Why are women repressed?

Great Debates
101

No Mandelstam. You implied very strongly that there was no reason why strength need lead to economic inequality. Since you’ve already conceded that you were wrong in this there’s no need to attempt to alter your stance to suggest that you implied that it was neglible rather than completely sociological. To quote you: “what are these “numerous reasons” why men and women will “never” be equal? So far as I can tell, the basic differences are these: 1)reproductive organs; 2) reproductive function; 3) certain concomitant hormonal differences.” Since you asked a question of me I started to explain that strength was one of those factors. I’ve proven that now so I can let it rest.
The second debate, which is related to the first, concerns the degree to which hormones determine “personality.” Gaspode maintains that hormones are a “prime controller” of “personality.” I maintain that hormones are certainly a factor in determining human behavior, but I question the extent to which they determine a) “personality” and b) gender identification.

Which seems in direct contradiction with “hormonal differences that may–and I emphasize may–stem directly from the former, or may be exacerbated by socialization itself.” and “socialization/environment impacts relative differences”. Relative differences are physiological.

Which has never at any stage been disputed. Infact this has been stated by myself more then once in this thread.

And Mandelsatm is again being dieingenuous because I explained in my last post that memebers of the scientific community don’t need to quantify "profound and provided examples of their not doing so. The same post also gave a definition of personality. Both questions have been answered in full.

Well I never really engaged such a debate. You made the ignorant assertion that there were no valid reasons why males and females could never be equal. You never at any stage mentioned exyent etc. So long as you concede that there are some reasons why equality is impossible then I’ve won the point.

Pure argument from assertion folks. This is simply a restatemnt of Mandelstams original position. I have provided reasoning, facts and examples which have forced Mandelstam to concede that this cannot be so, and yet rather than follow those argument through she has decided to simply retstate the same of thoroughly debunked rubbish. ANyone who is interested can re-read my previous p[osts where I case this particular ignorant belief of Mandelstams around, back it into a corner despite her best attempts to weasel out of it, and force her to concede that it isn’t true. Ther’e no point in my goingthrough that excercise again since she has already conceded that “that physical strength means that men have greater opportunities for economic success then women due to physical differences” and that the strength difference between men and women is an inevitable one. The point has already been won and lost and Mandelstam is now seerting that the point she has been forced to concede is still valid. You can’t fight that kind of ignorance people.

Yes, but the reason you brought up your MBA example was to weasel away from answering my question. The actual exchange ran:
G: If strength has value and group A has more strength than group B then, all other factors being equal, isn’t group B of more value?
M:The “value” of a person, even when defined as economic value is not reducible to a single determinant. Now let us assume–for the purpose of argument–that an MBA confers access to the highest paid employment in a given society. In that instance “strength of less value” would be irrelevant to the question of a person’s economic value.

Mandelstam the problem is that instead of answering my question which had the clearly stated proviso " If strength has value" you tried to weasel out of it with an example of two groups where strength had no value. I’ve already proven that this is logically invalid and is based on an equivalence of zero. Such factors as you mention above are only irrelevant to the performance of normal MBA business duties because they have no value to the performance of normal MBA business duties. They would not be irrelevant if they had value and as such your example is logically unsound.
I have asked Mandelstam the above question two different ways no less than three times now, and instead of ansering each time she has instead provided an example of where strength does not have value. This is the reason why this debate has been like wrestling a pig in mud. Evry single concession has to be wrung out against disingenuous and dishonest attempts at weaseling away from the stance she actually holds.

No Mandelstam, I don’t infer that, it is a condition imposed by the question. Now please answer it. If strength has value and group A has more strength than group B then, all other factors being equal, isn’t group B of more value? You’ve already conceded that male strength has economic value in some positions.

Then you have failed to address my question, a condition of which was that all other factors were asummed to be equal.

Except that we have indisputable evidence that physiology poduces major differences between genders strength, height and reproductive physiology. We have no evidence that race has any such effects and as such what we are discussing here is an argument from facts, while such an argument applied to race is an argument from ignorance.

Yes I’m sure that would be interesting, but it has no bearing on the reasons why males and females aren’t equal.

No, I wouldn’t. That’s a strawman. I never requested any such thing. I just want you to answer the freakin’ question. If strength has value and group A has more strength than group B then, all other factors being equal, isn’t group B of more value?

Which proves that strength has no value, which proves that you are not answering my quetsion with his example. Now please answer my question. If strength has value and group A has more strength than group B then, all other factors being equal, isn’t group B of more value?

And failed to answer any of my direct questions, despite stating in your previous post t"Once again, feel free to re-raise anything you specifically wish to me to answer to." Well I did that several times, yet I have recieved only weaseling, and no answers.

102

Gaudere,

I find the nature of your interventions quite remarkable. Gaspode, the sexist barbarian has repeatedly used words, such as “stupid”, “ignorant”, “illogical”, “groundless”, and “logical fallacy” to refer to statements raised by Mandelstam. However, until the most recent deluge of hostile drivel from Gaspode, you chose to ignore his obnoxious and insulting replies.

When Mandelstam made the “addled your brains” comment, a critique I believe even Mr. Rogers of Public Television fame wouldn’t find offensive, you put on the old monitor hat and called her on it. Perhaps I’m biased toward intelligent, open minds, but I can’t help but feel that even an objective observer would consider these interventions lopsided, relative to the level of offenses being ladled out.

Being a monitor is a difficult responsibility. I’m sure you always encounter individuals who second-guess your interventions. I respect your dedication to this important responsibility and I certainly don’t intend to make your job more difficult. I would encourage you, however, to reflect on the exchanges that have taken place between Mandelstram and Gaspode. The topic of this OP concerned the repression of women, and it looks pretty bad to see a man behaving badly treated less harshly than a woman showing this man that wit can triumph hansomely over brawn.

103

Am I correctly reading pages 2 and 3 if I summarize them by saying that the original question of why and how women came to be oppressed (or “repressed”, if you will) has led to a discussion of whether or not discrimination in hiring practices is an indication of sexist bias or is instead a reasonable acknowledgement of different (usually physical strength) capabilities?

Is it being asserted here, by anyone, that a general different in physical strength between the sexes means that the oppression of women is (and historically has been) a nonexistent phenomenon?

Is anyone attempting to make the case that prehistoric hiring practices led to universal male hegemony and that patriarchy is a sort of physiologically-centered meritocracy?

Does there exist, within any claim being currently put forth here, the notion that a systematic and categorical disempowerment of women * per se* has not been a factor within human social organization, and that instead any appearance of same can be attributed to the results of localized ongoing competition for opportunities and social power which, generally speaking, women have not done well at?

Or is this all a tangential argument about whether or not the municipal Fire Department oughta make women applicants do lotsa pushups?

104

Yes AHunter, Gaspode believes that men’s physical strength and um-- superior hormonal make-up (the idea that only men can fight wars and so should make all the decisions seems to have been dropped.) makes it inevitable that men dominate.

105

Put Joe, Tom, Sue, Mike, Elaine, and Patricia in the sandbox and I suppose someone will make the argument that Joe Tom and Mike will monopolize the best sand shovels and buckets simply because they can.

There’s a lot wrong with that assertion but even granting it temporary validity for the sake of argument, it doesn’t explain a situation in which the Rules of the Sandbox, observed and accepted for as long as toddlers have come to play there, state that girls are not ALLOWED to use the sand shovels and buckets.

Rules and social structures that systematically disenfranchise women, FAR from being explained by pointing towards men’s greater upper-body strength or other (alleged) built-in advantages over women, would in fact be UNNECESSARY AND REDUNDANT if this built-in superiority of men were to result in the winners of competitive struggle being male.

Furthermore, individuals who have a trait in common do not intrinsically make a political bond of that trait in order to strugge against people who differ in that regard. Brunettes do not attempt to subjugate redheads and make of them an oppressed minority despite having the numbers to make it plausible.

106

Put Joe, Tom, Sue, Mike, Elaine, and Patricia in the sandbox and I suppose someone will make the argument that Joe Tom and Mike will monopolize the best sand shovels and buckets simply because they can.

There’s a lot wrong with that assertion but even granting it temporary validity for the sake of argument, it doesn’t explain a situation in which the Rules of the Sandbox, observed and accepted for as long as toddlers have come to play there, state that girls are not ALLOWED to use the sand shovels and buckets.

Rules and social structures that systematically disenfranchise women, FAR from being explained by pointing towards men’s greater upper-body strength or other (alleged) built-in advantages over women, would in fact be UNNECESSARY AND REDUNDANT if this built-in superiority of men were to result in the winners of competitive struggle being male.

Furthermore, individuals who have a trait in common do not intrinsically make a political bond of that trait in order to strugge against people who differ in that regard. Brunettes do not attempt to subjugate redheads and make of them an oppressed minority despite having the numbers to make it plausible.

107

Actually, I believe that what has been going on strongly resembles everyone in the sandbox throwing sand at one another. Naturally, the skill levels and styles differ a bit, but it all boils down to ending up with the least sand in your hair.

I’ll have to remember the phrase “physiologically-centered meritocracy”. If I substituted “phsylogocial”, it would make for a catchy statement during performance reviews at work.

108

Make that “psychological”. The manual spell-checker has failed me again.

109

I confess, it seems almost surreal to return to this thread after today’s events.

But I did want to say, thanks, AHunter for the very eloquent summary, and thanks Hairy for bringing Mr. Rogers into GD (can the king and the little choo choo join as well?). Biggirl, I agree with you (but I suspect Gaspode will want to speak for himself.

Gaspode, for what it’s worth I’ll take another whack at explaining myself to you by replying to your very first statement (and nothing more).

You quoted me as saying:
“Needless to say, I maintain that the [strength] factor has a negligible impact on these inequalities, whereas Gaspode maintains that the impact is large.”

You replied:
"*No Mandelstam. You implied very strongly that there was no reason why strength need lead to economic inequality. *

Now, I have read these statements several times at this point, and I’ve come to the conclusion that you may not understand a certain figure of speech that I’ve used and which you have paraphrased. When I say that there is “no reason why” differences between the sexes “need lead to economic inequality” what I mean is that they do not have to. That is, I can imagine a society in which men and women are biologically constituted exactly as they are now, but where these differences (including strength differences)do not do not result in significant socio-economic or political equality. However, to say that is not to say that in the presentday world, these differences aren’t contributing to socio-economic and political inequalities.

Now you and I have been mainly arguing about the impact of the strength factor. As you and I both agreed, one way that the strength factor might be contributing to inequality is through bias against women based on inferences extrapolated from it (“if she’s weaker she must be ____er”). In my arguments, however, I have made an important distinction between this and other kinds of prejudice (which are socio-cultural) and actual disadvantage at the workplace due to differences in strength. Now, what I have said over and over again is that–particularly at the highest skilled levels of employment–I take this actual disadvantage to apply only “minimally,” "negligibly, “insignificantly,” etc. Nor do I believe that the strength factor significantly inhibits women from entering these highly skilled kinds of work.
Rather, I believe that existing socio-economic and political inequalities are caused largely by socio-cultural factors–by things that can change. Those things include everything from prejudice, to childrearing patterns, to gender norms, etc.

So to restate: Differences between the sexes (including differences in strength) “need not” result in socio-economic and political inequalities–although at the present time, for various reason, they often do. However, the role played by the strength factor, particularly at the highest and most skilled levels is, IMO, negigible.

I hope this can help you to understand what appears to you to be inconsistencies in my arguments; and also why I believe that the main difference between us (at least on this particular flank of the debate) comes down to an empirical question: how great is the impact.

110

I don’t believe that women are repressed. I believe women are frightened to be anything other than what men allow them to be. There was time when most civilizations on this planet were matriarchial. Woman were viewed as the wisdom keepers, the weavers of a culture’s pattern and thread. Women were known as fierce warriors and led other women and men into battle to protect the common good. Women were looked to to heal the sick, comfort the dying and help ease the passage into the afterlife. Most of these early cultures were polytheistic, believing in gods and goddesses.

Then with the increase in popularity of the Christian church, mainly Catholisism, the tide began to turn. Men began to take control of the society. Cultures became more warlike, more aggressive. Women were religated to the weaker roles of child care and maidservant. Female midwives and healers were denounced as witches and burned alive. Women began to fear men, and through generations of anti-female propaganda, women began to believe these lies about themselves.

So today we stand before you, a strange mixture of inner strength, and humbled self-image. I believe we’ve always known what we were capable of, but preferred to keep it to ourselves. To let men think that they were in ultimate control. Sometimes it’s easier to walk over a sleeping dog than snatch a bone from a growling beast.

Don’t get me wrong, I like men. I understand how things went down. And to quote my mother, “People can only do to you what you let them do to you.” Just don’t be suprised when we take up shield and helm once again. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and it’s been a long time coming.

111

While I don’t agree that most early cultures were matriarchal, I do agree that goddess worship was prevalent not very long ago. I also agree that your “sleeping dog” analogy applies, in part, to women’s repressed, submissive stance in recent times.

I look forward to the day when women “take up shield and helm once again”. I sincerely believe that the world community would be far healthier if intelligent, strong, sensible, compassionate, nurturing, and spiritually-developed women were in charge. I believe that in many respects artists and women are the “keepers” of civilization.

112

…like toes forced into pointy-tipped high heel shoes, truncated, minimized, reduced to so much less than they could be?

It IS a different question than the macro-political one. Even though it IS also still political itself, because, to borrow a phrase, “the personal is political”…

a) Intimidation, as has already been mentioned. Or appeasement. I’m sure it is a factor but it would not carry much on its own. But sure, some of the time women shrink because of fear.

b) Tradeoffs – there are a variety of ways of understanding what it means to be a Woman, many of which construct a lot of covert power into acquiescence towards the role. Usually the imagery involves greater maturity, more day-to-day responsibility in the private (home) realm, and a more than a bit of condescension towards males and the things males claim for and believe about themselves. The key point here is NOT that women tend to believe that they have more power this way than they could have any other way, but that many tend to believe that they have more power this way than they could have through noisy futile resistance. A really good feminist perspective (that doesn’t deny such powers) can be found in Elizabeth Janeway’s Man’s World Woman’s Place.

c) Seduction – Sexual feelings often become attached to things that aren’t intrinsically sexy simply because we experience those things in conjunction with sexuality and sexual possibility. (Female underwear is just nylon and other materials; men who have panty fetishes do so because women wear these items and the occasions for men seeing them are often sexual occasions). If you are female and possessed of heterosexual appetite, the entire dynamics of your general experiences with men can become eroticized, including the power inequities.

d) Negative examples – I think this is an area where things are getting better, but for a long time there was a scarcity of positive, admirable images of women who were powerful in any way other than as described in “Tradeoffs” above.

113

I’ll say it again…

(And lets be equitable.)

They with the most ‘power’ win.
Sorry…as long as that means physical (muscle or weapons) men will always win.

If that be the Truth…there it is.

No matter how many thousands of men are taking care of children while their wives are earning money…about the time he chooses to hang with the vast majority of his brethren…he wins. One way or another.

Look now at violence.

This is what males are willing to do for whatever cause.

Is this not ridiculous?
Is this not anathema to your children?

And yet, this is what they do.

Germany, Italy, Spain, Britain…

Choose any war, any cause…there is always some reason why they MUST kill women and children and disrupt life in some region.

Isn’t it always something to do with money, possessions and power?

Read history.

114

Saying it again doesn’t make you more correct than you were the first time you said it.

Most power is an abstraction, a social construct.

If Joe knocks you down, straddles your body, and pins you, that is NOT an abstraction, you really can’t make any decision that gets you up off that floor. Notice that Joe’s freedom of movement is necessarily considerably restrained at this point, too, though.

If Joe instead knocks down Tom who is standing next to you, straddles Tom, and beats Tom to a bloody pulp, and subsequently tells you to lie down and remain motionless or he’ll do the same to you, Joe is exerting power over you, but now it is a social construct; you are acquiescing in a transaction in which you are DECIDING not to get up off that floor–reasonably so as long as Joe is nearby, more questionably as Joe proceeds to go to other things farther and farther away from you without telling you you can get up. (If you choose to be an unmodified undiluted radical, you can hop up every single time Joe gets off your chest up until you are no longer physically capable of rising.)

If Joe convinces Tom, through some combination of threats and rewards and brilliant motivational rhetoric, that Tom should watch you and help enforce Joe’s command that you remain lying down on the floor, Joe’s power over you is even more of an abstraction, and more significantly more of a social construct.

Now conceptualize power differently for a moment: not “over”, but “to”. Whatever the hell it is that Joe is trying to accomplish through coercion could in almost every conceivable case be accomplished through some other mechanisms that would obtain your (and Tom’s) compliance and coopereation, and if those other means are less expensive to Joe, therefore depleting his resources less, Joe has more power pursuing that course of action. (Admittedly, if what Joe wants is something that no one else wants, Joe may be stuck with coercion as his only option. I am not saying that coercion can be eliminated from human attempts to get one’s way, but that a social system based on it is far from inevitable, and that power over other people is not the best, ultimate, or most effective form that power can take).

115

I’d like to point out that in the eyes of Western societies before the sexual revolution, say before 1900, women were not repressed but treated with respect. For example, men held doors open for women, rose at the table whenever a woman got up, walked on the outside of the street so whenever people threw waste water out of an upstairs window the water would land on HIM and not HER. Whether it is right or wrong by our standards, men did not see themselves as repressing women but rather as sacrificing their comfort and health to protect them. Likewise, women did not see themselves as active participants outside the home, but mostly left outside duties to their husbands. It is only in the last hundred or so years that large numbers of women have been seeking status in society equal to men.