Both: Do you believe there are sexual components to masculinity and femininity?

submitted by worried19 from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]uwubunny 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

This isn't a serious comment, it's a false dichotomy you're setting up. Understanding that men and women tend to have different interests and abilities doesn't mean we force women back in the kitchen and prevent them from voting. It means we should be asking why corporate careers were built for men to put unrelenting decades of work into, which exclude women who want to raise kids. It means we should have women represented in politics, law and media so that women's distinct stories and lives are being represented. It means we should value and pay for female-coded careers such as childcare and social work and nursing. It means we should include women's enhanced needs for safety from men in planning public spaces and buildings. Finally, it means we should respect the individual, and not restrict men who want to do female-coded things, or women who want to do male-coded things. In short, it means we recognise that humans are genuinely diverse, and we should restructure society on that basis.

Feminism does not need to be an anti-biology pretence that women and men are the exact same animal. Feminism is any movement that seeks women's liberation. The Temperance movement was one kind of feminism. So was the Suffrage movement.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

But believing that men and women have different brains leads to both the sexism of conservatives and the sexism of the trans movement. It allows people to say that if women are naturally one way and men another, then they don't deserve the same rights or that if you have the "wrong" personality, you're not actually a full or valid member of your biological sex.

This is what one of the things that is causing young GNC women (among others) to flee womanhood in droves, this idea that women must be pornified, submissive helpmeets to men. If you tell a girl that women have different brains, and all the stereotypes associated with those "female brains" are negative, it's no wonder she won't want to grow up to be a woman. Especially since many of the stereotypes insinuate negative things about women's morals, character, intelligence, etc.

It means we should be asking why corporate careers were built for men to put unrelenting decades of work into, which exclude women who want to raise kids.

What about men? Men should expected to raise their own damn kids. We should be asking why women even in this modern age are burdened with more than 50% of the childcare. The point of egalitarianism is to make things fair and equal, not say that women are biologically predisposed to want to stay at home and take care of babies. We need better parental leave, flexible work hours, and quality childcare for men and women so that both sexes can participate equally in child raising.

[–]uwubunny 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The sexes aren't identical, so it's nonsensical to say they should be equal, really. Men and women are different. It's not a valid objection to say that you don't like the consequences of them being different; facts are what they are. Unless you want to go Brave New World on everyone, women are always going to invest much more time in child care than men, because that's what most women find fulfilling. If you're different, that's fine.

Social conservatives believe that men and women ought to always behave in different ways to make Jesus happy. Second-wave feminists believe that for some reason, a magical field surrounds the brains of men and women which makes their brains (a) identical and (b) immune from evolution. The third-wave feminist movement extended this magical science-proof field to their entire bodies, thus making men and women mysterious ethereal and indefinable entities. Reasonable people might think that all of the preceding claims are a load of bullshit and that human beings are simply a kind of animal with evolved variation between and within the sexes, but reasonable people didn't get a look in to politics.

However, there is a truly equal solution that you might be happy with: we just inject high doses of testosterone into every female fetus and induce artificial CAH across the population. That will produce a crop of girls with much more male-typical interests (including women), who will be just as career-focussed and uninterested in child rearing as the men you think women ought, for some reason, to emulate.

[–]worried19[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Are you male or female? Your perspective seems quite odd for a radical feminist. This is the type of rhetoric I would expect from a Red Piller.

The sexes aren't identical, so it's nonsensical to say they should be equal, really. Men and women are different.

That's biological essentialism. You seem to believe that what women naturally want is to stay home and take care of children. That we do not naturally want careers or our partners to share their half of the childcare. If that's your perspective, we're too far apart ideologically to continue any type of discussion.

[–]uwubunny 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Are you male or female? Your perspective seems quite odd for a radical feminist.

  1. Why would you assume I'm a radical feminist?
  2. Why would my sex have any bearing on my conclusions about human nature? Sounds almost... biologically essentialist.

That's biological essentialism.

Is it biological essentialism to think that women are in general naturally attracted to men and men are in general naturally attracted to women?

You seem to believe that what women naturally want is to stay home and take care of children.

What men and women naturally want to do has little bearing on what we actually do in a modern neoliberal society. But we do have natural preferences within that society. I do think women will be happier than men to raise children, just as men will be happier than women to compete in high-powered careers or do technically skilled jobs with mechanical objects. That's a consequence of our evolved nature. Don't you believe in evolution?

If that's your perspective, we're too far apart ideologically to continue any type of discussion.

And the difference between you and a TRA is?

[–]worried19[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This is a feminist sub. MRAs were not allowed on the old sub. If you are a Red Pill adherent, then this conversation is over.

And the difference between you and a TRA is?

This sub isn't GCdebatesRedPill. I have never been interested in that type of discussion. I'm not saying you should be banned, but I want no part of it. QT people at least agree on feminist principles.

[–]uwubunny 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What you're saying is extremely similar to TRAs - if I step outside certain parameters of the debate then I should be silenced.

I don't subscribe to any ideology or ideological world view. I am a minority of one in any debate. I refuse to be categorised. If calling yourself a feminist is a mandatory part of being on this sub, then the moderators should ban me, because I refuse to call myself a feminist.

I know that human beings are evolved animals, and I try to form beliefs about humans, human behavior and human society based on that. I recognise that human society is about unending political conflicts and zero-sum games. I recognise "red pillers" and feminists both have valid points to make from their own lived experience, but their beliefs coming from limited perspectives are unlikely to hold universally, and not everything they say is guaranteed to be sincere, since they are political activists.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

As I said, this sub is for gender critical feminists to debate liberal, pro-trans feminists. It was never intended for anti-feminists of any stripe.

I am not a moderator, so I have no control over what the mods do. All I know is that I have zero desire to debate people who don't even agree on basic feminist principles. Red Pill beliefs have caused me extreme distress in the past, and I have no inclination to revisit those here.

[–]uwubunny 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Anti-feminist is a label, so I reject it. I am indifferent to feminism, like I'm indifferent to any ideological position. If particular feminist claims seem sound to me then I'll accept them to the extent they are based on evidence. Feminism is the name for various womens' liberation movements, which is a political view premised on women being a coherent political bloc, having common interests, and rejecting anti-feminism. Since I don't believe women always have common interests, and I don't always reject anti-feminist ideas, then I can't call myself a feminist, and I can't call myself an anti-feminist. Moreover, particular second and third wave feminist claims seem to contradict observed facts of evolution, so I reject them.

And what's the difference between you and a trans activist who says that people not believing in their gender identity have caused them extreme distress? Why should it matter if it causes you distress? Reality doesn't care. The universe can be a distressing place.

[–]worried19[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have to take care of my own mental health first. I'm not arguing for silencing of your views. But I'm not the right person to debate them.