Are you a feminist?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:09 pm

Originally posted by Tom
Feminism is about equality for women. Surely that must imply that feminism also aims at equality for men at the same time. If feminism was for the superiority of women then that would of course be a discriminatory theory.

Feminism is not one thing, it is a broad term that has developed to cover many different theoretical schools and factions. It is not necessary implicated that it covers all gender equality issues, or even both sexes. For instance, the women's liberations movements i Japan, India, Iran or Jordan has little in common with the Swedish feminist movement. In Jordan, there is much focus on "honour killings", ie the practise that a father murder his daughter if she acts unsuitable, such as falling in love with the wrong person. The story Enchantress refers to got much attention, and the murdered girls best friend is today one of Jordans leading feminists. In Iran, women enjoyed equal rights to education etc in Shahen's time, but much of their rights were removed when Iran became a religions fundamentalist state. Today Irani women struggle against the very limited role and rights they have in society. In India, there are feminist movements working for an end to the practise of "acid throwing", ie the husband or the husbands family sometimes throw acid in a woman's face if they are not satisfied with her. That way, divorce is accepted, because a man has the right to divorce a woman who's looks are disrupted. (I am simplifying things here, but that is in order to give an overview).

In Sweden however, gender equality in law is fully achieved long since. Statistically, Sweden is the most gender equal country in the world. It is interesting to note what turns feminism has taken here. The following schools of thought are the prevalent ones here:

1. Biological determinism feminism, that states that differences between the men and women are genetic and biologically determined and as such, the eqality is a question of value not that men and women are suited to do the same things. This is a naturalistic school, so for instance it is not viewed as a problem that only 13% of professors in Sweden are women, instead it is viewed as "natural" that women are not genetically suited for science and instead, focus is on working towards a society where "female" characteristcs are more valued. A leading figure who get much media attention is a Jungian therapist (not a psychologist mind you) who claims women in science are "victims of patriachal values and repress their true, "natural" femininity which of course is associated with reproduction, grooming and homemaking. The biological determinism feminism is the ideology that dominates acedemia and media.

2. "State regulated feminism" which believe that laws and regulations are the tools by which equality for women should be achieved. It does not concern overly with causal explanations for gender differences, but strive to find regulations that will remove differences. A representative example is the test you can to in Sweden to gain admittance to university studies if your grades aren't good enough. When this test was introduced, it turned out that the mean scores for girls were lower than the mean score for boys. So the test was changed in order to make it easier for women to achieve a higher score. There wasn't even a dicussion regarding why girls scored lower. (One should note that in experimental cognitive tests, females at group level score a little bit higher than men in arithmetics, whereas men score a little higher on spatial math tasks.)
Let's adress the problem with ineqality in the acedemic world according to this school: As I stated above, there are only 13% women among Swedish professors. Why is this, when at the basic educations, women are overrepresented? Over 60% of all university students are female. Medical science, my area, are getting close to 70%. But for each step you take on the acedemic ladder, the % women dimish.
Studies of research council and grant funders in the US (MIT), the UK and Sweden (Karolinska) revealed that there was a bias against female researchers in the evaluation process of merits. The Swedish study showed that a female senior researcher had to be twice as merited (yes there are objective, quantitative ways to measure this) as male researchers, to be judged as equally merited.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage. ... a0_fs.html
(If this link requires institutional subscription and you wish to read it, please notify me and I will post the article instead)
The bias against female researchers has been shown to be equal in male and female judges.

Taking a gender tiger by the tail
Christine Wennerås, Agnes Wold
Nature 399, 747 - 748 (24 Jun 1999) Book Review

Valian didactically explains the roots of prejudice and stereotyping. The simple belief that two groups of people are different will taint the evaluation of an individual from either group, impeding a clear-headed evaluation of that person's merits. Stereotyping is a basic human inclination, which probably evolved, according to Valian, to facilitate speedy judgement — if one sees a tiger, it is better to have prejudiced ideas on the aggressiveness of that tiger, based on previous encounters with other tigers or hear-say, than to wait and see how this particular tiger behaves. Girls and boys, men and women, are perceived and treated differently even in cases where the two sexes behave in exactly the same way. Valian calls this stereotyping "gender schemata", and shows that women as well as men firmly believe in psychological differences between the sexes, when, in fact, no psychological tests have shown any such differences.

In Sweden, this finding led to immediate action. New professor chairs especielly for women were installed. So called "Gender professorships" were also installed, specifically for research in gender issues. Gender research got massive governmental fundings.
So...now we sit here with professorships that only women can apply to. No such thing exists for men. And gender research is so totally dominated by issues related to the female sex, so the only prominent equality researcher I know of, is called "man's researcher". He is also a man. Ironically, gender research is the most one-gender dominated research area that exists in Sweden, there has been recent discussions to use a quota system to get in men as underrepresented sex

So, my reply to Tom's question has feminism gone too far? is that yes it has in Sweden, and not only too far, in the wrong direction. Personally, I would never degrade myself as to accept a "Women exclusively" professor chair, because:
A: My gender should not be an issue at all, my research should.
B. If I wish to compete professionally, I compete with my professional merits. My gender is not a professional merit, and I see no reason to compete only with same sex people.
And these Women professor chairs say: women can't compete with men so they need their own little special professorships, and gender is an issue. Whereas I think gender should not be an issue, at all.

3. Victimisation feminism (yes it is actually called that) where inequality and discrimination against women is a problem exclusively attributed to the "patriarchal" social structures and male prejudice in general. Is often characterised by a strange dichotomy where males are responible for everything and the female falls into a passive, submissive position similar to the old 19th century woman's role. Still has clear concepts of what characteristics and behaviours are "feminine" and "masculine".

4. A very small group of feminists that women are superior to men, and an even smaller group that claims men is not necessary and that the world would be a better place without them.

So @Tom, I think I have good reasons not to be a feminist

@Littiz & Chanak: Women are better at violin and men at guitarr? :confusion: What a strange notion, I've never heard of this. Are there any controlled studies of this with reliable statistics?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:21 pm

Originally posted by Enchantress
How women are treated in other countries is terrifying.

I agree, but how disabled, homosexuals, mentally ill, children, ethnic minorities etc are treated at some places in this world, is equally terrifying IMO.

posted by DW
I think that much of this discussion ultimately boils down to how things are valued and it also touches on the nature/nurture debate. I feel somewhat out of my area here, but I would say that in general women and men do possess some physical and psychological differences. For example, there are indeed women out there who are exceptionally strong, stronger than many men, but I do think this is more the exception than the rule.

Although I am certainly not researching "gender issues"

I feel very much inside my are here since nature/nurture interaction is one of my specialist fields, and I work with behavioural neuroscience. Sure there are marked physiological and thereby also psychological differences between men and women at group level, but the brain, which indisputable governs most of human behaviours, differ much more between individuals than between sexes. This is true also for all cogntive and emotional traits I know of that has been studied.

So, we should ask ourselves the fundamental question: yes there are differences, but are those differences functional? And if so, when are they functional, during what circumstances, in which contexts?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:24 pm

@Littiz & Chanak: Women are better at violin and men at guitarr? :confusion: What a strange notion, I've never heard of this. Are there any controlled studies of this with reliable statistics?

I think this was misquoted, earlier. Littiz did suggest men were better at playing the guitar than women--I don't know why; it's his idea. He said that women made excellent violinists and pianists, which Chanak took to mean superior.

Actually, men and women make equally fine violinists and pianists. Size of the hands and manual dexterity are not gender-specific traits. Chopin was said to have had extremely small hands, while Rachmaninoff had enormous hands. Yet both were superb pianists.

Nice post, by the way.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:36 pm

Originally posted by fable
I think this was misquoted, earlier. Littiz did suggest men were better at playing the guitar than women--I don't know why; it's his idea. He said that women made excellent violinists and pianists, which Chanak took to mean superior.

I think the general tone of my comments on the matter are just that - in general.

Generally speaking, men tend to be larger than women. Generally speaking, it follows that men generally have larger hands than women. In the case of the violin, it is a handicap. In the case of a guitar, however, it is an advantage. Scayde has difficulty playing her twelve string guitar successfully, whereas I don't. Even though my hands are larger and stronger than hers, I nevertheless possess long, slender fingers, making my hands well-suited to the manipulation of most musical instruments. Her hands are actually very similar to mine, but are much smaller and more delicate, enough so that playing the guitar is a much more difficult task for her than it is for me....

I think I went out of my way sufficiently in both of my posts to note that I was referring to generalities and averages here.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:44 pm

If I made a mistake about restating your opinion, @Chanak, I apologize.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:45 pm

Bah my little hands can not grasp those twelve strings whatsoever. Yet these nimble things can undo any feminist or not bra in mere seconds.

This thread is in dire need of my N.O. M.A.A.M. knowledge bank.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:57 pm

Originally posted by fable
If I made a mistake about restating your opinion, @Chanak, I apologize.

No worries, fable.

Let me say this, though: this same twelve string guitar - which at this time is quite the daunting obstacle to Scayde - can nevertheless be mastered by her if she sets herself to the task with determination. She might disagree with this (and I know she does

), but I know she can do it. In fact, she can do anything she sets her mind to.

I grew up with three sisters - no brothers - and two were my elders. I have no illusions, nor do I underestimate the individual potential of any human being. After all...my eldest sister once beat up two older boys on my behalf. They would gang up on me as I passed by their yard on the sidewalk. One day, apparently, my sister had seen enough of this. She left the house quietly without telling us where she was going...and returned later, hair all disheveled, and smiling brightly. When I asked what had happened to her, she replied: "Oh. I beat up the Pollards. They won't bother you any more."

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:00 pm

Originally posted by Chanak
I think the general tone of my comments on the matter are just that - in general. Generally speaking, men tend to be larger than women. Generally speaking, it follows that men generally have larger hands than women. In the case of the violin, it is a handicap. In the case of a guitar, however, it is an advantage.

Have you seen any statistics that show this to be the case in general? I ask because studies of musicians show that to excel in any musical instrument, one must start at latest around age 6. This is due to the neurodevelopment. And at age 6, everybody has very small hands.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:38 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
Have you seen any statistics that show this to be the case in general? I ask because studies of musicians show that to excel in any musical instrument, one must start at latest around age 6. This is due to the neurodevelopment. And at age 6, everybody has very small hands.

Considering that you and I tend to view matters in a very different manner from one another, I'll keep this in mind as I respond.

Very interesting, and I have at some point encountered this during my reading activities. As usual, I refer to norms/trends that I see within my own society at large. The source of my data: people I have known - and things I have noticed about such people - combined with what we all experience here in the US in regards to the music and entertainment industry. Since a number of musicians from other countries appear often in the United States, I feel the music scene here in America is very well representative of much of the world. Some musicians that have achieved great skill and fame were relative latecomers with their prospective instruments, often not arriving at their "instrument of choice" until they were well into their teens. At this point, such considerations as hand strength and size do indeed come into play.

With that said, I know of quite a few male classical guitarists...but relatively few female classical guitarists. Generally speaking, I place more value on my own pratical experience in most practical matters than I do raw scientific data, since scientific studies must be conducted under controlled conditions in order to yield appreciable results which can be reasonably duplicated by other scientists. For example, I can reasonably form the opinion that males tend be larger than females based upon my observations of a large number of males and females in my lifetime, without referring to scientific reports which would tell me essentially the same thing.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:51 pm

With that said, I know of quite a few male classical guitarists...but relatively few female classical guitarists.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but there are quite a few famous, well-recorded female classical guitarists: Martha Masters, Monika Rost, Wang Yameng, Anne Azema, Sharon Isbin and Wilma van Berkel are some of the most recent names that come to mind. Again, I'd have to ask if this is a case of men "generally" having a greater hand spread, rather than a rule. Besides, an excellent artist can make up the difference. There are some fine pianists, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, who have relatively small hands. This does not prevent them from being at the forefront of their professions, as interpreters, but also as technicians.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:59 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
Have you seen any statistics that show this to be the case in general? I ask because studies of musicians show that to excel in any musical instrument, one must start at latest around age 6. This is due to the neurodevelopment. And at age 6, everybody has very small hands.

I am swamped at work today, sorry I can't play. but I wanted to post this for CE.

@CE, I am sure this would not qualify as scientific data, but it is an interesting article from one of the trade magazines for guitarists. You did raise an interesting question though. I am curious if the strong prevalence in this country for men to play guitar or drums, and women to play piano or violin have more to do with a cultural bias when parents are choosing an instrument for their child. Most great rock and blues guitarists are in fact male. The chords are very complex and require a long stretch on the neck of the guitar. My sister is a very accomplished guitarist. It is important to note however, that she began playing when she was four. Her hands have developed differently than mine, and in fact her last two fingers are curved somewhat from the years of practicing. I came from a musical family, we had everything from guitars, to drums to saxaphones, and on, and on, but she is the only one to take an interest, and can play them all. As talented as she is, she is still not able to make a guitar sound the way BB King, Kenny Wayne Sheppard, Hendrix, or Muddy Waters can. She sounds more like mellissa Manchester, which isn't bad. (Wish I could

But she just can't make the chord progressions the guys can. She is a 'feminist' yet even she will tell you, her hands are just too small.

Anyway, here is the link.

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 7:02 pm

When I was a lad, I was told I had to learn an instrument.

I liked the flute, because it was small, could be carried around, and has a nice sound. My mom told me men don't play flutes, and gave me a trumpet.

I mention it because one of my favorite flute players is a man: Jethro Tull (no idea whether he is good or not).

Uhhh ... am I way off topic?

I'm kinda with those who say feminism is getting beyond just equality, which, IMO, is what it should be about.

Me, I like women. Like 'em a lot. They're AOK with me. The more the better, I say.

God bless 'em! Does that make me a feminist?

Peace.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 7:03 pm

Originally posted by fable
With that said, I know of quite a few male classical guitarists...but relatively few female classical guitarists.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but there are quite a few famous, well-recorded female classical guitarists: Martha Masters, Monika Rost, Wang Yameng, Anne Azema, Sharon Isbin and Wilma van Berkel are some of the most recent names that come to mind. Again, I'd have to ask if this is a case of men "generally" having a greater hand spread, rather than a rule. Besides, an excellent artist can make up the difference. There are some fine pianists, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, who have relatively small hands. This does not prevent them from being at the forefront of their professions, as interpreters, but also as technicians.

I appreciate the difference between generalities, and exceptions to a norm. As I think I said earlier, I don't underestimate the potential of any human being to achieve what they truly desire. If they desire it strongly enough, they have a good chance of succeeding...thus, my comment about Scayde and her twelve string guitar. Is hand size and strength a limitation to everyone? Of course not; some do it despite of it. To most, however, it is.

Most women I know won't even attempt to lift a 178 lb. propane gas tank. Some might. I know there are some who could do it. I wonder, though...because really, this all goes to demonstrate the merits of equal opportunity, and the amazing potential of the human mind to overcome obstacles.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 7:11 pm

Originally posted by der Moench
I mention it because one of my favorite flute players is a man: Jethro Tull (no idea whether he is good or not).

I think he is awesome

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 7:12 pm

Originally posted by Chanak
In the case of pain...it is true. generally speaking, males can be big babies when they hurt. (there is a secret behind this, but I ain't telling. )

*Giggle*....You're so cute

..*kiss*

*Ahem*...What I meant to say was I think any person should be able to do anything they want to do, as long as they are the best at doing it. I do not believe in quotas, tilted requirements, seperate standards, different pay scales, different policies regarding attendance, different physical assesments, different testing criteria...etc. etc.

Anyway, just my point of view, no favors, just opportunities

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 7:43 pm

Originally posted by Chanak
Most women I know won't even attempt to lift a 178 lb. propane gas tank. Some might. I know there are some who could do it. I wonder, though...because really, this all goes to demonstrate the merits of equal opportunity, and the amazing potential of the human mind to overcome obstacles.

No argument, there. There are some obvious physiological differences that hold true for many, if not all men and women. The only reason I mentioned those female classical guitarists is that you used the field as an example, and I like keeping the classical record straight. Your example drawn from the military was more to my liking, I admit.

@Chanak, do you know if the Navy follows the Marines' policy of deliberate separation? This is an area (one among millions) in which I have no knowledge, at all. And the Navy of course had its Tailhook Scandal a little more than a decade ago, demonstrating not merely gender bias, but the humiliation of Navy female enlistees, and a surprisingly paternalistic attitude among the upper cadres.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:04 pm

Originally posted by fable
No argument, there. There are some obvious physiological differences that hold true for many, if not all men and women. The only reason I mentioned those female classical guitarists is that you used the field as an example, and I like keeping the classical record straight. Your example drawn from the military was more to my liking, I admit.

Understood. Thank you for setting the record straight.

do you know if the Navy follows the Marines' policy of deliberate separation? This is an area (one among millions) in which I have no knowledge, at all. And the Navy of course had its Tailhook Scandal a little more than a decade ago, demonstrating not merely gender bias, but the humiliation of Navy female enlistees, and a surprisingly paternalistic attitude among the upper cadres.

A friend of mine, having served in the Navy prior to joining the Army (and a member of my Basic Training platoon), told me that female sailors were restricted to non-combat ships at that time...i.e., supply vessels. Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, and smaller combat vessels were strictly off-limits to female sailors. Basically, the only sea time a female sailor would ever experience was aboard one certain classification of ship. This also included, at one time, Aircraft Carriers as well (which are in reality floating cities...you would not believe the micro-city that exists within their massive hulls). This has since changed, and the Navy has relaxed their former restrictions, allowing female sailors to serve on Aircraft carriers, and even Battleships now...and I do believe that the Tailhook scandal served to break a great deal of that old fraternity up.

The Navy is as old an institution as the Army is, with the Marine Corps following a close second. I am not so sure concerning service on submarines...I could do a little digging around and come up with that info, if you're interested.

Yes...most of this humilation was due to the fact that these females were facing a long, established tradition that had remained "sacred" for over two centuries. Though what happened to them was deplorable - and sickening, IMO - their suffering was not in vain. Because of their courage, other women may now step up and serve free of that kind of awful treatment.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:18 pm

Originally posted by Chanak
I am not so sure concerning service on submarines...I could do a little digging around and come up with that info, if you're interested.

In 1998, Australia deployed the first female personnel on to our submarines. Being near a large naval base, I've heard plenty of the arguments from the US naval personnels voicing both for and against opinions about women being allowed to serve on submarines. I do know that the next (US) submarines to be commissioned in 2006 will be specifically altered to accomodate women.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:37 pm

Originally posted by Tamerlane
In 1998, Australia deployed the first female personnel on to our submarines. Being near a large naval base, I've heard plenty of the arguments from the US naval personnels voicing both for and against opinions about women being allowed to serve on submarines. I do know that the next (US) submarines to be commissioned in 2006 will be specifically altered to accomodate women.

Ah...thank you for the info, Tam.

I am reminded of a friend I worked for back in Tennessee...let's just call him "Dave."

"Dave" was a former career Navy man - 20 years of service sopping wet.

(please forgive my "service jokes" here...but a great deal of rivalry exsists between the Army and the Navy that goes well beyond the football field, I admit to falling prey to it

) He spent a good deal of that time on a submarine...and you know, he possessed some rather odd habits:

1. He repeatedly called those breaded fish filet sandwiches served by various fast food restaurant chains "three by fives." When I asked him why, he demonstrated by pulling the fish filet out from between the bread of his own sandwich...and subjected the filet to measurement by a ruler. Sure enough, the fish filet measured 3 inches wide by 5 inches long. He explained that this is the term all submariners used when referring to fish filet sandwiches. Odd.

2. Each time he woke up from a sleep (like when he would nap during the lunch hour) he would come to immobile, afraid to move. This worried me one time when I woke him up to go back to work, so I asked him why...

Seems that beds in submarines, referred to as "racks," only have approximately 18 inches or so of space between each one. They are very cramped...and "Dave" was a lummox of a man, to be kind in the assessment.

He had made the mistake of lifting his head off of his pillow when he woke up in the morning one too many times...and said he bore metal grate marks on his forehead for a while to remind him of his stupidity. Of course, other, more experienced submariners marked him as a "newbie" because of it, and got a kick out of his "tattoo."

I wouldn't wish any of this on anybody.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:46 pm

@Tamerlane:
The Navy also learned that women cannot be assigned individually to a specific ship or post by themselves. They call this idea "critical mass". That is, one woman won't be assigned to an air wing or a destroyer, but rather groups of women (officers and enlisted) will be assigned together.

Think of it this way: when people are in large groups, they tend to gravitate towards others who are like them. This is why all large cities have ethnic enclaves. Similarly, the Navy found that individual woman had a hard time adapting to male-dominated life in the fleet the same way that the first black sailors did. We also saw this when Shannen Faulkner quit at The Citadel; she was the only woman there and couldn't take the isolation. However, later women to attend VMI and The Citadel have done very well because they aren't alone.

The problem on submarines is that they are very small ships and there is no private space. Crew members "hot rack" (share beds so that one shift is sleeping while another is on duty and there aren't any more bunks than absolutely necessary), and there aren't separate quarters except for the officers. The only two US military communities that still specifically exclude women are the submarine service and the special forces, and I'd wager a good deal of money that within 10 years both of those will be gender-integrated.