Gender Essentialism

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9053
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".

1. There is something unique and special to being female, something that cannot be generated by males...(What would it be? A kind of cognition? A kind of perception? A kind of intuition? A natural propensity? A domestic possibility? A set of values? A perspective?...etc. It varies among Feminist writers) -- this is a kind of 3rd Wave claim.

2. There is nothing unique to being female: any current differences that appear to exist between men and women are socially constructed, not essential. This is a kind of 2nd Wave, Billie Jean King kind of position.

One thing we can see for sure: these claims are absolutely exclusive of one another. If there is even one thing that corresponds to #1, then #2 is obviously not true. If #2 is true, then there is no way that even one item can be true under #1.

And this is but the start of the question. There is a stage 2 when we have sorted out the right answer.

So we can all see it has to be #1 or #2. Which do you think it is, and why?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9053
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Wow. This topic has been up for awhile, and nobody will touch it?

That, in itself, speaks volumes.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8826
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

I'll touch it...

Post by henry quirk »

The 'fruits' of feminism...

Sissy Boy: Any gender can get a period!

Old Man: Boy, if yer bleedin' from yer dick, that ain't a period, that's cancer.

:thumbsup:
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:51 pm Wow. This topic has been up for awhile, and nobody will touch it?

That, in itself, speaks volumes.
The gender sub on this forum is mostly the work of incels and angry old men who have complicated misgivings about their mothers. There is pretty much nobody for you to discuss these 2nd and third wave feminist theories with here.

What's possibly telling is that you have chosen to have this discussion in the lair of dick-cheesemongers like Daschund and Nick who will totally agree with you, rather than going somewhere else in search of hairy ladies who care about this shit.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9142
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:36 pm rather than going somewhere else in search of hairy ladies who care about this shit.
How very misogynistic and hypocritical of you (not at all PC-like :roll: )
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:06 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:36 pm rather than going somewhere else in search of hairy ladies who care about this shit.
How very misogynistic and hypocritical of you (not at all PC-like :roll: )
One day you may have to think through the logical implication of all the times you have called my behaviour non-PC
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Dachshund »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:01 pm I notice that a lot of gender theory talks two different ways. So I'd like to know which of the following two positions is to be considered genuinely "Feminist".

1. There is something unique and special to being female, something that cannot be generated by males...(What would it be? A kind of cognition? A kind of perception? A kind of intuition? A natural propensity? A domestic possibility? A set of values? A perspective?...etc. It varies among Feminist writers) -- this is a kind of 3rd Wave claim.

2. There is nothing unique to being female: any current differences that appear to exist between men and women are socially constructed, not essential. This is a kind of 2nd Wave, Billie Jean King kind of position.
Dear IC,




The second position is associated with what was called Second-Wave feminism, this was a movement that ran from the early 1960's (when American journalist and dissident hausfrau Betty Friedan, published her best-selling book "The Feminine Mystique" in 1963) through to the 1980's. The Second Wave feminist movement was quite aggressive and radically anti-establishment. It's leading lights were writers, academics and journalists like : Germaine Greer, Kate Millett, Shulasmith Firestone and I will add Andrea Dworkin (even though technically she came to prominence in the 1990's) All of them and their cronies were strong advocates for the second position which is GENDER feminism. The Gender Feminist thesis is that even though they have different sets of sexual genitalia, men and women are otherwise equal (and by "equal", they mean, literally, the SAME). For instance, there is no innate difference in modes of cognition, the experiencing and regulation of emotion, or any of any other mental events men and women experience in waking, phenomenal consciousness. The upshot is that the innate disposition that 5 -year- old boys possess to play with objects like toy trucks and racing car is purely "socially constructed; just is the strong preference that little girls display to play with more "Social" toys, like dolls that need nursing or teddy bears that need to be organized with little cups of tea at a teddy bears' picnic.

Any individual with a modicum of intelligence knew that when Second Wave feminism started telling average adults in the West that having a pair of balls (testicles) didn't make men any different (psychologically) from Heffner's "Playboy Bunnies", that what they were listening to was 100 %, crazy bullshit. (And) I maintain to this day that Germaine Greer, Shulasmith Firestone, and obnoxious specimens like Andrea Dworkin ,are certifiably insane ( I MEAN IT !) Dworkin seriously believes that all men are rapists. She has published this theory in various books and feminist literature papers she has written. Now, if I were a competent Western psychiatrist and I were asked to evaluate the state of mind of an adult woman who sincerely believed that every time a male had penetrative vaginal sex with a female partner, a "rape" , had taken place; and that ALL men were inherently rapists by nature, I would know straight away that I was certainly dealing with some kind of serious psychopathology (personality disorder? psychosis of some kind?, delusional disorder? I would have my work cut out isolating the correct diagnosis).In any case, the Second Position, is no longer tenable. Recent research investigations in neuroscience using in utero male and female foetuses have found substantial differences in the structure and function of the physical brains of foetal boys and foetal girls. Because these differences in the male and female brain were observed in utero, obviously, they cannot be the result of any external, environmental socialization processes of the kind feminist theory has always proposed. Or in other words the whole bogus corpus of Gender Feminist theory has already disappeared right down the gurgler. Funny how feminists never mention the fact these days. Funny how they now refuse to discuss the issue?


Thus POSITION 2 is Dead, buried, cremated... That doesn't mean the notion is not still out there floating around in the mind of 1000s of female half-wits - IT IS (!!), and this is what continues to cause do much damage to the fundamental fabric of Western Society.



I don't think I would class "Position 1" as a feminist position, IC, (Although ,strictly speaking, you are referring to Gender Essentialism, I think, and this is , in fact, regarded as a distinctive strand of 3rd-wave feminist theory -why , I don't know) not at least, the way you've written it. It would lead to the conclusion that generally women are more emotional labile than men, that they possess a relative to men a sizable deficiency in their ability for moral rationalization ( that was the original Immanuel KANT's view, back in the era of 18th century Europe, before modern neuroscience ( neuropsychology, neuroimaging, etc.) existed, the good news is that we DO have the requisite neuroscientific technology now, and it confirms the original Immanuel Kant's observations, and those of Neitzsche and Aristotle !); that they (females/women) are typically averse to involving themselves in physical violence, that they are generally less aggressive, that they are more empathetic, nurturing and caring, compassionate and charitably disposed than men, that they are not as physically strong as men, that generally speaking normal, healthy, young females YEARN to be pregnant ( from and have children of their own, that (in the romantic context) they definitely do not find themselves attracted to men who are wimpy, weak, "beta males" or overly effeminate , rather, they expect the men they marry to "crack the whip" (like Nietzsche !) and keep them firmly, but fairly in line !! (they are biologically wired to expect that they will be pulled sharply back into line by their husbands when they misbehave) , and if they don't get get this treatment, you (the husband) will end up in a divorce court, and then and empty pocked after a legal system that is systematically biased in favour of women, makes you cough up mega-dollars in alimony payments and child support that will financially cripple you !)


Now, whether or not they know it is true (which, of course, it is), no feminist will sign up for "Position One" as I outlined it above. Take it from me,you only need remember one fact about feminism, IC, and that is that from 1960 to 2020, feminist theory has, without exception been BASED on a PACK OF LIES and STUPIDITY.


NB:I have just quickly read a summary of "Feminist Essentialism" which say that it is a concept/principle in feminist theory and gender studies which attributes a fixed "essence" to women (in the sense that a medieval Schoolman like Thomas Aquinas would conceptualise the term) This essence is presumed to be universal and is generally identified with those psychological characteristics traditionally viewed as feminine such as : nurturance, empathy/compassion, non-competitiveness, poor emotional regulation, deficient moral rationality, cunning, mendacity and so on. These mental attributes are biologically- based in the brain. So if this is a part of 3rd wave feminism, I welcome it, because at long last we are hearing some common sense. OF COURSE men and WOMEN think differently and experience different levels and patterns of emotional expression, OF COURSE, men are innately more rational (Aristotle worked that out a long time ago), OF COURSE they react to sense perception when they are represented in consciousness in different way. The thesis of Gender Essentialism strengthens the binary between males and females and is therefore very welcome, IMO, (because this is perfectly natural), though what it has to do with feminism - which has traditionally been all about securing the goal of equality between the sexes/genders - I do no know?


Regards


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)................ (Beware the dog)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9053
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dachshund wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:57 am NB:I have just quickly read a summary of "Feminist Essentialism" ... The thesis of Gender Essentialism strengthens the binary between males and females and is therefore very welcome, IMO, (because this is perfectly natural), though what it has to do with feminism - which has traditionally been all about securing the goal of equality between the sexes/genders - I do no know?
Good heavens, D...you do grab a bone and run with it. :wink:

I appreciate your comments. That was not the direction I was thinking of going, but yes, there are two different authentically "Feminist" accounts of the situation. I shall refer to them, for clarity, as "Equality Feminism" and "Uniqueness Feminism," as that captures the essential difference I wish to explore.

All I really am looking for at the moment is for people to identify which of these two incompatible, mutually-excluding views they might personally choose. And I see you would be a on the "uniqueness" team, or as you term it, "Gender Feminism". Thank you.

I wonder if anybody is around who wishes to opt for the "equality" team. There were plenty of such in the '70s, as you note; and there are areas in which their view persists. As you observe, this would be the Greer, Dworkin, Friedan, Steinem kind of position...though at times, Steinem et al. went beyond equality to a kind of extreme uniqueness view called "Supremacist Feminism."

However, strangely enough, Feminism itself isn't my present topic of interest -- it's the groundwork for something far more current. And I want to wait until I know what others think. It seems fair to me to let everybody weigh in first.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8826
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

I recognize...

Post by henry quirk »

...that ladies can make babies while I can take a whiz without squatting.

Other differences I recognize: ladies are very good at cluckin' while I excel a brooding; ladies are very good at asking about their keisters (does this dress make my ass look fat?) and I'm great at diggin' my own grave (no, the dress doesn't make your ass look fat, your ass is fat, now work that thing fo me...); ladies pick wonderful movies which I artfully avoid; ladies dance fantastic and I'm damn good at watchin' 'em do that; ladies cook and I eat; ladies worry about fashion and I generally get dressed in the dark; ladies 'mother' and I 'father'; and on and on...

So: what team am I on?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9053
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I recognize...

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:21 pm ...that ladies can make babies while I can take a whiz without squatting.

Other differences I recognize: ladies are very good at cluckin' while I excel a brooding; ladies are very good at asking about their keisters (does this dress make my ass look fat?) and I'm great at diggin' my own grave (no, the dress doesn't make your ass look fat, your ass is fat, now work that thing fo me...); ladies pick wonderful movies which I artfully avoid; ladies dance fantastic and I'm damn good at watchin' 'em do that; ladies cook and I eat; ladies worry about fashion and I generally get dressed in the dark; ladies 'mother' and I 'father'; and on and on...

So: what team am I on?
Heh. :D I don't know if I feel comfortable putting you on a "team."

I think probably the "uniqueness" team. You might not be, per se, anything we can call a "Feminist," but you seem to see some separation of roles and achievements, rather than blank equality. I think you'd say something is unique about women, not nothing, in other words. And for the moment, that's enough for what I'm asking.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:12 pm However, strangely enough, Feminism itself isn't my present topic of interest -- it's the groundwork for something far more current. And I want to wait until I know what others think. It seems fair to me to let everybody weigh in first.
This thread is like a below average burlesque show, you may as well skip straight to the trannies.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9142
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:12 pm However, strangely enough, Feminism itself isn't my present topic of interest -- it's the groundwork for something far more current. And I want to wait until I know what others think. It seems fair to me to let everybody weigh in first.
This thread is like a below average burlesque show, you may as well skip straight to the trannies.
Ok.
Don't know what all the fuss is about. These are all clearly women.
Image

Wow. This woman looks as strong as a ....
Image
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9053
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Gender Essentialism

Post by Immanuel Can »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:16 pm This thread is like a below average burlesque show, you may as well skip straight to the trannies.
What's your position, Flash?

Are you more sympathetic to the equality Feminists, or a uniqueness Feminists?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8826
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: I recognize...

Post by henry quirk »

"I don't know if I feel comfortable putting you on a "team."

Team chauvinist pig, mebbe.

#

"I think you'd say something is unique about women, not nothing"

Yep.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8826
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"This thread is like a below average burlesque show"

Post by henry quirk »

killjoy
Post Reply