catallaxy but there it’s about people like Monbiot or Chomsky.
To be a man is traditionally supposed to be something one must strive to accomplish. To be a woman is the natural result of being a female human unless you’re lacking in some way.
Oh fuck it, time for some youtubery
Oh dear. You’re going to Hell for that, Zoe.
Adrien, both men and women have to be socialised into their proper gender.
Zoe (I think) @ 137 – that’s so cool! I want one.
I’m half-tempted, the next time I buy a gun, to have it painted Coca-Cola colours. Deeply symbolic, kind of.
That was a fabulous clip, but I had a different tune running through my head reading this clip – “one man in a million might shout a bit ….”
@dylwah
“during the seventies and eighties in the US produced hundreds if not thousands of organisations run for and by women…”
Wonkette is for women?
Speaking as a former schoolgirl, Adrien, I respectfully submit that this is utter tosh. Sry.
Pavlov’s Cat, I’m amazed you could even stop splorfling enough to accurately type your submission that Adrien’s comment is utter tosh. I tried and tried and you beat me to it by yonks.
Boys must establish status in a pecking order, girls don’t operate that way.
Perhaps Adrien was referring to idealised evolved feminist girls/women.
In that case I’d agree. Some such women actually exist and we don’t and have never had to or been inclined to operate that way.
That was sorta one of the whole points of feminism.
“To be a man is traditionally supposed to be something one must strive to accomplish. To be a woman is the natural result of being a female human unless you’re lacking in some way.”
One is not born, but becomes, a woman.
I would have thought to be lacking in some way was part of the normal human condition. So we all should be perfect then?
So here we can draw a line
___________________________________________________________________________________
Now go back over the comments an tally on topic comment against derisive comment directed at other bloggers along with gender. This might shed some light on the second paragraph in the post.
@156 – One should not burn De Beauvoir!
A few years ago one of our Uni’s (Flinders?) conducted a study of emotional bulllying among high school girls. As a small side project they asked some boys what they thought. “We’re lucky,” said one lad, “we only get beaten up.”
From my experience, vast swathes of the internet are fairly woman free, so why should it be surprising that politic/blogging is any different?
Zoe, you used to be so funny. What happened to you?
Reading the comments above, I think we’ve identified the problem.
Solution? HTFU, Laydeez.
*runs away*
Careful, Ginger @162, you’ll get called names again if you keep that up. God I love Fry and Laurie, I just love them to death. As for HTFU, well, it takes a boy to valorise hardness as the ideal human condition.
Sean @160, I think I could put a name to the person who conducted that study. If it’s who I think it is, I used to go to school with her and saw at first hand the way she was treated by her girly peeps.
BilB @158, if you will persist in believing that gender awareness is all about who (on an individual personal level) is being meaner to whom (also on an individual personal level), then you are doomed to remain immured in the midnight darkness of ignorance till the end of time. Just sayin’.
Or…
*hides in mens room*
I’m still very funny, Fyodor. It’s just that I concentrate on cracking myself up these days.
And I think as my last post at ProgDins shows, I am already well hard. ; )
Positively barred up, Z.
Surely not an ideal human condition, merely a means to an end.
You saw the Ronnie Johns version, now art imitates life imitating art. Or something.
Totally agree with Pavlov’s Cat & tigtog. Any assertion that girls simply don’t operate within pecking orders is absolute rubbish. They always have and always will. Heathers was still a cult-classic film last I heard, and female competitiveness is still relevant enough for Insight to run as a topic next Tuesday.
It amuses me that I’ve seen male commentary in the last few days zigzag wildly between, “Ladies don’t know how to stoush on the internets, heat, kitchens, HTFU etc”, and “Erk feminist commentary, YOU ARE ALL SO MEAN! We fear for our gonads!” So, which is it? You can’t have it both ways!
I for one fear for my gonads.
What can I say, PC 163. If you don’t get it yet, you never will. Carry on as you were.
Yep, that was pretty much what I was saying to you.
Helen,
Is it a joke to you, to read that there’s a diversity of thought among males on this thread? How far we’ve come…
@Helen, yes! And here we were, obligingly demonstrating our play fighting skills, only to be called big meanies.
It really is because of the idiots.
Don’t forget the incoherents, it’s because of them too.
Late to the party, but I just wanted to say that Zoe! Those blisters!
You are hardcore. True fact.
I think the reason she’s eschewed Masterchef is because she’s secretly shooting for Iron Chef
Lacquered Studio, I’m sorry your sensibilities were so offended, however my comment was not supposed to mean “Look, men think in divers ways, Who Knew!!?” but rather, “Funny that half the blokes are holding up delicacy and need to HTFU ss the universal female condition, and the other half are holding up scariness and liability to bite your gonads off as the universal female condition, so yes diversity is certainly the name of the game here. I apologise for any unneccessary firing of neurons which this may have touched off.
Secret ingredient: cookbooks!
Is the point about playfighting actually “HTFU”, or rather “don’t immediately go nuclear”?
I don’t agree or anything. There are women here who can playfight, obviously, whereas the Bolt/Blair male flying monkeys seriously can’t.
Sean 181,
Very astute there, Sean. And you put it exactly the same way I do “don’t go nuclear”. I live in such a marriage. End result…nothing ever gets discussed. The sarcastic spitty bitey put down is seen by some a being witty, but it isn’t. It is just plain old bitchyness, and a road block for any real communication between people.
Fine – Fine – Adrien, both men and women have to be socialised into their proper gender.
.
That’s a doctrinal assertion. I don’t entirely disagree with it. I think however it is very limited. First it’s grounded in the culture/nature dichotomy which I believe is a Western (male) illusion. Secondly, altho’ societies do indeed prescribe gender roles, and tho’ these roles do vary across cultures and history, there are certain continuities. I respectfully submit that we need to acknowledge those continuities.
.
To paraphrase Lionel Shriver: males are dangerous animals. One does not feel nervous passing a group of women on a corner in the middle of the night the way one would if the group were male. Why? Men, and this is not so much discussed, need to be socialized away from their agressive tendencies. Perhaps women, now having to compete in public space, need to be socialized to be more agressive. I think that many women might see my point. Especially those, frustrated in public life, who purchase self-help guides along the lines of ‘nice girls finish last’ and all that.
.
P Cat – Speaking as a former schoolgirl, Adrien, I respectfully submit that this is utter tosh.
.
Would it be too much to ask you to not be so utterly dismissive and elucidate? I am trying (again) to provoke a constructive discussion. Perhaps I am doing it badly. I don’t mean to say that girls don’t form heirarchies. All of us do – we are primates. But the <iway in which this is done and the criteria by which such orders are formed are different, no? And perchance this difference might impact on the gendered nature of public life?
.
Or perhaps it’s simply easier to caricature me as either complaining the chicks are being me or saying that their biologically programmed to be submissive. I’m saying neither. If people actually understand the biology of mammalian females they’d know that that is tosh. And the biology of humanity is distinguishable by our capacity to change things to suit ourselves. Nature’s first law for homo sapiens: We adapt.
.
However before we can do that we must face certain facts. I very much doubt we would ever’ve accomplished monumental architecture without an appreciation of the vicissitudes of physics or the nature and difficulties of building materials. Similarly progress toward a society where sex is not destiny will be impeded unless we face certain facts about what sex attempts to determine.
Oh dear, I’m in serious trouble with more than one dude now for play fighting; apparently, when women do it, it’s not called play fighting any more, it’s called a sarcastic dismissive spitty bitey bitchy gonad-pulverising putdown. Goodness me, Adrien, you never talk to the boys at Catallaxy like that, and they are much nastier to you than I have ever been.
And yet, as per Helen @171 and su @176, I know exactly what will happen if I swap play fighting for real fighting.
Hey, “play fighting” was just some twisted paper on a piece of string. Thrown…you know…out there. To see what would happen. Rrowww.
To return to Anna’s initial comment:
1. It is quite evident that sexist attitudes form a detectable element in blog commentary. Sexist is to be found alongside racist, ageist, sectarian and other retrograde commentary. There are many reasons for shunning the internet. But shunning it would leave the field to sexists, racists, ageists and bigots.
2. By far the shrillest and angriest blog commenters appear to be men, or at least identify themselves as men. One sometimes counters those people in the hope that they may desist out of humiliation and embarrassment. They seldom do. Evidently, they have already “hardened up”. Such folk are beyond reform and serve as deterrents for others who may be tempted down similar retrogressive paths.
3. Having one’s experience dismissed can be hurtful. But hurt can be a resource if used effectively.
4. If women persuade themselves that it is permissible to be “above” the political rough and tumble then they have defeated themselves.
P Cat – Goodness me, Adrien, you never talk to the boys at Catallaxy like that, and they are much nastier to you than I have ever been.
.
I talk much worse.
.
I try to match my opponents on the levels they like playing on.
.
it’s not called play fighting any more, it’s called a sarcastic dismissive spitty bitey bitchy gonad-pulverising putdown
.
Actually that’s pretty much play-fighting.
.
Talking of which – viz girl/boy hierarchies. Perhaps an important distinction in the struggle for power between boys and girls is in the deployment of open confrontation often accompanied by violence real or imaginary? Perhaps this impacts greatly on how we conduct ourselves as adults.
.
What say you?
I didn’t mean them Gary, they are johnnys and Jennys come lately
Katz,
1 There are many “ists” of which sexist is just one. No dismissive attitudes should be acceptible (unless excessive repetition is involved) in a discussion forum.
2. Certainly men regularly bring anger to discussions, but “humiliation and embarrassment” are poor substitutes for good wit or, in the extreme, ignoring.
3. “Having one’s experience dismissed can be hurtful”, this should not happen at all. This is anti learning.
4. Humanity has reached a point at which the many natural devices instilled within our being are no longer relevent, though still present. We are no longer in a struggle for a position within the natural world. We have overcome it, we have surpassed it. The new struggle is to find a way to deal with our excesses while still satisfying our existence as natural beings. On Zoe’s blog site, I think it is there, is a thread bemoaning the pressure to “procreate before its too late”. The last thing the world needs are more babies. But humans need babies, they are our completion. So how do we resolve this? Every baby means a family and a dwelling and everything else that goes with that. But every one of these completions is another step towards a global calamity. What is the answer to a sustainable humanity. If women do not engage with this massive problem, the end result will not be at all good. Women cannot be, must not be above or apart from politcs.
Step away from the keyboard, or else I’ll breed again!
Putting something in the water supply might help. Just a suggestion.
/runs away
Breed for all you are worth, Katz. Are you sure, though, that you can cope with the anxiety? What are your friends going to say when you tell them you got pregnant just to piss off BilB, who’s BilB, home birth or hospital, should you try a water birth this time, will the morning sickness be bad this time, see the whole ultrasound or just the main bits, what colour should the babies room be this time, the spare room..hes sleeping in it because of his snooring.. that means he will be back in yours…uhh, no need for ante natal classes this time but should you go to anyway create a new circle of aquaintences with babies at the same age, breast feed or not breast, if you breast feed then for how long, how will that impact on your blogging time, work or stay at home, this will mean a new bigger car and would have been better to have not sold the baby bucket at the garage sale..oh well there goes another $500, day care or not, at what age to start preschool, how much help will the older kids be, how much help would Uni students be anyway, how long will it now be before you can go on the round Australia tour,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,this could go on and on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
I think that you are all talk, Katz. I dare you to breed again.
Not my site BilB.
Adrien, I’m not denying nature plays a part. What I’m disputing is your assertion that: “To be a man is traditionally supposed to be something one must strive to accomplish. To be a woman is the natural result of being a female human unless you’re lacking in some way.”
I’m not sure whether you’re saying that’s what you think, or whether you’re asying that’s the traditional view. Either way, I think it’s an assertion that needs some backing up.
Sorry, Zoe. Went back couldn’t find it. But what I did find was
http://geekfeminism.org/2009/08/19/where-are-all-the-men-bloggers/
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/08/19/where-are-australia%e2%80%99s-female-political-bloggers/
Maybe there are just too many blog sites!
Great shot of Barak Obama, by the way.
I have learned a lot from BilB and it can be summed up in the simple admonition:
Be thou weighted down by gown and pannier or in thy natural state, seek not for pearls within the dark forest for assuredly, they don’t grow there.
I’ll take that on the chin, su.
Fine – I’m not sure whether you’re saying that’s what you think, or whether you’re asying that’s the traditional view. Either way, I think it’s an assertion that needs some backing up.
.
I’m not able to exactly articulate what I think because I’m not sure myself. But, for example, there is a difference in totem cultures between initiations into adulthood. With women it’s ‘first blood’. But with men it’s usually artificial. Nature provides no line.
.
Also please see above viz the violence inherent in male pecking orders.
.
I’m not trying to fight I’m trying to understand. I believe nature needs to be reconfronted to do this. That’s all.
So little time, so many bunnies to boil.
I capitulate, Katz. Thinking out the cascade of consequences from becoming pregnant is pretty scary. Being a bloke is so easy.
The experience of being female both online and offline.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html
I would like to see women speaking out against excessive consumerism and this silly importing of everything from other countries. Men should too, of course, but I would like to hear it from a woman because it shows that they care that these things are done with a complete disregard for the fact that oil is burnt by the bucketload per second to achieve this fashionable state of affairs.
Yes, that is what I would like to hear because the rape and pillage of the global village will not be allowed to continue. It’s as simple as the fact that the population curve reached inflection point a long time ago… naturally, something has to give.
On TV you have incessant car racing to keep the men addicted to oil and in the Glossy magazines you have never-ending fashion to keep the impressionable young girls glued to the idea that they need a new dress in a different colour every time they go to a nightclub.
It’s absolute rot and girl-power is needed to stop it as they are half the population blah blah blah….[...is anybody out there???]
C’mon girls: we know you care about more than looking better than the other girls in the third world, or don’t you?!?
@KeiTHy:
I have done, and so have many others. You for one were obviously not listening.
True, tigtog, I am but a mere male! Glad to hear that the women are speaking up about excessive consumeristic crap that is leading us all down the garden path!
It’s absolute rot and girl-power is needed to stop it
.
Jay-sus. Kitch much?
Girl Power is employed to sell clothes…. that is, the Girls that believe they have nothing else to offer but a cute hair style and child-bearing hips are being taken advantage of in that they have access to the credit card. Women in politics, not to mention equal pay in the workplace, won’t (really) be realised until the sister hood as a whole sees life as more than looking better than the third world. Until then women are, by and large, not trusted by men. It’s as simple as losing the war paint! But, alas….
Keith – I’m sorry I think girl power is an advertising slogan, I think sisterhood is, unless you’re talking about a group of female friends or some specific alliance, a load of twaddle and if men don’t trust women it’s because they’re different and/or they’ve been burnt.
.
The emancipation of women is just that, no less no more. It’s not some kind of fast track to Kumbay-yah. Nothing is. And it’s unfair to put that high moral burden on the shoulders of anyone just because they own a certain type of genitalia.
Fair enough, but when innocent people are dying over oil I think all metrosexual ute men and high maintenance women should be made to listen to a few harsh words about the meaning of life! It just so happens I was talking about the woman half of the fashion victim culture we live in!
Okay Keith but I think if you want to combat mindless consumerism or Empire assisting apathy it’ll take a lot more than some idealisation of half the human race. In fact I’d give up. Just follow your own path. One of the sad truths of life is that most people are like a horse that you lead to water..
.
And then they eat sand.
I understand: war will always be because we accept it!
Fine – I reread The Second Sex chapter on the way young girls are socialized. As I was reading it it occured to me that the main point is still apt but certain assertions are not.
.
As I read it de Beauvoir makes two fundamental observations. One is that little boys are, at some point, no longer ‘indulged’ with affection. They are treated with an increased sternness and expected to act like ‘little men’. One could make various nurture/nature arguments but I think as de Beauvoir says, the issue is that boys are prepared for important things early. They are expected to be self-sufficient, competetive, brave.
.
She maintains that this is social. However as far as I can see how and when gender awareness develops is unknown.
.
I have looked for articles on the matter but am still unable to obtain a straight answer. We do know however that the brains of men and women have slightly different architectures so it would be safe to put paid to de Beauvoir’s inferance that gender is a construct entire. However I don’t think that matters.
.
Surely the important point is in the difference between the way little boys and little girls are treated from a certain age. If boys are less indulged emotionally then perhaps this explains our capacity to sustain the misuses of conflict and our inclinations to participate in same…
@Adrien,
Since adults react entirely differently to babies depending on whether they are told that it is a boy or a girl, the idea of gender difference literally is taken in with mother’s milk. When the child becomes consciously aware of it, who can say? But they will have been responding to it since they were first announced to their parents with “Congratulations, it’s a …”. Note the anger/dismay expressed towards the parents of “Pop” from people who feel that they don’t know how to treat Pop “properly” unless they know Pop’s biological sex.
.
I think this idea does matter. Firstly, as so many do, but you have not always done, this time you are confusing “gender” with “biological sex”. There are sexual differences that cannot be denied. What influence such sexual differences inherently have on gender, which is the social role expected of people who appear to be one biological sex rather than the other, is a far more fluid and open question.
Also, human brains are technically described as “plastic” by neurologists – our cognitive capacities are not fixed in rigid lines, they change in response to external stimuli. New neural connections are laid down as new behaviours are learnt/encouraged or old behaviours discouraged/neglected. The number of neurons we have at birth may be fixed for our lifetimes, but the connections between them are not. Synapses that are used more often have the neural pathways to them proliferate with extra connections to respond more quickly – this is the foundation of learning new skills, whether concrete external skills such as that new more effective handgrip position that the tennis coach showed you when your backhand was on the fritz, or internal emotionals skills such as the repression of behaviours as a child that Mummy and Daddy disapprove and discourage.
This brain plasticity was established way back when only men’s brains were studied to determine howl human neurology functions (because of cause men are the “normal” human pattern), so it’s not just some invention of gender studies. How much of the sexual differences in brain architecture are due to nature and how much are due to nurture? (and like so many other measures that emphasise the differences between the “average man” and the “average women”, are the variations within sexes far greater than the differences between these averages, and why does that vast biological Bell Curve overlap between the sexes keep on just getting handwaved away?)
Yes, this is the important point, but it’s not a contradiction of de Beauvoir’s arguments.
I see that you are hooked into nurture over nature, tigtog.
Every organism on the planet has its genetic inheritance filtered by the environment, BilB.
As tigtog pointed out, most of the western world is “hooked into nurture over nature” if reaction to “Pop” is anything to go by. If most people actually believed that nature was key, they wouldn’t care about one family’s crazy experiment, because it wouldn’t matter how they nurture Pop.
That, or folk are simply titillated by oddities and manufactured controversies.
Not only, but also: Tigtog, what do you mean when you say that one’s genetic inheritance is “filtered” by the environment?
“Surely the important point is in the difference between the way little boys and little girls are treated from a certain age. If boys are less indulged emotionally then perhaps this explains our capacity to sustain the misuses of conflict and our inclinations to participate in same…”
Yes, that’s the point. I think people are a messy combination of nature and nurture and that it’s very hard to unravel the two. But have a look at the story of ‘Pop’ tigtog and Anna have mentioned, it’s very interesting.
@Pop Quizling/Fyodor
Many aspects of the genotype need to be triggered by environmental factors before they manifest in the phenotype. A simple example: animal species whose fur goes white in a snowy winter, but if you raise them in a zoo in tropical climes this pigment change in the fur is never triggered.
We all have a whole smorgasbord of genes like that, for every imaginable physical and “instinctive” trait. That’s why having a genetic marker for a particular cancer doesn’t mean that you’re guaranteed to get it – the probability is increased, but it’s not a sure thing. Some other genetic variations are a sure thing rather than a potentially triggerable thing. Downs Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, etc.
P.S. We’re all mutants, we just don’t know which of our mutations might benefit us, which might kill us, and which will sit there doing nothing all our lives (the vast majority of mutations).
The pop experiment is meaningless in this discussion unless the parents actively try to drive the child to the alternate sex. As commentators assert, Pop will find the sex of best fit by its own observation. Clothing colour has ntohing to do with it. Spoken contact has more bearing, but people rarely register that the way we act with our children has a lot to do with how they react back. The assumption that boys become boylike because we show them how they should behave is largely false. It is the other way around. I would be amazed if pop hadn’t already decided by the age of 3 and a half, given sufficient contact with other children of the same age, even if toileting was maintained as a private activity.
Tigtog,I think your observations regrading gender are absolutely spot-on. Fucking brilliant. I have long believed that masculinity and femininity overlap the sexes far more than they divide them. The “Battle of the Sexes” is divisive, populist bullshit.“All of us are one people” – The Prodigy
Yes, but are these genes changed by the environment? I’m confused by what you mean “filtered” to mean. It’s actually extraordinarily rare – so rare as to be irrelevant to the discussion – for one’s “genetic inheritance” to be changed by the environment, so I’m puzzled by the meaning and relevance of your statement.
I would assume Tigtog means the expression of genes is affected by the environment. This is the whole field of epigenetics.
@ Zarquon,
Thank you, that’s exactly what I did mean. It’s a while since I’ve hurled the jargon around regularly, so I’m groping for some terms.
Fyodor, the genes don’t change. Whether those genes are expressed in the phenotype is the part that is dependent on environmental triggers.
e.g. children raised by wolves, several of whom have been documented throughout history and studied thoroughly when found by humans eventually (some in fairly recent times, so able to be studied with machines that go ping). These children have the genetic capacity for normal language skills using that rather large section of the human neocortex, but without being around other humans using language, they will not invent their own language and that section of the brain will not be developed to the same extent as a child of the same age who has lived in a normal family-community situation. Indeed, the ability for that part of the brain’s development to be triggered at all has a time-dependent window of neural plasticity, because children can only learn complex language skills if they are introduced to them before 3-4 years old – after that the necessary neural plasticity is lost and normal language acquisition can never be attained.
This is part of the problem with the subset of hearing parents of Deaf children relying only on aural implant surgery as the solution and not learning to Sign themselves and teach their Deaf child to Sign – the child’s language acquisition can be totally screwed if they are one of the children for whom the implant surgery doesn’t work. By the time they’ve been through the surgery, been through the complications, been through remedial surgery and subsequent attempts before finally accepting that an implant won’t work for that particular child, the window for normal language acquisition may have closed.
So, having the genes isn’t enough on its own. The environment has to supply the correct trigger at the correct developmental milestone for the gene to express itself in the phenotype optimally. The corollary is obviously that environments structured so that certain triggers are not provided to growing organisms can prevent the expression of certain genes. When gender segregation of life experiences means that only boys experience some triggers and only girls experience others, then that limits the expression of certain shared genes between brothers and sisters along gender lines, and it all whirls on from there.
Interesting. So, which shared genes get expressed differently between boys and girls depending upon “gender segregation of life experience”?
@ Fyodor/ Give me the power of man’s red flower, so I can be like you
Obviously the epigenetic expression of genes that are locked to one half of the 23rd pair of chromosomes are always going to be different between girls and boys whether they have the same life experiences in their developing years or not, but that’s not true for the other half of that chromosome pair nor for the epigenetic expression of genes that reside on the other 22 chromosome pairs. Not all differences in life experience in the developing years between different groups of children are down to gender roles of course – some are down to race, ethnicity and class and some are down to geography and climate.
I can’t actually list all of the genes here for you due to space considerations, but I believe that this place might be able to help you out.
There have been at least a couple of cases which would indicate that its not all environment though. Where baby boys have had accidents (vague to try to avoid the filter) and had gender reassignment surgery and raised as girls with hormone injections (without being told what they really are for). And yet they have still developed traditionally male traits, been sexually attracted to women, ended up in traditionally male jobs. I don’t know if there have been enough cases for it to be statistically significant.
There was a documentary on TV about it a few years ago, but I can’t remember the name of the program.
I never said it was ALL environment, Chris. Just that it’s not ONLY genes (eta) with no other factors to consider.
tigtog @ 227 – yes, sorry I shouldn’t have implied that you did. We don’t really know how much environment contributes and how much its genes. And I think its likely that some aspects are very much dominated by genes and others very much by environment (say language). It would be very difficult to develop ethical experiments to find out.
Tictog – Thanks much, for the thoughtful reply.
.
Firstly, as so many do, but you have not always done, this time you are confusing “gender” with “biological sex”.
.
Fair cop but I’m aware of the distinction. I’m trying to find the line that divides them. If, as you say, the difference comes in with mother’s milk, then there’s no hard line there’s a fuzzy area where one thing becomes the other. I guess the key is to be aware of the differences and to address these where possible in terms of avoiding the development of rigid internalization of the sex is destiny thing.
.
I don’t know.
.
I do think however that the opposition between culture and nature should be dropped. And your comments viz the non-existence of hard-wiring does such.
.
I don’t think my points do invalidate de Beauvoir, I think rather that she starts an inquiry which can be taken further if progressively minded people stop eschewing nature (and, I’m sorry I think it still happens) and rather embrace it. I think the word is cultivation.
I’m trying to find the line that divides them.
Yes, that’s right. God forbid we should concentrate on the massive overlap or things in common. Let’s concentrate on difference, every time. That’w the way to move the world forward!
Sorry if I sound snarky, but there’s just too much of it already.
Senator Edward Kennedy: now there’s a guy can show a girl a good time!
Just ask Mary Jo.
Not particularly amusing given the circumstances, Ambigulous.
Frankly, after what he did, I think it would have been better had his sense of shame caused him to resign and skulk off the public stage. She drowned, he failed to report the accident for many hours. He having been the driver of the car in which she drowned.
What price the life of one young woman?
I recommend a novel concerning one of his brothers: “American Adulterer”. Chilling.
“What price the life of one young woman?”
Yes I think Kennedy 3 behaved very badly there by all accounts.
But if you are so concerned about the death of innocent young women at the hands of American politicians, why then I can point you to many far worse examples. Let’s start with LBJ and then Nixon directly and knowingly ordering carpet bombing of civilian areas that posed no threat whatsoever to the American way of life.
Mary Jo’s death, while a tragedy like any young life cut short, was I think relatively painless compared to a Cambodian girl of the same age screaming until the blood came out her mouth as the white phosphorus scorched through her flesh to the bone.
As for Ted himself – well the US is never gonna be caught short by dynastic aristocracies packing the upper house – as the founding fathers half expected anyway.
Like pretty much all Kennedys, Ted is not someone I would have trusted with my whiskey, cheque book or mistress. On the other hand I wouldn’t trust any Republican dynasty with the republic.
In fact I wouldn’t trust any American political dynasty of any stripe now with even operating an automated public toilet.
Nabakov,
I’m concerned about both.
Deaths in South East Asia do not absolve Ted Kennedy, nor do they lessen the shame and responsibility he carried.
“Oh, look over there, hundreds of others were killed too!” doesn’t wash with me. Apologies for being so pedantic.
Not so, Tigtog. Generic* statements and a link to the HGP don’t answer the question, which I’ll restate:
“Which shared genes get expressed differently between boys and girls depending upon “gender segregation of life experience”?
*Sorry.
@ Fyodor,
Shall we look at just one concrete example in order to see whether you accept that or not first?
* Like so many other traits, the genes that regulate height are multi-locus i.e. strings of DNA on multiple chromosomes interact with each other to affect height as we grow through childhood.
* Multiple evidence from multiple countries has shown that more calories in childhood, especially those containing high-animal-protein diets lead to increased average height over time for both men and women. So if you grow up in a family where plenty of nutritious calories including animal protein are affordable, you are more likely to reach your optimal height according to your genetic inheritance. If you live in a family where plenty of nutritious calories including animal protein are not affordable, you are less likely to reach your optimal height according to your genetic inheritance.
Now, in poorer families, it has been shown that in many societies girl children are not fed as much nutritious calories and animal protein as boy children. So, the boys will have an environment with more triggers offered to them to stimulate the optimal expression of their genes for height, while girls will be offered fewer triggers to stimulate the optimal expression of their genes for height. So the genetic sexual differences in height are exacerbated in poorer societies, with far fewer girls than men reaching the optimal expression of their genes for height.
Do you accept that as just one valid example?
Yes, diet can affect epigenetic expression for height and some other physical characteristics. That said, diet is arguably not “gender segregated” in our society, so do you have any relevant examples?
Very arguable, that one. Lots of little girls in families with plenty of nutritious food available are regularly put on calorie restrictions to stop them “getting fat” (even though metabolic differences between the sexes are negligible in childhood).
P.S. I’m betting that the Williams sisters, trained for elite athletic performance since infancy in a family from a culture that is not so anxious about girls being thin, never had their intake of calories or protein restricted while their bodies were growing. Unlike many of the other women against whom they compete.
“The women aren’t missing from the political blogosphere. If there are men here who are noticing their absence from wherever you are, then perhaps the more relevant question is why they are avoiding you and the places you go.”
Piling on might have something to do w/ it. And an overly-defensive attitude. Knee-jerk reactions.
I found some female blogs interesting. Don’t go there anymore.I enjoy reading many women’s comments tho.
Just saying.
N’
Maybe, maybe not. Do you have any non-anecdotal evidence?
Tigtog, a few years ago in Australia, the Williams sisters played a scratch match against some 100th seeded German man who was smoking between sets. He won comfortably.
Also, I have never restricted a calorie in my life, and in my yoof was quite fast for a white person, but I couldn’t catch Usain Bolt were I on a motorcycle.
It’s not all environment.
I might add, I do regularly read Arianna Huffington…and many female contributors on here, Counterpunch & The Smirking Chimp:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/23480
(Ted Kennedy: Health Care Reform Is The “Cause Of My Life”
by Allison Kilkenny | August 26, 2009)
I also miss Helen’s contribution to RTS. And I find tigtog always gets me thinking…even if I don’t agree w/ all views. Who does?
I like true individuals who can shrug off ideological shackles at times.
Interesting, thought provoking post Anna. Cathartic opportunity.
N’
Hate to break it to you lovers of the Stoush but you’re arguing the same point, TT and Sideshow Backhand.
Of course social class and diet affect people’s genetic inheritance. Separate two identical twins, foster one in poverty and the other in affluence, and of course you’re going to get different results in health. It’s unarguable to say that environmental factors affect the way individuals’ genetics manifest themselves; ie. if you’ve a family history of heart/lung disease, and you smoke, and you don’t exercise, only bad things are going to happen to you.
That’s a different thing altogether to saying, TT, as you seemed to be at #214 and #237 that genetics and environment have a direct positive influence on each other. That argument goes, without putting too fine a Spencerian point on it, interesting places.
i was attempting to make a counter-Spencerian argument actually, Liam. in any case, divided experiences as children lead to variations in epigenetic expression that arguably affect far more than simply those very concrete measures of health, again not only on gender lines. Our physical experiences are reflected in our mental processes and vice versa, especially in the early years when development of cognitive processes and musculoskeletal development happens so rapidly, and where developmental windows for certain stimuli are so very finite.
Another gender example: a cultural preference for boys being rough and tumble and girls being dainty and neat, effected mostly by the tradition of dressing boys in sturdy clothes that don’t look “ruined” with a bit of dirt on them and dressing girls very otherwise, gives girls and boys very very different physical experiences when growing up. One result of girls being dressed in clothes that they are expected to keep “nice” means that they stay closer to adults and interact more with them verbally, stimulating language skills acquisition and emphasising fine motor skills playing with small toys in a confined space, while the boys are allowed to roam further away and indulge in more physically exploratory play, which stimulates different areas of the brain as well as emphasising gross motor skills playing with larger toys.
This difference in how children are treated simply through the distinctions of clothing starts very young – I find it very sad seeing a small girl toddling around a playground in mock heels or “cute” but flimsy shoes that disturb her balance and prevent her from climbing or running while her brother wears practical runners or sandals and never even has to think about what his feet are doing as he’s playing. “Oh, boys just like running around more than girls do” – well of course they do if they’re the ones who are dressed sensibly for it.
…there are actually people here arguing that genetic expression isn’t environmentally dependant? That’s basic biology, people. You get it in every first-year life sciences lecture series on the planet.
Maybe if some of you were to attend one you might benefit. I’d certainly benefit by not having my blood pressure tweaked by such displays of mass ignorance
@Grumphy,
Thank you! I probably haven’t argued the case as effectively as I otherwise might because I’ve just been so stunned that people I know to be otherwise well read were challenging such a basic biological fact.
Mmyeah…not my interpretation of Tigtog’s position either.
If I read her correctly, she’s not arguing that genetic inheritance is altered by environment, but that the environment moderates the epigenetic expression of that genetic inheritance. F’rinstance, a girl may be born genetically destined to have a splendid Amazonian figure – like the Williams sisters or Crazybrave Zoe, say – but if Teh Patriarchy causes her malnourishment she’ll end up more like an Oompa-Loompa.
Now, when it comes to stuff like diet and its physical effects the evidence is pretty good and the claim uncontentious. On floral dresses and uncomfortable shoes turning women into girly girls? Not so much.
What’s the defining mark of a tomboy, Fyodor? Basically that she insists on not wearing fussy clothing that means she can’t climb, run or play sport. It is being able to do those things that the other girly-girls don’t do, and it’s simple practical clothing that makes it possible.
What’s the defining mark of a Milquetoast? That he is dressed in formal clothes that are not easy to play energetically in, and has helicopter parents who restrict him from vigorous pursuits with other boys. Milquetoasts lack the opportunity to develop gross motor skills that other boys develop because they are never presented with those environmental challenges/stimuli.
Various musculoskeletal-visual coordination performance skills, and the spatial cognitive skills that they stimulate, can only effectively be acquired in childhood – if you wait until adulthood you never gain those skills at a high level.
Delicate frilly dresses and impractical shoes are great fun for dress-up occasions like parties. Same with little boys in formal clothes at a very young age. Cute as hell. But fussy formal restrictive clothes that have to be kept “tidy” and “clean” limit heaps of options for kids if they are the only things in the wardrobe. Generally, there are far fewer Milquetoasts than there are tomboys, because many parents like to raise their daughters to “not be like those weak women” but far fewer parents want to raise their boys more like the standard way that girls are raised. Because they know that it will limit his strengths and his potential.
So why does our society seem so keen on raising girls as Milquetoasts?
ETA: P.S. there’s also lots of emotional strengths and interpersonal skills due to more complex language acquisition that “normal” girly childhoods gift to girls that normal boyish childhoods don’t gift to boys. I’m not dissing those at all. I’d like to see more boys raised with a lot more exposure to those as well.
I’m familiar with the cliches and anecdotes, Tigtog, but it’s very hard, if not impossible, to prove that girls end up less – let’s say – “robust” than boys because of the way they’re raised. For one thing, who’s going to let their kid be part of the control sample? We might contend that Pop’s parents are doing that, but they’re not robots, so human bias and subjectivity pollute the experiment.
Now, if you’ll forgive the juvenile diversion, it’s time for some gratuitous YouTubery.
Not for this milquetoast.
“I’m familiar with the cliches and anecdotes, Tigtog, but it’s very hard, if not impossible, to prove that girls end up less – let’s say – “robust” than boys because of the way they’re raised.”
So what of the general observation that children develop in ways that bear some relationship to how they are treated. Controversial?
Well no it’s not, is it?
It should therefore be up to you, Terwilleger, to explain why gender development should be mysteriously immune from such influence.
Why? Did I say it was “immune”, let alone mysteriously so? Is this a strawman I see before me? Is your line of argument a waste of time?
I’m not saying it IS immune, Efdeebee. If there were evidence to argue contra it would have been presented on one of the gorillion occasions this non-argument has been played out before for no conclusive result. The most we can say is that nature is definitely involved, as is nurture. The relative importance of the two factors is yet to be determined by anyone and those who argue that one factor or the other is irrelevant are pushing an ideological barrow, laden with biases and assumptions, not facts.
Sorry, I just assumed you were going somewhere with your repeated queries about what tigtog was saying.
Apparently not.
There seem to be two concepts firmly rooted, if that’s the right word, in this thread FDB.
(1) Their (the wimminz) explanations are mere guesswork and prove nothing.
(2) Our
anecdataobservations, on the other hand are self-evident truths.I think firmly rooted is indeed the correct term.
Helen – God forbid we should concentrate on the massive overlap or things in common. Let’s concentrate on difference, every time. That’w the way to move the world forward!
.
We are discussing a difference now tho’ however. Aren’t we?
.
TT – One result of girls being dressed in clothes that they are expected to keep “nice” means that they stay closer to adults and interact more with them verbally, stimulating language skills acquisition and emphasising fine motor skills playing with small toys in a confined space, while the boys are allowed to roam further away and indulge in more physically exploratory play, which stimulates different areas of the brain as well as emphasising gross motor skills playing with larger toys.
.
And differences in the level of concern if you get a skinned knee. Boys are supposed to get skinned knees. Or at least they used to be.
.
This phenomena might be explained by evolutionary psychology to a certain extent (boo hiss). In a lot of hunter-gatherer societies the women stay close to the centre of the tribal territory whereas the males patrol and hunt the perimeter. I don’t endorse the field as the answer to everything but the basic premise goes back at least as far as Freud: the idea that our habits are born of a no longer existent contingency.
.
I’m not sure how many women I’ve known who don’t fight back in certain situations where they should simply because they don’t know how.
When it comes to the epigenetic expression of men changing into stags or women into trees, then an environment rich in spiteful feckless gods is a decisive factor, I can assure you.
“I’m not sure how many women I’ve known who don’t fight back in certain situations where they should simply because they don’t know how.”
Maybe they don’t know how, because they’ve never been taught. My father taught me boxing as a child, much to my mother’s chagrin. But I enjoyed it. The only time I’ve been attacked by a man in the street, my immmediate, completely unthinking response, was to land an upper cut on his jaw. He ran away, more from shock than pain I think. I’m not recommending this as a solution to domestic violence btw.
“There seem to be two concepts firmly rooted, if that’s the right word, in this thread FDB.
(1) Their (the wimminz) explanations are mere guesswork and prove nothing.
(2) Our anecdata observations, on the other hand are self-evident truths.”
Oh, but you just need to keep proving it so there’s absolutely no doubt before there’s even a grudging admission of possibility, don’t you know Helen?
Fine – Maybe they don’t know how, because they’ve never been taught
.
Exactly my point. A lot of dudes don’t know how to cook. I do. Pretty much ’cause my mother was hostile to the idea that it was women’s work.
So, there’s a lot of stuff where nurture beats nature?
Who was it who wrote that Nature is the most powerful force in the Universe but that everything great we ever accomplished was in defiance of it?
(Boo Hiss)
Do you have a reference or link? It doesn’t make intuitive sense to me that foraging for food and the raw materials to produce fibres etc would restrict the range of women cf men.
EvPsych – please.
It’s a step up from astrology, but only just.
Golly, Helen, you wouldn’t be referring to my comments, would you?
Yes you neo liberal capitalist ranga. You have a nerve to die your hair that colour and expect be taken seriously. It is easy to pontificate from your patriarchal Rapunzel towers with your view of the harbour that belongs not to you, isn’t it?
She is referring to you, we all refer to you, all of you white marble men, with those silken words that sting and slap on the faces of women. And you call this a leftist blog. I laugh in your rushmore faces. Chavez is my God. Why do you hate me? I say it again.
I am the real thing.
And now Goddess speak, a poem on the dangers of Andalusia
If white is the colour
of mourning in Andalusia,
it is a proper custom.
Look at me,
I dress myself in the white
of white hair
in mourning for youth.
Abu l-Hasan al-Husri (d. 1095)
Can’t say fairer than that, Abu!
*stands, applauds*
Wait… parody?
My guess is that it’s Casey trying desperately not to come back to LP.
I hope it’s you, Case. If for no other reason than for an excuse to return Andaluz disses.
——Solomon Ibn Gabirol 1021-1058
Funny no-one has mentioned the role of testosterone in all this.
Even funnier that someone should.
Su,
You must be a woman I guess. Or a guy who’s forgotten.
That’s some fucking awesome battlin’ from Solly there Liam.
That delicious breeze that just rushed in here has a wonderful tang of Casey about it, agreed.
oh alright, dammit. For you Laura I will out myself. But only for you. I am the one who has been doing the parodic salutes to the small nation known as J-ro. It took you a while Red, surprisingly. I do it as a compliment to the original, as a public service to the rest, and cause I just piss myself laughing for about five minutes every time I do it. Jamon. And Im going now. I am not back. But who could resist Rapunzel with all that hair all over the place, obfuscating obfuscating….
*Nods*
Yay!
Hooray!
Huzzah!
*Whistles, stamps, claps*
“Who was it who wrote that Nature is the most powerful force in the Universe but that everything great we ever accomplished was in defiance of it?”
An idiot
Su – I’m not a doctrinaiire adherent of evolutionary psych or sociobiology or any other ‘right-wing’ field. I don’t categorically exclude them either. I just ask is the idea of some veracity, is it interesting, is it useful? I’m just speca-latin’ about a hypothesis I know I don’t know nuthin’.
.
As far as I’m aware it would be difficult to falsify claims about the psychology of archaic humanity.
.
It doesn’t make intuitive sense to me that foraging for food and the raw materials to produce fibres etc would restrict the range of women cf men
.
What would restrict the range of women is the threats from wild animals and males from other tribes. We see that kind of behaviour in animals. We’re animals.
We also see nature documentaries where mothers fight off other males and predators so your point doesn’t really stand Adrien.
Adrien, I think when you start bringing nature into it, you need to be accurate about how animals behave actually behave. I’ve spent a fair bit of time working with racehorses. It’s interesting to observe how people often gender behaviour with these animals. Big, assertive mares who’d rather walk through you than around you get labelled as ‘masculine’ mares. Lightly built, gentle mare get labelled as ‘feminine’. Yet, in the wild it’s the alpha mare who controls the herd, not the stallion. It’s the same with domesticated horses. Put a group together in a paddock and it’s the alpha mare who’ll run the show, including kicking the living shit out of any stallion who dares intrude.
Do you think the threat of wild animals wouldn’t have restricted the men as well?
Yes; no testable hypotheses and no evidence for the assumption that all current human behaviours conferred a reproductive advantage – two big problems with ev psych. The other is that, even if you were to accept the notion that nature necessarily trumps nurture (I don’t), we know that human evolution has been accelerating as populations have grown larger, so the assumption that our brains were set in their current state in the Pleistocene is demonstrably false.
Fine – I think when you start bringing nature into it, you need to be accurate about how animals behave actually behave.
.
Yes. But we are not horses. We are not Perissodactylan order. We are primates.
.
Do you think the threat of wild animals wouldn’t have restricted the men as well?
.
Of course. But men are not as essential for child-rearing as women. And we have physical attributes which prpare us (slightly) better for conflict. And we’re idiots.
.
I don’t think gender roles have ever been entirely rigid. There’s a lot of variation amongst individuals. Like horses we display androgynous characteristics.
.
I’m not saying we’re all machines programmed by the gender default. Merely that social progress necessitates understanding and we may find utility in appreciating how out archaic past affects modern behaviour and assumptuions without our realizing it.
Su – Yes; no testable hypotheses and no evidence for the assumption that all current human behaviours conferred a reproductive advantage – two big problems with ev psych.
.
Indeed. Psychology is one of those disciplines that properly belong in the Hunmabnities but are desperate to wear white coats. I don’t have a problem with it provided we’re aware that a lot of it is speculation.
.
The other is that, even if you were to accept the notion that nature necessarily trumps nurture (I don’t)
.
I am not arguing along this old left/right chestnut. I’m trying to put it to the side. It’s inaccurate and progressively more useless.
.
we know that human evolution has been accelerating as populations have grown larger, so the assumption that our brains were set in their current state in the Pleistocene is demonstrably false.
.
Would you please elucidate. How do we know that? If one assumes the theory of natural selection it seems that human evolution would slow down.
.
BTW – Emotionally I was inclined to believe we could make of ourselves whatever we wished. But facts are facts however inconvenient. Again I’m not coming from some ‘it’s nature ye cannae do nuthin’ about it’ position. More from the position that to cultivate something as you would it helps to understand it.
.
Thing is, it actually is in our natures to leave most of our learning to nurture innit?
Mindy – We also see nature documentaries where mothers fight off other males and predators so your point doesn’t really stand Adrien.
.
Mindy – please consider my position a little more closely. I did not say that females won’t fight to protect their young. In fact I believe mammalian mothers defending their young are about as ferocious an animal as you get on this planet. But it would make more sense if they didn’t have to do that wouldn’t it. A sort of division of labour?
.
Again I am not advocating hard set gender roles based on some archaic view of nature as a Holy Clockwork. Can you please attempt to eschew the nature/nurture opposition. That is an opytmoded model and it does not apply to the actual world.
Adrien, you used the word ‘animal’ not ‘primate’, as in ‘we’re all animals’.
Well yes I did. But I would’ve thought it axiomatic that there a whole range of species that diversify. Species and orders have their natures. If we were arachnids there’d be no feminism. There’d be no masculism either. Us guys’d be breakfast before we’d get anywhere with emancipation.
Except that mammals share a great deal of DNA with usand behave in very similar ways. In a discussion about the impact af nature and nurture, there’s no reason to assume that the experience of other species of mammals are irrelevant when their personalites are moulded by both their inheritance and their environment, which is the case with domesticated mammals.
I know, I meant a general “you” rather than you specifically.
See this study (pdf), results reported here.
Gahh formatting. The study was called “Recent acceleration of human
adaptive evolution” by John Hawks,and a bunch of others. Two of the authors have written a book based on the results called “The 10,000 year explosion: How Civilization accelerated human evolution”.
Natural selection is just one mechanism for evolution BTW, there are others eg genetic ‘drift’.
Su – Cheers. I’ll read them tonight.
.
Fine – Good point. The picture of nature which I have is one of material that will fit its circumstances. The proposition that women are inherently less assertive due to natural make-up cannot be absolutely proved. And even if it was so I think perhaps that it could be defied. Caeser once commented, on the war with the Celts in France that the women were more dangerous then the men. Still true.
_
_
I suppose tho’ that the construct on which gender is based – masculinity/femininity – must be redesigned. Obviously this is not a new idea. But I think perhaps there’s a tendency to regard a human animal as a bank page upon which a culture writes. Whereas I think of it as an animal.
.
There is a limit as to what can be done. You’ll never train cats to pull sleds for example. So the intention becomes not so much in creating a race of gender-homogenous androgynes but new ideas of femininity/masculinity which do not curtail the aspirations and opportunities of individuals insofar as that is possible at the present time.
.
There is however a difference and it will persist. At least imho. I could well be wrong.
Natural selection is just one mechanism for evolution BTW, there are others eg genetic ‘drift’.
.
Insofar as I actually understand this stuff I thought they were theories.
@ Adrien
Theories are models of observed phenomena (i.e. facts) which are used to predict future events/phenomena. So biological evolution has observations, data, mechanisms, hypotheses, facts, theories and predictions based on the theories.
ETA: if I’ve misjudged where you were heading with the emphasis on “it’s a theory”, I apologise in advance. It just sounded way too like the “Just A Theory” woo that makes my teeth grind.
First, you build a giant roomba. Put technology in the mix and nature/nurture starts to get interesting.
TT – if I’ve misjudged where you were heading with the emphasis on “it’s a theory”, I apologise in advance.
.
Yeah you did. I know what you mean. Like AGW is just a theory so we can ignore it by pretending ‘just a theory’ is like: it’s only a story. Natural Selection makes perfect sense to me.
.
As I understand it a viable theory has evidence that backs it up but is not yet 100% proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. It may be proved false finally or, more likely, superceded by a better theory which incorporates the earlier ones.
.
I mean the difference between the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the General Theory of Relativity. Or evolution and natural selection. The first is a fact; the second an explanation that explains the fact, at least partially.
So, you think that women playing an equal part in the blogosphere would be like cats pulling sleds? because that’s where the evpsych – essentialist argument always heads, isn’t it?
Naah, Helen, you just put the little buggers in the harness, and whip them hard enough, and you’ll get them pulling the sled, no problem.
Much easier than getting women on to the blokosphere, err, sorry, blogosphere!
uh cough cough – bump