5.21.11 Adam News & Info
May 23, 2011 9:51:42 GMT -5
Post by midwifespal on May 23, 2011 9:51:42 GMT -5
[quote author=mszue board=daily thread=324 post=49940 time=1306126100
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!
[/quote]
??? :-[
*Raises hand sheepishly* That was me. All I can say in my defense is that I prefaced the whole thing by admitting that I was full of shit and not well read in the area! I was also posting-and-running, never a good idea, which means I miss-phrased my characterization of Gilligan (SORRY!)--I actually knew that she was claiming difference rather than superiority--and I'm glad, Mszue, that you clarified and explained all that!
Also, I posted that Katha Pollit article, which I, too, gave up on reading in its entirety cause the format was too trying , although I've read it in the past. I found the parts I did read interesting and sympathetic, but should really know better than to throw something like that out into an ongoing and involved academic debate in which names and references represent entire sets of opinions I know nothing about ! Who know's what I espoused with that article reference! MWP=Idiot!
Nevertheless, I do think the kind of differences identified by Gilligan and others have have been adopted by pop culture and pop-feminism into a "women are superior" meme. And they have led liberated women to think about themselves in a certain way that sometimes makes me uncomfortable, not so much because I think it is offensive to men, but because I think it is offensive to women.
I want to reiterate how ignorant I am about most of this (although I've discussed it with people far less ignorant that I, and am perhaps partially just cribbing off them). But I am immediately doubtful of the kinds of childhood experiments you described that Gilligan participated in. The very flaws in that experiment itself that you mentioned show the degree to which they are already distorted by cultural norms, but more than that, the kids, boys and girls, who participate, are skewed by those norms the minute they emerge from the womb, and, frankly, probably even before. (I wouldn't be surprised, for example, of women who know they are bearing a male child tend to eat more, because, you know, big boy's gotta eat.)
Then the female infant gets a pink hat, and is babbled at about how pretty she is before she can even come close to understanding what that babble means. Male babies are left to cry slightly longer than female babies because their parents subconsciously believe they are 'tougher'--I believe I've read somewhere (I might me wrong but if I am surely some other similarly discrepancy exists, so just think of it as a hypothetical example). My reactionary brother in law, who had a girl after having six boys, recently responded to my husband's question to him about the differences (my hubby was stirring, shame on him) by saying that his ONE YEAR OLD! daughter preferred "dresses" and "looking pretty." Every single time I was at that house someone had her dolled up in a little velvet-and-ribbons outfit while the gathered masses cooed over her and told her how pretty she was. The most liberated, enlightened parents are unlikely to let their boy child wear a dress outside of the house for fear of bullying and unnecessary questions. You can see how the most carefully controlled experiment trying to identify biological gender differences, even at 6 months of age, will be immeasurably screwed by cultural pressures.
So I'm very suspicious of theories that ascribe such differences to the sexes, and I've personally never felt them, or even observed them, particularly. And sometimes I feel that women who embrace such theories are limiting themselves in many ways, and they rub against my own feminist streak. This is not so much true of the people who study the issue very carefully--I'm sure, for example, you and your colleagues, Mszue--would give a very sophisticated and nuanced account of difference feminism--but by the time a version of that theory has trickled down into pop-culture it leads to some very reactionary beliefs in the name of female empowerment.
By the way, I hate the word feminazi, (in fact, even the word "feminist" has been tarred by a similar right-wing brush as the term "politically correct"--both of which linguistic developments piss me off) and while I had a lot of boy friends (sadly, not boyfriends
) growing up, I also had plenty of girl friends. My favorite groups were and have always been mixed.
By the way, a few of you have mentioned how much better it is for a society when women are educated, and it made me think of Obama's recent address on middle-east issues. I kept waiting for him to bring up the state of women in the area, and finally he did, saying:
small hooray.
Finally, that is an excellent point about child-bearing practices, Hoppers. I'm 31, married, and I almost feel like it would take a great leap against the normal way of things for me to decide to have a kid, so much have the expectations shifted. Not, of course, against having children--it is still considered strange not to have any at all if you're married--but just against that natural moment when a women says now its time, the expectations are that I do it. I don't think of myself as a "child bearing entity." It's not part of my identity. And its a really weird and difficult thing for me to try and make myself think that way, in order to contemplate doing something I know I want to do "eventually"--namely, have a child. Plus, my mom said to me a few years ago, you should have a stable career first, and doesn't that just shift the pressure in another way entirely!! :
whew: long post is long. But I had to eat a little crow, lol, and then cleanse my palate!
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!
[/quote]??? :-[
*Raises hand sheepishly* That was me. All I can say in my defense is that I prefaced the whole thing by admitting that I was full of shit and not well read in the area! I was also posting-and-running, never a good idea, which means I miss-phrased my characterization of Gilligan (SORRY!)--I actually knew that she was claiming difference rather than superiority--and I'm glad, Mszue, that you clarified and explained all that! Also, I posted that Katha Pollit article, which I, too, gave up on reading in its entirety cause the format was too trying , although I've read it in the past. I found the parts I did read interesting and sympathetic, but should really know better than to throw something like that out into an ongoing and involved academic debate in which names and references represent entire sets of opinions I know nothing about !
Who know's what I espoused with that article reference! MWP=Idiot!Nevertheless, I do think the kind of differences identified by Gilligan and others have have been adopted by pop culture and pop-feminism into a "women are superior" meme. And they have led liberated women to think about themselves in a certain way that sometimes makes me uncomfortable, not so much because I think it is offensive to men, but because I think it is offensive to women.
I want to reiterate how ignorant I am about most of this (although I've discussed it with people far less ignorant that I, and am perhaps partially just cribbing off them). But I am immediately doubtful of the kinds of childhood experiments you described that Gilligan participated in. The very flaws in that experiment itself that you mentioned show the degree to which they are already distorted by cultural norms, but more than that, the kids, boys and girls, who participate, are skewed by those norms the minute they emerge from the womb, and, frankly, probably even before. (I wouldn't be surprised, for example, of women who know they are bearing a male child tend to eat more, because, you know, big boy's gotta eat.)
Then the female infant gets a pink hat, and is babbled at about how pretty she is before she can even come close to understanding what that babble means. Male babies are left to cry slightly longer than female babies because their parents subconsciously believe they are 'tougher'--I believe I've read somewhere (I might me wrong but if I am surely some other similarly discrepancy exists, so just think of it as a hypothetical example). My reactionary brother in law, who had a girl after having six boys, recently responded to my husband's question to him about the differences (my hubby was stirring, shame on him) by saying that his ONE YEAR OLD! daughter preferred "dresses" and "looking pretty." Every single time I was at that house someone had her dolled up in a little velvet-and-ribbons outfit while the gathered masses cooed over her and told her how pretty she was. The most liberated, enlightened parents are unlikely to let their boy child wear a dress outside of the house for fear of bullying and unnecessary questions. You can see how the most carefully controlled experiment trying to identify biological gender differences, even at 6 months of age, will be immeasurably screwed by cultural pressures.
So I'm very suspicious of theories that ascribe such differences to the sexes, and I've personally never felt them, or even observed them, particularly. And sometimes I feel that women who embrace such theories are limiting themselves in many ways, and they rub against my own feminist streak. This is not so much true of the people who study the issue very carefully--I'm sure, for example, you and your colleagues, Mszue--would give a very sophisticated and nuanced account of difference feminism--but by the time a version of that theory has trickled down into pop-culture it leads to some very reactionary beliefs in the name of female empowerment.
By the way, I hate the word feminazi, (in fact, even the word "feminist" has been tarred by a similar right-wing brush as the term "politically correct"--both of which linguistic developments piss me off) and while I had a lot of boy friends (sadly, not boyfriends
) growing up, I also had plenty of girl friends. My favorite groups were and have always been mixed.By the way, a few of you have mentioned how much better it is for a society when women are educated, and it made me think of Obama's recent address on middle-east issues. I kept waiting for him to bring up the state of women in the area, and finally he did, saying:
History shows that countries are more prosperous and peaceful when women are empowered. That is why we will continue to insist that universal rights apply to women as well as men -- by focusing assistance on child and maternal health; by helping women to teach, or start a business; by standing up for the right of women to have their voices heard, and to run for office. For the region will never reach its potential when more than half its population is prevented from achieving their potential.
small hooray.
Finally, that is an excellent point about child-bearing practices, Hoppers. I'm 31, married, and I almost feel like it would take a great leap against the normal way of things for me to decide to have a kid, so much have the expectations shifted. Not, of course, against having children--it is still considered strange not to have any at all if you're married--but just against that natural moment when a women says now its time, the expectations are that I do it. I don't think of myself as a "child bearing entity." It's not part of my identity. And its a really weird and difficult thing for me to try and make myself think that way, in order to contemplate doing something I know I want to do "eventually"--namely, have a child. Plus, my mom said to me a few years ago, you should have a stable career first, and doesn't that just shift the pressure in another way entirely!! :
whew: long post is long. But I had to eat a little crow, lol, and then cleanse my palate!
