Feminist preoccupation with power

Post Reply New Topic

Those are the women you meet this how ever isn't true for all women.

To be honest, women are just as vulnerable, if not more vulnerable now, hence why women I meet when I'm out during an evening walk tend to cross the road or pull out their cellphones when they see me coming towards them.

That's called being streetwise. Men are much more often the victims of street crime (muggings, etc) than women are, anyway. Are men more vulnerable?

Those are the women you meet this how ever isn't true for all women.

Nothing is true for "all women" or "all men" or "all bigenders" but as long as men are physically stronger than women the genders can never be equal its that simple. Either men dominate women through brute strength or women dominate men because the men accept the premise "even if she performs a violent act against me, I will not retaliate". It's one of the funny things, because the Murray Straus paper showed a high acceptance among females for violence against men, Straus also put in said paper that in 24% of domestic violence cases reported, the woman struck the first blow. In this case, its socially unacceptable for the man to strike back and the reason for that is?

On a pure anecdotal level, I've had women say to me and observe women say to other men, things that if a man had said that to another man that man would be in the hospital. If another man laid hands on me, I'd do the same or more likely worse to him. This is not all women, (I shouldn't have to qualify that statement) but some women are perfectly aware that its socially unacceptable for a man to react in certain ways when a woman "makes a scene" and use that to the furthest extent possible.

Regardless of how you answer this post, you are unable to do so without conceding that men and women are in fact different and thus can never be equal.

Reproductive control, is at the core of power for the sexes. The pill in 1960, provided the first real opportunity for women to exercise control over reproduction, and Roe vs. Wade extended that right in 1973.

There is evidence that the feminist movement would not of had success in the US, without the ability to control reproduction. It allows a woman control/power over areas of life, that were not afforded in previous decades.

And there is some evidence provided by research that "the pill" has changed mate preferences for females, for a less masculinized male, because ovulation has been linked to female preferences for masculinized males.

Western cultures are becoming more egalitarian and less patriarchal in the course of the last several decades as a direct result of the pill and abortion rights.

In fact research indicates that the pill and abortion rights are responsible for higher levels of satisfaction among women, over and above any of the other women's rights gained from the 60's to the 90's, in the feminist movement.

http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/adds/silviap/EJ_women_rights.pdf

Men still have the advantage in reproductive control in middle eastern countries where patriarchy is a way of life. This battle of power between the sexes is at the core of why some of these cultures fear the influence of the west. It threatens reproductive control and the power that men have over women in these countries.

However, the Arab Spring movement is having a little impact from within some of the countries in the middle east and northern Africa. Elective abortion, though is still illegal in most of these countries

http://www.voicesofthearabspring.org/1/post/2012/01/-abortion-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa.html

Any time there is an a debate over abortion rights, the emotions run high, but many of those core emotions rest on the evangelical patriarchs that remain in the US, and those that refuse to relinquish the rights to reproductive control, that there is some evidence that is literally changing the face of mankind, in western cultures.

That's a powerful force.

It is evident in almost every area of media, where masculinity is not the cultural ideal of what it used to be. Starting with Boy George in the Eighties. There is no way that could have happened in the 50's.

LGBT rights and acceptance have been affected and are continuing to be impacted by women's rights, in a positive manner, as well other minority rights.

Testosterone levels have dropped significantly among men born after the 1980's as compared to longitudinal studies of older males.

Many theories have been proposed as to why; many environmental factors could play a role, but it is obvious that if women are choosing less masculine men as mates, because of the pill, since 1960, that this is having an effect on culture, as well the potential for biology.

This likely impacts almost every arena in life; even potentially the symptoms of some ASD's, through the fact that birth control has led to the ability to delay starting of families into the decades of life in the 30's and the 40's, recently shown as a potential factor associated with ASD's.

And, also with higher levels of socio-economic stress, where raising a family with both parents employed, has become the norm required for subsistence, likely leading to potential higher levels of prenatal stress for some, that research suggests may be associated with ASD's.

It is no wonder that this thread has gained the attention that it has, second to the many abortion threads that are much a part of the same issue. As well as issues in the political divide, and with organized religion

The last great frontier for women's rights in the US, is health care for all; already established in many other egalitarian tilted societies. The current approximation of this opportunity would likely not have been possible without the pill, abortion rights, and the women's rights movement.

The democratic party is largely the egalitarian party and the republican party remains as the patriarchal core. Feminine and Masculine elements of each party are evidently proportioned as well in this manner.

Health care extends the potential for reproductive control, as well as control over economic decisions for those that are economically disadvantaged, of which women are still represented in greater numbers than men.

It is Custard's last stand for the remnants of a patriarchal society. The pill was the beginning of the end of patriarchy in western societies. There was really no turning back after that point.

If health care reform stands in the US, and Obama is re-elected; woman's rights, the pill, and Abortion Rights, can take significant credit, for these changes in Society.

Not to mention Nancy Pelosi, one of the most powerful faces of modern feminism, as well as the most villified, even by some whom call themselves feminists, in her part for doing whatever it took, to accomplish the goal of health care reform, in the US.

The remaining opposing forces are jumping through incredible hoops, to try to prevent it from happening. It is likely those forces will grow smaller and smaller as we go into the future, in part, potentially because of biological changes in human beings, as well as cultural changes, started by the introduction of "the Pill", in 1960.

The overall feminist movement in the West, in the last half a Century, is powerful stuff.

If some in the Middle East get scared enough over the threat of it spreading to their countries, there is the eventual potential that, in part, that fear could lead to nuclear conflict.

A potential Ultimate Battle over the power of reproductive control.

Hopefully, forces from within those countries that seek a more egalitarian way of life, can prevent that potential from happening.

Nothing is true for "all women" or "all men" or "all bigenders" but as long as men are physically stronger than women the genders can never be equal its that simple. Either men dominate women through brute strength or women dominate men because the men accept the premise "even if she performs a violent act against me, I will not retaliate". It's one of the funny things, because the Murray Straus paper showed a high acceptance among females for violence against men, Straus also put in said paper that in 24% of domestic violence cases reported, the woman struck the first blow. In this case, its socially unacceptable for the man to strike back and the reason for that is?

On a pure anecdotal level, I've had women say to me and observe women say to other men, things that if a man had said that to another man that man would be in the hospital. If another man laid hands on me, I'd do the same or more likely worse to him. This is not all women, (I shouldn't have to qualify that statement) but some women are perfectly aware that its socially unacceptable for a man to react in certain ways when a woman "makes a scene" and use that to the furthest extent possible.

Regardless of how you answer this post, you are unable to do so without conceding that men and women are in fact different and thus can never be equal.

what are you talking about?

Well, this entire talk about shaving came about as a discussion about unequal demands placed on genders based on the aesthetic preferences of the other gender and you made it very clear that you are against this. So I was curious whether you feel this way about behavior as well, IE that members of a gender should not have to moderate their behavior based on the preferences of the other gender. IE there is no reason other than preference to justify the behavioral moderation.

Hahahahaha you prove my point! "I can get more people to cooperate to threaten other people with physical sanctions than you can" is how the social construct works. The entire concept of jail is "We have more physical might in our combined beings than you do in yours, so we will lock you up".

i don't see a parallel.

A woman will always be physically weaker than her equivalent male, this is not one of your "this is society/cultural" things, this is biology.