I've mentioned this before, but in the middle ages in Christian Europe if it was thought that the mother was at serious risk during giving birth, there was a practice of drilling into the baby's skull and later extracting it by parts. Apparently, medieval Europe had its share of moderates.
I'm saying that in order to reach a compromise people should have frameworks that allow for it. Your framework does not. I don't think you are particularly concerned with a compromise, either. You tend to be, in theory, a my way or the highway type of person. In real life of course you are abnormally compliant. I think there might be a compensation issue there.
I am not interested in a compromise on this issue. Either one views me as a human being regardless of the contents of my uterus, or one does not. In real life, I can't punch fetus-people in the face without going to jail, so of course I'm going to be a bit nicer.
Some people are worth more as gender-neutral humans than they are as gendered subjects. For others it is the other way around. I don't want society to be dominated by either.
There was a study some time ago regarding racially mixed workplaces. In workplaces where around 30% of the workforce was black and 70% white, the white people tended to perceive their workplace as "mostly black."
In education, as the performance of girls in maths and sciences has caught up with the performance of boys, there is suddenly an outcry that "boys are falling behind!" Similar panic occurs when the percentage of women in higher education rise above the percentage of men, even though a) women make up more than 50% of the population, and b) men are still more likely to find higher-paying jobs after graduating.
Women have historically had fewer rights than men. As women begin to gain more rights and social privileges, one sees the outcry from men that "ZOMG FEMINAZIS ARE TAKING OVER AND MAKING THE WORLD A MATRIARCHY." Which is ridiculous, when even the radfems are talking about gender equality. But the gains made by a disadvantaged group are perceived as a net loss to the privileged group, so one shouldn't act too surprised.
I think that the gains made by women are not only perceived as a loss, but de facto are in some cases. Overall, I tend to think the influence of feminism on society has been positive, but it doesn't mean some men did not actually lose some power in the process, and it doesn't mean some women could not be relatively better without it. I, for example, happen to know quite a number of men who turn to third-world countries in search for women who are easier to deal with. I don't know if this is a result of western women having higher demands or whether it has always been more or less this way. I also know many intelligent women who wish they didn't have to work so much. It doesn't mean that going back to the good old times is possible or desirable. It just means life is complicated, and the tendency to ignore this is... well, complicated too, I guess.
But what I was initially saying is that for some men and women, being taken as men and women is preferable to being perceived as civil subjects. Pretty women and masculine men can, though obviously don't have to, fall into this category. For a fat programmer guy, of course, being judged by his compliance to the masculine ideal is anathema. In reality, of course, people are judged by both, but I think the dichotomy is useful. In particular, a desirable woman with access to resources (perhaps those of a man) may very much cherish her femininity in the traditional sense - and this depends on the desires of men -, while other women to whom womanhood as such gives little advantage may stress the civil aspects of life and the importance of treating women as humans first and women second. Apropos, there are indications that men's preferences in partner selection are shifting towards giving more weight than before to finances and less to looks.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
I've mentioned this before, but in the middle ages in Christian Europe if it was thought that the mother was at serious risk during giving birth, there was a practice of drilling into the baby's skull and later extracting it by parts. Apparently, medieval Europe had its share of moderates.
I'm saying that in order to reach a compromise people should have frameworks that allow for it. Your framework does not. I don't think you are particularly concerned with a compromise, either. You tend to be, in theory, a my way or the highway type of person. In real life of course you are abnormally compliant. I think there might be a compensation issue there.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
In education, as the performance of girls in maths and sciences has caught up with the performance of boys, there is suddenly an outcry that "boys are falling behind!" Similar panic occurs when the percentage of women in higher education rise above the percentage of men, even though a) women make up more than 50% of the population, and b) men are still more likely to find higher-paying jobs after graduating.
Women have historically had fewer rights than men. As women begin to gain more rights and social privileges, one sees the outcry from men that "ZOMG FEMINAZIS ARE TAKING OVER AND MAKING THE WORLD A MATRIARCHY." Which is ridiculous, when even the radfems are talking about gender equality. But the gains made by a disadvantaged group are perceived as a net loss to the privileged group, so one shouldn't act too surprised.
no subject
But what I was initially saying is that for some men and women, being taken as men and women is preferable to being perceived as civil subjects. Pretty women and masculine men can, though obviously don't have to, fall into this category. For a fat programmer guy, of course, being judged by his compliance to the masculine ideal is anathema. In reality, of course, people are judged by both, but I think the dichotomy is useful. In particular, a desirable woman with access to resources (perhaps those of a man) may very much cherish her femininity in the traditional sense - and this depends on the desires of men -, while other women to whom womanhood as such gives little advantage may stress the civil aspects of life and the importance of treating women as humans first and women second. Apropos, there are indications that men's preferences in partner selection are shifting towards giving more weight than before to finances and less to looks.