|
|
Post by HoppersSkippersMiners on May 22, 2011 20:54:42 GMT -5
Ha!
Finally got back here after a long day, after missing some of the best conversation I've been honored to read in a while!
But, I have my own, slightly counter opinion on why things are changing, and it makes me both happy and yet somewhat leery.
IMO, women's (AND men's) ability to control when and if they are having children is one of the main powering forces in this gender shift. Throughout the ages, women have been pressed into having children - often by necessity - as teenagers and even if they survived throughout the childbearing years, they were worn out afterward. There was no TIME for education. Children were so often a requirement. Extra hands to help with food production, the only possible hope there would be someone to look after you as you aged, the only way to hold down land when land was all you had. And children died at a miserable rate. Often 50% by age 3. And so women bore, and bore, and bore. Children WERE often THE measure of a woman's worth. Quantity. Not quality. And strong boys valued over girls, because strength was needed. And a path for inheritance. In so many cultures girls just went to their husbands' homes where they in turn lived and died having children in the hopes a few would grow up.
Enter the 20th century trifecta of modern sanitation, epidemiology, and birth control.
For the first time in history, CHILDREN LIVED! Death rates for everyone plummeted, but the biggest impact was for kids. If you gave birth to five children, you could expect that all five would survive to adulthood. In all of human history, that had never happened before. Which gave rise to a huge glut of children (look at the historical population trends over the last thousand years, it started skyrocketing less than 100 years ago). No one wanted to stop having sex (we're programmed to want to screw!). But in the 50-60's came birth control and AN ACCEPTANCE TO USE IT.
Both men and women could decide NOT to have kids! And when they did, those children were typically wanted and cherished for reasons beyond them merely representing a warm body and a strong pair of arms. With less kids, each child became more valuable. Consequently, there was a push to make each child as worthy as possible. Education became a mandate for both boys AND girls. And girls COULD become educated, because they weren't expected to be bearing children of their own before 16 anymore.
I truly think a preponderance of educated girls has never happened before in the history of mankind. So, everything that has occurred in the last ~ 100 years as women have made a progression to equal rights is truly new for us as a species. We really DON'T have a template for this. Homo sapiens has survived for the last 100,000 years on brawn. Having the last <100 years switch to brain, and in the last 25 years to ever-equalizing male/female brain, is an undiscovered frontier.
I happen to love this strange new world we're in. But we're shattering dynamics we've relied on for millennium. And a lot of people are upset and feeling marginalized. Its hard to tell what's going to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by SusieFierce on May 22, 2011 21:49:07 GMT -5
Wow, that is incredibly interesting, Hoppers. And I totally agree. That kind of cultural analysis amazes me. It's insane how taken for granted infant mortality was for so long. It's pretty much an established contention now that when you educate women, your culture progresses exponentially (I think this was a point in that article). Poverty and mortality rates decline as literacy rates improve. But despots cannot wield power over an empowered people, so of course they oppress in order to remain in power. So infuriating. But that's how it works, those in power imprison their subjects with poverty and illiteracy so they will remain in power. I love ancient cultural themes in novels and one concept that blows me away is how humans shifted their deification of the Goddess or the Earth Mother to an all-power patriarchal God so quickly. I've seen it referenced more than a few times that the shift occurred almost instantaneously, once homo sapiens figured out that men were an integral part of procreation. For centuries, they didn't know and revered the female as the Creator; men had little to do with it, However, once it was established that men played an requisite role in creating life, the shift from matriarchal societies to patriarchal occurred at lightning speed. Seems like we've been trying to get it back ever since.  |
|
|
|
Post by mszue on May 22, 2011 22:12:02 GMT -5
I did not realize this thread was back to being active...so I have to pipe in my 2 cents worth.
I fear that Carol Gilligan is a little misunderstood here, as is at least the roots of Difference feminism. And I don't think...or would not have thought...that a self identified Difference feminist would claim Chodorow...but that is another matter.
Gilligan started her graduate career as a research assistant for Lawrence Kohlberg. He was a psychologist and ethicist and he used the Piaget model to design what he called a linear sequential model of moral reasoning. He claimed that all children moved through these stages in an invarient mode. These stages are:
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation
(What's in it for me?)
(Paying for a benefit)
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience)
The point here is that these levels are sequential and normative...2 is better than 1, 4 better than 3, etcetera. And this is where it gets tricky.
Kohlberg's scale was designed using only child-subjects were males but the scale was applied to both girls and boys. But when Gilligan, as K's RA questioned the girl children, she found that to a large extent, the girls answers did not really fit into the categories K had developed, especially as they matured into the Conventional stage [which the vast bulk of the population never leave]. For lack of an inclusive model, girls were slotted routinely into level 3 while boys routinely were put in at the 4th level. This was what was behind the title of Gilligans dissertation and the book "In a different voice".
At no time did she ever claim that females were superior...the whole point of difference feminism is to aclknowledge that even though females/girls/women seem to march to a somewhat different drummer than their male counterparts [whether by nature OR nurture] these differences deserve the same level of respect and reward. That differences should be recognized and honored rather than marked as inferior. She wrote this book in 1983 and was seminal in the shift of feminism from a fight to be 'just like a man' or 'as good as a man' to simply being appreciated for the skills often found in women in greater degrees than in men....AS A RULE. Not always....not good....not bad...
I confess I see multiple shades of red when I hear women brag that they 'get along better with men' as if that were a good/admirable thing. No....it is good to think like a caring, intelligent ethical person...not like a man....not like a woman. If that caring, intelligent, ethical being fits a feminine stereotype, so be it. If not....so be that.... Gilligan just fought for the discussion of a 'different voice', but not a better or superior one.
Sorry.....got me on my soapbox here...but there is so much conflating of feminisms that result in original research being twisted and bent completely out of shape. The conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck have called us names like 'femi-nazi' so long and loud that we women even believe it!!WTF is that!!!
sorry....probably good that this thread is dead.....I think....
|
|
|
|
Post by HoppersSkippersMiners on May 22, 2011 22:38:42 GMT -5
It's insane how taken for granted infant mortality was for so long. [wry grin] There are some BIG generational gaps in my family, so I only have to go back 3 generations before I hit the Civil War ;D . My grandmother was the youngest of 10. Of which I think 6 lived to adulthood. My grandfather was the youngest of 12. I'm not sure if any of them were college educated. The next generation down was my parents generation. In our section of the family, only two kids each and everyone at least attended college, even if (for the gals) they didn't use it much because they left the job market after kids were born. My generation is small, college educated, and in active careers. My sister and I only have 1 kid each. Among my friends it is really rare for anyone to have more than 2 children, and many only have one. Ironically, a lot of us want more, but find its really difficult to juggle children and career without feeling like you're jeopardizing both. Add to the fact that a lot of us waited until our 30's to have that first child because after busting our asses in school we wanted to get established in our careers, and you just realistically run out of time to have more. Ye 'ol biological clock still says your most fertile years are between 15-35 no matter how long it take to get your graduate degrees. Hmmmm.....wonder if that's a verifiable corollary. The more strongly educated your female workforce, the smaller the subsequent population size? Seems to be the case in Japan. |
|
|
|
Post by HoppersSkippersMiners on May 22, 2011 22:46:28 GMT -5
[looks up in confusion]
May have to re-read Carol Gilligan....
|
|
nonotme
Member
Posts: 1,399
Location:
|
Post by nonotme on May 22, 2011 22:55:44 GMT -5
Hi, just popped in, checked today's thread, saw a comment about this conversation, came over here to check it out. Perhaps the thread is actually dead now, but I wanted to add a quick comment, a bit of a tangent.
The Atlantic article and many of the comments here about the changing roles for women made me want to mention a book that talks about the parts of the world where women are still mired in a culture that oppresses them, Half the Sky by Kristof and Wudunn. The stories powerfully illustrate the horrors some women face, and the inspiring beginnings of change and opportunity. It focuses on sex trafficking, honor killings, rape as a weapon in war, maternal mortality, women's health and education. So, a bit off topic, but a good book-
peace&love
|
|
|
|
Post by LindaG23 on May 22, 2011 22:56:20 GMT -5
It's insane how taken for granted infant mortality was for so long. [wry grin] Hmmmm.....wonder if that's a verifiable corollary. The more strongly educated your female workforce, the smaller the subsequent population size? Seems to be the case in Japan. It absolutely is. I just googled 'women', 'fewer children', 'economic success' and was inundated with scholarly articles. Rather than quote them, let's just say yes there is a corollary between educated women and fewer children. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by maria222pf on May 22, 2011 23:02:53 GMT -5
What an interesting discussion!  Loved reading everyone's opinions. As an environmentalist, I cannot wait till the options of limiting the number of children (by choice) is available to everyone, everywhere in the world, otherwise I fear we are in for more and more environmental degradation, etc...  And yes, all studies have shown that education for women (not sure if it's tied to use of contraceptives) leads to them consciously choosing to have smaller families. (however as nonotme mentioned above what we take for granted is so not the norm for women in most of the world) :-/ Mzsue, it's obvious you are an expert in your subject but I find it a bit difficult to understand your point, because you know your subject inside and out and kind of jump in and I don't quite know what you are saying - although I am the same way about my favorite topics and it just shows your love for the subject (and perhaps I need to read the books that were referenced... ??? :  Also, I have noticed big generational differences in feminism and the way they applied, starting with my mom's generation, mine own and now that of my nieces, who take so many things for granted that my mom struggled with and against. Also, I find all stereotypes of what women and men are inaccurate since we are such an incredible combination of genetics, environment, biology and culture. (or maybe I have just been very lucky to have met many strong women and many gentle nurturing men)  Not that the complexity has stopped us humans from trying to figure it out... |
|
|
|
Post by mszue on May 22, 2011 23:48:20 GMT -5
What an interesting discussion! Loved reading everyone's opinions. As an environmentalist, I cannot wait till the options of limiting the number of children (by choice) is available to everyone, everywhere in the world, otherwise I fear we are in for more and more environmental degradation, etc... And yes, all studies have shown that education for women (not sure if it's tied to use of contraceptives) leads to them consciously choosing to have smaller families. (however as nonotme mentioned above what we take for granted is so not the norm for women in most of the world) :-/ Mzsue, it's obvious you are an expert in your subject but I find it a bit difficult to understand your point, because you know your subject inside and out and kind of jump in and I don't quite know what you are saying - although I am the same way about my favorite topics and it just shows your love for the subject (and perhaps I need to read the books that were referenced... ??? : Also, I have noticed big generational differences in feminism and the way they applied, starting with my mom's generation, mine own and now that of my nieces, who take so many things for granted that my mom struggled with and against. Also, I find all stereotypes of what women and men are inaccurate since we are such an incredible combination of genetics, environment, biology and culture. (or maybe I have just been very lucky to have met many strong women and many gentle nurturing men) Not that the complexity has stopped us humans from trying to figure it out... Hi Maria22pf Sorry for that. I was reacting to several earlier posts and to an article posted by...I have forgotten who now... The article was really interesting but I couldn't get it to open in a way I could easily read it so I was just cherry picking at phrases I could make out. The author dredged up some stuff on Nancy Chodorow while leaning in the title, at least, on Carol Gilligan [as she riffed off on the name 'Gilligan's island]. I was going back to basic Gilligan to show that Gilligan was not trying to say that females were 'better'...as the article was implying. In the same article, a mention was made of Chritina Hoff Sommers who has made her name claiming that feminists are whiners, that they are not only operating in a fair marketplace, but that boys are the victims now that the girls are out-performing them in the classroom. Some of this may be legitimate, but she is very polemical about her claims. All I was really doing was defending the precepts of 'difference feminism' and trying to address a few comments that I felt were incorrect. I was trying to show where Gilligan's ideas came from so that it made more sense. Sorry...did not mean to make it more confusing....I do tend to skip along concepts...especially when typing in a little box where I can't see everthing I have typed!! ??? ??? that's my excuse and I am sticking to it! |
|
|
|
Post by maria222pf on May 23, 2011 1:08:49 GMT -5
Mzsue, thank you so much for explaining, it puts it in better perspective and I think it would be interesting for me to read the books referenced to, very interesting discussion |
|
