The Radical Feminist Trans Exclusionary Movement

[babewonder]

The Dangerous Flavor of feminism designed to oppress Transgender woman

https://www.theterfs.com/

[danthepoetman]

Yes, I saw some stuff about this a while back. I even started a thread on it. Here:
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=72036&page=3

Some of these women reach scary levels of narrowness and vehemence. Violence, in fact, this is violence, it's exclusion. Very ugly!
Babewonder, I think there's a problem with your link, though...

[Rabbiteyes]

The Dangerous Flavor of feminism designed to oppress Transgender woman

https://www.theterfs.com/

People like to feel better than other people. It is human nature.

Men have fought for a very long time to be superior to women.... so, either these feminists could fight against men to try and say they are equal OR they could simply find another group to feel superior to (and, well, trans people are pretty easy targets in todays world).

Happens with religion, happens with nationality, happens with skin color, happens even with the types of clothes you wear or types of food you eat. People just love to feel better than other people (and the easiest way to do that is to just pick some arbitrary quality you don't possess and say it is wrong...suddenly, that makes you right).

http://www.upworthy.com/watch-a-teacher-make-her-3rd-grade-kids-hate-each-other-for-the-best-reason-imaginable-2?g=4


Human nature is to turn on each other for self gain. It is kind of disgusting :)

[robertlouis]

People like to feel better than other people. It is human nature.

Men have fought for a very long time to be superior to women.... so, either these feminists could fight against men to try and say they are equal OR they could simply find another group to feel superior to (and, well, trans people are pretty easy targets in todays world).

Happens with religion, happens with nationality, happens with skin color, happens even with the types of clothes you wear or types of food you eat. People just love to feel better than other people (and the easiest way to do that is to just pick some arbitrary quality you don't possess and say it is wrong...suddenly, that makes you right).

http://www.upworthy.com/watch-a-teacher-make-her-3rd-grade-kids-hate-each-other-for-the-best-reason-imaginable-2?g=4


Human nature is to turn on each other for self gain. It is kind of disgusting :)

Fascinating and horrific at the same time. Thank you Rabbit Eyes.

The other aspect is of course that, regardless of the way that the teacher triggers attitudes that may be latent in every human being, she is knowingly influencing their behaviour in that direction. That's the work of demagogues, agitators,totalitarians and schoolyard bullies down through the ages and, like so much else, it's more visible and pervasive today through the explosion of technology and communication channels.

Only twenty years ago or less, haters like Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the rest might have got a local platform if they were lucky; now they can talk to the world, and sadly too much of the world is prepared to listen.

[feneman]

This is actually a matter of a small technical term but, no-one who claims to be for workplace equality and well... equality in general would even entertain this idea.

They are not feminists, they are opportunists. when equality suits them they are all for it ... when it doesn't, well...

[Rabbiteyes]

Only twenty years ago or less, haters like Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the rest might have got a local platform if they were lucky; now they can talk to the world, and sadly too much of the world is prepared to listen.

Humm, I don't know.... there have always been people use exploited the sad insecurities of others to further themselves (pretty much how hitler was democratically elected into power).

Pointing at someone different and judging them lesser is just the lowest hanging fruit to make a person feel good. Any quality, anything different, and you can mock them to raise yourself up in yours (and everyone elses) mind.

It is so powerful...so many advantages...and it is so easy. So it will always be used, everywhere.

Even people who are subject to the judgement quickly swing around and point their fingers at someone else (like this feminist).

20 years ago it wasn't different. You can do it in newspapers, radio, word of mouth, or even declarations posted on city walls. It is just the ugly face of humanity.

[robertlouis]

This is actually a matter of a small technical term but, no-one who claims to be for workplace equality and well... equality in general would even entertain this idea.

They are not feminists, they are opportunists. when equality suits them they are all for it ... when it doesn't, well...



These women are female supremacists. It's no more credible or acceptable than white supremacy.

[robertlouis]

Humm, I don't know.... there have always been people use exploited the sad insecurities of others to further themselves (pretty much how hitler was democratically elected into power).

Pointing at someone different and judging them lesser is just the lowest hanging fruit to make a person feel good. Any quality, anything different, and you can mock them to raise yourself up in yours (and everyone elses) mind.

It is so powerful...so many advantages...and it is so easy. So it will always be used, everywhere.

Even people who are subject to the judgement quickly swing around and point their fingers at someone else (like this feminist).

20 years ago it wasn't different. You can do it in newspapers, radio, word of mouth, or even declarations posted on city walls. It is just the ugly face of humanity.


With respect, that wasn't my point. The internet, cable tv and other media have made it much easier for such ideas and attitudes to gain false respectability and unwarranted credibility - exhibit #1 Fox News.

And Hitler wasn't elected into power on a platform of overt hatred, far from it. That's a lazy myth. He offered relief from unemployment in the 1930s; and in that single category he was very successful via roadbuilding, other public works and, more sinisterly, rearmament.

As regards your final point, it's certainly true in the US, but less so in other western countries where hatespeech is recognised as a criminal offence and dealt with accordingly.

[VictoriaVeil]

Only twenty years ago or less, haters like Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the rest might have got a local platform if they were lucky; now they can talk to the world, and sadly too much of the world is prepared to listen.

I can tell you for certain with 100% certainity, that Glenn Beck has a very different personality that the one that is televised today.

#justsayin

[robertlouis]

I can tell you for certain with 100% certainity, that Glenn Beck has a very different personality that the one that is televised today.

#justsayin


You can't leave it just hanging there, VV. Please! :praying:

You mean he's even more of a hopelessly incontinent emotional cretin than he appears? That's hard to believe. ;)

[danthepoetman]

I can tell you for certain with 100% certainity, that Glenn Beck has a very different personality that the one that is televised today.

#justsayin
Veevee! you're so cleaver, lady!! :)

[VictoriaVeil]

Veevee! you're so cleaver, lady!! :)

Why Thank you, My submissives would agree with you. ;)




You can't leave it just hanging there, VV. Please! :praying:

You mean he's even more of a hopelessly incontinent emotional cretin than he appears? That's hard to believe. ;)

no,no, the core of GB is the same. just once upon a time he protrayed a personality that was more Howard Stern than Rush Limbaugh.

[martin48]

The Dangerous Flavor of feminism designed to oppress Transgender woman

https://www.theterfs.com/

My Browser knows the truth

[VictoriaVeil]

Here is a link to the story on a safe site... LOL

http://www.buzzfeed.com/thomaspagemcbee/how-actress-laverne-cox-broke-the-trans-glass-ceiling

[trish]

I of course of lots of friends in the LGBT community and a lot of them feminists. No group is 100% homogeneous or even close, and that includes feminist community. Many of my feminist friends support transgender causes (I count myself a feminist when it comes to equal pay for equal work, equal rights, a right to make ultimate decisions concerning one's own body etc.). Many feminists are confused by transgender issues and some outright oppose transgender women. The confusion and opposition is centers around the issue of gender roles. Feminists are largely trying to break out of the molds and the roles that have been set aside exclusively for women over the ages. Transgender women on the other hand are seen by some to be embracing those roles, especially the sexual ones. We are seen by some feminists to be inviting the role of being seductive, compliant, sex objects. Of course no one is one thing all of the time. We all enjoy a variety of conflicting roles when we play and work.

[danthepoetman]

I of course of lots of friends in the LGBT community and a lot of them feminists. No group is 100% homogeneous or even close, and that includes feminist community. Many of my feminist friends support transgender causes (I count myself a feminist when it comes to equal pay for equal work, equal rights, a right to make ultimate decisions concerning one's own body etc.). Many feminists are confused by transgender issues and some outright oppose transgender women. The confusion and opposition is centers around the issue of gender roles. Feminists are largely trying to break out of the molds and the roles that have been set aside exclusively for women over the ages. Transgender women on the other hand are seen by some to be embracing those roles, especially the sexual ones. We are seen by some feminists to be inviting the role of being seductive, compliant, sex objects. Of course no one is one thing all of the time. We all enjoy a variety of conflicting roles when we play and work.
And of course, forget trying to reason with them, forget trying to show them the biological aspects of sexual differentiation; they just brush it as if it was nothing. That the sexual dimorphism between males and females in human beings is greater than in any other mammal, and that there should obviously be some reason for it, is something that they won't even accept to listen to. That the endocrine system between men and women is largely different, is something they will see as an excuse, or a simple situation to overcome at best. That outstanding physiological differences in men and women still today, and even up in comparative anatomy in evolutionary studies, down to two million years, are clearly indicating different specialization, is something I've heard being ridiculously rejected by some. And that differences between the fertility cycle of women and other hominids also shows a much specialized sexual separation, women being fertile constantly and also immidiately after giving birth, when other female hominids are only fertile a for small periods at a time, and often infertile for up to 4 years after giving birth, all these facts, seems to mean nothing to any of them, who are still attached to this idea of human beings being tabula rasa, completely "formated" by culture, and roles and customs and attitudes in general being only the result of education and socialization...
I agree completely with you, Trish, that total social equality between men and women is an absolute must. We must keep working on it with all our forces. I think one has to be a retard to still oppose that. But the feminist discourse is old. And as far as I'm concerned, with it's also very narrow minded and biased view of history (not considering for instance, that the liberation of men is essentially a XIXth and XXth century fact, in the world), it now has taken a definite tone of pop litterature...

[trish]

Some aspects of sexual dimorphism (especially in homo-sapiens) are due the greater difficulties of birthing a children with large brains and caring for neotenous progeny. However, in humans as in most dimorphic species, sexual selection is a major significant factor in the evolution of sexual dimorphism. This is why different varieties of sexual dimorphism among humans are evidenced in different isolated locations around the world.

In many avian species it is the female that selects her mate; resulting in the exotic breeding plumage of male birds. In homo-sapiens the variety of feminine forms found around the world is evidence that it was the female form that felt the pressure of sexual selection; i.e. for millions of years males have literally been breeding women for their physical characteristics.

Though human beings are not blank slates from birth, biology doesn’t get a free pass to determine our fates, as every modern transgender knows.

[robertlouis]

Though human beings are not blank slates from birth, biology doesn’t get a free pass to determine our fates, as every modern transgender knows.


It's the knowing and wilful failure of strident female supremacists to give credence to or to recognise that such states exist that I for one find so repellent. It's dogma over sense and empirical evidence.

[danthepoetman]

Some aspects of sexual dimorphism (especially in homo-sapiens) are due the greater difficulties of birthing a children with large brains and caring for neotenous progeny. However, in humans as in most dimorphic species, sexual selection is a major significant factor in the evolution of sexual dimorphism.
Well, the very difference could have definitely called for differences in task specialties, Trish. Exactly. And it's far from being the only physiological difference between males and females, and you know that. I could start describing it, if you will, but I can’t imagine you don’t know or acknowledge it. Generally longer neck, narrower shoulder, much less upper body strength, the elbow joint different, the hip connected differently and a generally more pronounced back curve, the waist, the hips different, the limbs being generally longer, the hair more abundant, the skin much softer, the extremities proportionnaly smaller, the eyes bigger in proportion to the face, the nostrils and the nose generally smaller and narrower, etc. That would call for some differences in tasks, wouldn’t it? and whatever the reason. And these differences, we find it way back in evolution.
By the way, the birthing problem you're alluding to is also present in great apes, and especially in chimpanzees, but the dimorphism has absolutely nothing to do with that of humans, Trish, so that argument can only partially apply, obviously.


In many avian species it is the female that selects her mate; resulting in the exotic breeding plumage of male birds.
Once again, I think it's true. You’re precisely putting your finger on something crucial, here. In many species, it's indeed males that attract females with particular physical features and attitudes. And they are the ones to accept or refuse the female. In our seduction behaviour, it's the female. Therefore and for that very reason, it's not to objectify herself of a woman to amplify or expose such differences, on the contrary. It's just part of her biological, pulsional baggage. Isn’t it obvious?


In homo-sapiens the variety of feminine forms found around the world is evidence that it was the female form that felt the pressure of sexual selection; i.e. for millions of years males have literally been breeding women for their physical characteristics.
Men have been "breeding" women? Really, Trish? This, frankly, is just farcical. It's part of the great male plot to enslave women? Do you really still think such things, Trish? Women were not at all in the mix, there? They were pure, absolute victims of the powerful, allmighty male? And nothing in their behavior could possibly have had the effect on sexual selection of males too?
You see, that's where I get completely off the boat, Trish. Someone as intelligent as yourself cannot possibly perpetuate such stories!
If only one simple factor could solve once and for all this question it would be the fact that women themselves have always been responsible for socialisation of children everywhere in the world and at all time through history. Women have been part of this world, Trish. They have chosen, too, they've had influence, they've been "in" on it all the way. If there had been a real conflict between men and women, history would not have been the same at all, and we would know about it. Women kept on raising children with the values of their respective groups and cultures. Besides, conscience has a history too, you know. And historical changes have been brought upon by transforming perspectives and minds. All of this is constructed. History is not only a chain of events in which people always thought like we do now. It was made of a build up of ideas, that allowed things to change. I mean, you are conscious of that, aren't you?
Trying to apply your own values, values of our time to the whole of history is completely absurd... And that's precisely why I'm saying that by ignoring biology, which doesn't need to get any "free pass", and history in the proper and comprehensive perspective, feminism is discredit itself and its own cause; it's becoming pure pop litterature, and has no more factual value anymore.


Though human beings are not blank slates from birth, biology doesn’t get a free pass to determine our fates, as every modern transgender knows.
Biology does not determine our faith, Trish, but it is incredibly naive to ignore how determined we are by physiological factors and by evolution. I'm always fascinated to see how every one accept evolution and materialism, yet are incapable of accepting its consequences. The idea that society determines what we are and that we can change it almost at will is a remnant of the good old christian ideology. We are not pure souls. We are bodies. We live and think with our body, with our brain and our hormones and our genetic baggage.

[trish]

In most Avain species the female selects the male for bright, bold and colorful breeding plumage. It's not a conspiracy on the part of the females. But it's not farcical to say that in those species the females have been breeding the males for their physical characteristics, characteristics that make them more sexually appealing even that means making them more vulnerable to being stalked by predators.

Likewise if human males in various societies have for ages sexually selected females the shape of their buttocks, their lips, their waists etc. it is not farcical to say women have been bred to have these features. I'm not claiming it's a male conspiracy.

This is not to taken as a support of supremacism of any kind, I'm merely saying that the biological arguments sometimes used to guide women into their societal roles are often fallacious. Even when the selections pressures are Malthusian rather than sexual, the ways of "nature" are not always moral, ethical, smart or wise and they are not necessarily the way we should opt to live.

A much more interesting argument some feminists levy against transgender women (as I alluded to before) is the argument that transgender women are seen (in their effort to pass and transition) to embrace and reinforce the stereotyped gender roles that feminists are attempting to redefine.

(BTW Dan, I know you know I regard you as a friend and mean nothing personal when we disagree <3 )

[danthepoetman]

In most Avain species the female selects the male for bright, bold and colorful breeding plumage. It's not a conspiracy on the part of the females. But it's not farcical to say that in those species the females have been breeding the males for their physical characteristics, characteristics that make them more sexually appealing even that means making them more vulnerable to being stalked by predators.

Likewise if human males in various societies have for ages sexually selected females the shape of their buttocks, their lips, their waists etc. it is not farcical to say women have been bred to have these features. I'm not claiming it's a male conspiracy.

This is not to taken as a support of supremacism of any kind, I'm merely saying that the biological arguments sometimes used to guide women into their societal roles are often fallacious. Even when the selections pressures are Malthusian rather than sexual, the ways of "nature" are not always moral, ethical, smart or wise and they are not necessarily the way we should opt to live.

A much more interesting argument some feminists levy against transgender women (as I alluded to before) is the argument that transgender women are seen (in their effort to pass and transition) to embrace and reinforce the stereotyped gender roles that feminists are attempting to redefine.

(BTW Dan, I know you know I regard you as a friend and mean nothing personal when we disagree <3 )
Of course I know that, Trish. I might be a bit more inflamatory than I usually am, as it is something that has been annoying me for a while. And with my limitations in English, it might not come out the way I wish it would. I'm sure you know the same thing from me. And I apologize if it is, comming out crooked... :)

Yes, you're right about the sexual selection. But with the way you formulated it -and once again, forgive my understanding of English if I didn't get it-, I had the feeling you were implying that only human females were submitted to this selection by males, and never the opposite also, which would be false.
By the way, I also take exception on the idea that female bodies have been differently shaped by different societies. On the contrary, sociological studies, one after the other, have shown that the favoured feminine physique follow a very similar ratio, even in cultures that couldn't have any contact toghether, that excluding a very few ones. And in fact, women around the world would show evolutive differences if it was so, especially in places which lost contacts one from another -I'm thinking about Australia, for instane. But it's not the case.
As to the argument that transsexual women are reinforcing a stereotype, once again, I think it's disregarding this simple biological fact that we too, like animals, have a seduction behavior which, as you alluded to, put forward some qualities, obviously brought up by selection, to seduce males. The idea that this "model" is a purely fabricated stereotype is highly debatable. On the contrary, it seems completely absurd. You won't be able to eradicate such a behavior. It just simply isn't "just" cultural if it is at all.

As to the concept of object, which comes from Sartre's Being and Nothingness via Simone de Beauvoir, it's a pretty technical concept which has been misunderstood, has been applied everywhere indiscriminately, and is thouroughly absurd (and I'm not saying that you're using it yourself). There's always this surprising tendency to talk as if women were beings without conscience. Being pretty and sexy, and showing your beauty doesn't suddenly deprive a woman of her conscience, like some kind of ustensil! That's grotesque! And you see, once again, this idea that women are not really participants in what's happening, which is totally absurd too! Women always had a huge participating role in human life, at all levels. A certain feminist discourse is so infinitely "deresponsabilitating" for women (it's not an English word, is it? -don't laugh)!

That nature is not ethical, I agree. I guess it's pretty much my point too. We are what we are, and it's not a matter of ethics or political, societal goals. And whether we like it or not, we can't change a certain number of things from what we are. If you accept the idea that we are bodies rather than souls, well you have to take into account at least a certain number of biological determinations. There's nothing fallacious about that, Trish. To me, culture is always a way by which nature expresses itself. We're much less free than we like to think we are, and our hierarchised societies, if only that, are there to testify to that, without a shadow of a doubt.
And you see, that's precisely why I was pointing out to the fact that much of these thesis (feminists) are remnants of christianism. Sartrism, being the product of the phenomenological movement, doesn't consider the body as anything else than a "situation" to surmount. The self is presented as a transcendental ego, which means, detached from anything, a pure subject. In other words, these people are talking about the soul! They will deny it, but it's a simple fact. Simone de Beauvoir start from this very idea that you can be exactly what you want to be. It's a disguised christian idea! not at all a theory taken from observations, just a bunch of postulats writen by a guy who was cukoo with Hegel and Husserl (two more cuckoos). lol
I know very well that we're not animals, of course, and that we have more freedom of behavior than animals do, but it's not by far what we think it is. And by that I'm not saying that women should act in a certain, definite, precise way, or should fit a certain model. But I sure feel that some women, and very often anti-heterosexual women, have tried and are still trying to exercise litterally a tyranny over the majority of women in a struggle that doesn't have anything to do whatsoever with the fight for equal rights anymore. Women should let women lead the lives they feel like living, and act the way women wants to act. And of course, be as feminine as they want, according to the model they want. Social rights, the fight on which we should concentrate, have nothing to do with it.

[danthepoetman]

OK: this for instance, is amazingly idiotic, at the other end of the spectrum...
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1011014_10151719409440272_178592699_n.jpg

[trish]

Was the extreme female form in Khoikhoi (Hottentot) society the result of ages of sexual selection by Khoi males? Is it the result of a genetic predisposition favoring steatopygia? A mix of both? Certainly for sexual selection to work at all the genes have to exist within the gene pool. But the fact that every woman within their society (10 000 women at the turn of the seventeenth century) fits the mould suggest strong selection pressures. These features aren’t necessarily beneficial for childbirth, child rearing, food gathering etc. but they are attractive to Khoi males. This suggests the selection pressure was sexual. Again, no conspiracy is required. Just a shared societal aesthetic. If so, this would make the female Khoi form the result of a sort of cultural selection; i.e. the result of culturally shared aesthetic values driving biological evolution.

Have woman generally been unwittingly or wittingly bred for the characteristics that make them attractive to me? Or are their varied forms driven entirely by non-sexual selection pressures? As a scientific hypothesis I would bet against the latter and caution that the former is way to broad to be a hypothesis at all. It may be more useful to individually examine the biological vs cultural influences in the formation of specific gender stereotypes on a one by one basis.

Not being a biologist nor an anthropologist, I’m not prepared to do this. But as amateurs we can suggest some gender stereotypes to be examined.

1. Woman should stay at home, gather and cook the food and raise the children.
The drive to feed and rear one’s own children certainly has a genetic component that may be stronger in women than in men. Men want good homemakers and women desire good providers. It’s not farfetched to speculate there is some amount of cultural selection for these traits. However, these traits (being future behaviors) are not easily identified and attempts to select for them are likely unsuccessfully. Hence the selection pressure for these traits is (imo) probably more environmental than sexual.

2. Women should shave their legs.
There are probably no genes that predispose any man or woman to shave their legs. My guess is that this little gender specific piece of advise has very little biological impetus and is almost entirely a cultural value. Young women shave their legs because society informs them its makes them attractive. Why do young women want to be attractive? Because they’re interested in attracting their very own prince charming.

Anyone can add to the list.

A word on the word “natural”: I tend to think of everything within the universe as natural. If it exists within the cosmos, it’s natural. Skyscrapers are as natural as honeycombs, airplanes as natural as beaver dams. It’s therefore natural that modern women in the Western world should want to shave their legs (I do), but that doesn’t mean it’s a biological imperative that’s futile to resist. Some feminists refuse on principle to shave their legs and urge other women to follow suit. Why? Because they want to raise awareness that we all, men and women, are unwitting participants in an array of stereotyped gender roles some of which severely constrain the choices available to women and straightjacket men into roles they may not be suited to.

Again, I’m not a supremacist of any sort. I am a feminist when it comes to equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity, rights to one’s own body etc. I see nothing wrong with raising awareness of gender roles. Yet I am saddened when my feminist friends accuse me of embracing the gender moulds they would rather break. It is a perpetual source of friction between us and I would love to learn how to fix it.

[danthepoetman]

I won't argue anymore, as I feel we're starting to turn in circles, and as it seems to me we pretty much agree, although both emphasizing things a bit differently.

I would only add one thing to what we said so far, or maybe repeat myself, I don't know. You're absolutely right in saying that everything we are and do is natural. Culture, once again, is indeed almost always a way that "nature" (biology, encoded programs -I'm using the term as one of the two terms of the traditional opposition) is expressing itself. In humans, it takes an unbelievable plurality of colours. Our seduction behavior is also the subject of some biological, evolutive patern. Shaving your legs is obviously a cultural manifestation, but the pulsion to be attractive isn't. And this behavioral urge is also precisely the reason why sexuality is such a powerful selective process.
As to your type of feminism, Trish, I share it: in your definition, I'm as feminist as you are!

[trish]

Yikes! Re-reading my last post I'm horrified by all the spelling mistakes. That'll teach me to write a long post and not proof read it (actually I'll probably do it again in the near future).

In any case, I'm happy to put our differences down to our individually preferred emphasis in explication.

:kiss:

[danthepoetman]

Yikes! Re-reading my last post I'm horrified by all the spelling mistakes. That'll teach me to write a long post and not proof read it (actually I'll probably do it again in the near future).

In any case, I'm happy to put our differences down to our individually preferred emphasis in explication.

:kiss:
I love you, Trish! <3

And don't worry about the spelling; I can't even notice... :)

[MacShreach]

snip
Not being a biologist nor an anthropologist, I’m not prepared to do this. But as amateurs we can suggest some gender stereotypes to be examined.

1. Woman should stay at home, gather and cook the food and raise the children.
The drive to feed and rear one’s own children certainly has a genetic component that may be stronger in women than in men. Men want good homemakers and women desire good providers. It’s not farfetched to speculate there is some amount of cultural selection for these traits. However, these traits (being future behaviors) are not easily identified and attempts to select for them are likely unsuccessfully. Hence the selection pressure for these traits is (imo) probably more environmental than sexual.

.

Trish have you read Kuhn and Stiner's work, specifically their theories on task division on the basis if sex in humans? This is something that they suggest separates modern humans from Neanderthals, and they dgot there by comparing injuries to skeletons, which, they say, show that Neanderthal women shared hunting etc with males, and got injured and killed doing it. This seems not to happen with humans, leading to the proposition that there was a sexual division of activities--women looked after the next generation and stayed away from harm, men went out after it. (you know I am being brief). This made humans more successful than Neanderthals.

Now there are issues with K&S's timeline, but not with their basic analysis. They think this division took place in the Upper Paleolithic, and tend towards a recent date, because they have no older evidence, but a late date would not explain why populations that remained in Africa also show this division. Now that it has been confirmed that modern humans did not leave Africa until after Toba, there's good ground for suggesting that we evolved this adaptive division of tasks occurred earlier, while still in Africa. Most likely this was a consequence of the disastrous effects of Toba, which very nearly extinguished us, along with many other species. It would be surprising if we did not develop adaptations to survive such an event, and hold on to them.

This probably led into us developing characteristics of attraction that reflect the stereotype--women being attracted to powerful, fit men, good for hunting and defence, and men being attracted to big hips and breasts and so on. But these task adaptations were evolved in a pre-civilised era, and they don't explain the very clear and ruthless manner in which women were emasculated during later phases.

[Rabbiteyes]

This probably led into us developing characteristics of attraction that reflect the stereotype--women being attracted to powerful, fit men, good for hunting and defence, and men being attracted to big hips and breasts and so on.

Except women did most of the hunting (smaller game, which was what societies mostly ate). And women worked the fields and all the other "providing".

The big hips is more of a baby making issue (since, smaller hips means more danger when having a child). The breasts is a western thing (from our prudish behaviour, we have cultivated a breast fetish. Go to other societies where the women walk around with their breasts out....and the men are like "breasts? sexual? hahahaha". They look at our fascination with breasts and ask if all the men are babies :P).

[broncofan]

I of course of lots of friends in the LGBT community and a lot of them feminists. No group is 100% homogeneous or even close, and that includes feminist community. Many of my feminist friends support transgender causes (I count myself a feminist when it comes to equal pay for equal work, equal rights, a right to make ultimate decisions concerning one's own body etc.). Many feminists are confused by transgender issues and some outright oppose transgender women. The confusion and opposition is centers around the issue of gender roles. Feminists are largely trying to break out of the molds and the roles that have been set aside exclusively for women over the ages. Transgender women on the other hand are seen by some to be embracing those roles, especially the sexual ones. We are seen by some feminists to be inviting the role of being seductive, compliant, sex objects. Of course no one is one thing all of the time. We all enjoy a variety of conflicting roles when we play and work.
Excellent post. I am not familiar with the arguments, though this seems like an almost intractable conflict, at least among those feminists who think gender roles are entirely arbitrary. Since m2f transsexuals are not biologically female, they embrace a set of traits for the social/gender component they see as female (or they possess traits they view as female). However, nothing about that suggests that they cannot embrace a different panoply of female associated traits than society reinforces. They do not need to be any more compliant than those feminists who reject compliance and submissiveness as female traits.

However, one who thinks all behavioral differences between men and women are socially determined will necessarily think that transsexuals are ideological adversaries. This is a very restrictive assumption though isn't it?

[broncofan]

Yet I am saddened when my feminist friends accuse me of embracing the gender moulds they would rather break. It is a perpetual source of friction between us and I would love to learn how to fix it.
Do your friends believe there is no such thing as female associated traits? In other words, do they believe that without top-down pressure women would be behaviorally identical to men? Or do they simply believe that many traits women adopt have been influenced by a society that has devalued women and not captured their true nature?

Because if it's the latter, the conflict is not inherent. If it's the former, their views seem awfully extreme.

[SuzySnappz]

I can tell you for certain with 100% certainity, that Glenn Beck has a very different personality that the one that is televised today.

#justsayin

I liked your insinuation here. :)

[broncofan]

I can tell you for certain with 100% certainity, that Glenn Beck has a very different personality that the one that is televised today.

#justsayin
Lol@suzysnapps

Yeah I was thinking. Maybe the Glenn Beck you know is just pillow talk? He might not be that sweet and gentle either:).

[danthepoetman]

Trish have you read Kuhn and Stiner's work, specifically their theories on task division on the basis if sex in humans? This is something that they suggest separates modern humans from Neanderthals, and they dgot there by comparing injuries to skeletons, which, they say, show that Neanderthal women shared hunting etc with males, and got injured and killed doing it. This seems not to happen with humans, leading to the proposition that there was a sexual division of activities--women looked after the next generation and stayed away from harm, men went out after it. (you know I am being brief). This made humans more successful than Neanderthals.

Very interresting!
I never read Kuhn or Stiner, Mac. Could you post the complete references or pm them to me, please? (I assume Kuhn is not Thomas S., the epistemologist, right?)

[trish]

Thanks MacShreach for the intriguing post. I am not familiar with the work of Kuhn and Stiner on Neanderthal division of labor or lack thereof. One immediately wonders if the fossil evidence bone injuries is found at all Neanderthal known Neanderthal sites and whether the injuries are evidence of confrontations with prey, are they running injuries, injuries incurred while setting traps etc. But most of all one wonders whether the evidence warrants the conclusion that Homo Sapiens succeeded where Neanderthals didn't because the former practiced a gender specific division of labor. There is also the question of whether our survival now depends on such a division.

I'm in the middle of reading Jared Diamond's newest tome on Traditional Societies. I'm impressed by the variety of behaviors practiced by traditional peoples around the world. In some societies mother's don't let their children out of sight and just around the mountain the neighboring tribe allows even their toddlers to walk around freely and play with anything they find, fire, knives, scorpions etc. Success is as much a matter of luck as strategy. Many behaviors have survival value and some do not.

Hi broncofan. Good points. Thanks for you observations and questions. I would say almost all of my feminist friends acknowledge the existence of genetically determined, gender specific behavioral traits that were probably primarily driven by natural selection as opposed to sexual selection; e.g. the urge to have children, nurse and care for them. However, in Western societies many other stereotyped gendered behaviors are not genetic predispositions and serve primarily to appeal to the prurient aesthetic of men. Yes, the desire to be attractive to the opposite sex is genetic, but there is no gene for applying lipstick or eyeliner. These specific behaviors are not biological imperatives, but rather cultural demands which most woman feel they must meet if they are to have any hope of meeting the more biological demands of reproduction. This really is very much akin to sexual selection among Avians for colorful plumage; except that there is an Avian gene for feather color but there is no human gene for glossy lips or magenta hair. One may be inclined to say, "What does any of this matter?" But one's appearance, is personal. Whether you extend your eyelashes each morning, apply shadow and liner use blush or wear colored contacts etc. all these things are expressions of one's personal self. Expressions of personal self that are selected by cultural norms and industrial marketing campaigns. Still these issues are probably not as important as getting paid commensurate to men for the same labor. Or having the same opportunities as men in all walks of life. But it's a place to start when your desire is to raise consciousness among your fellow women. Hence there are some feminists who burn their bras, forsake the use of cosmetics and refuse to shave their body hair. It's a consciousness raising enterprise, so they want other women to join. There's the quandary. I'm doing exactly the opposite. I see their point. I understand the argument. But I'm unable to participate. My lifestyle endorses the very behaviors they abhor. Perhaps it's shallow to say, but in some sense my identity depends on them.

(Once again I made a long post without proof reading it. It's way to late and I wanna go to bed. Please just skip over all the grammatical blunders. Night all)

[MacShreach]

Except women did most of the hunting (smaller game, which was what societies mostly ate). And women worked the fields and all the other "providing".

The big hips is more of a baby making issue (since, smaller hips means more danger when having a child). The breasts is a western thing (from our prudish behaviour, we have cultivated a breast fetish. Go to other societies where the women walk around with their breasts out....and the men are like "breasts? sexual? hahahaha". They look at our fascination with breasts and ask if all the men are babies :P).

Yeah but that division--women hunting smaller game and foraging and men hunting larger and more dangerous prey, is the basis of Kuhn and Stiner's proposition. The fact that they did contribute to the overall well-bing of the group by doing so actually reinforces the argument, rather than counter it.

You are right about the hips, but I disagree about the boobs. In Sumer, and on Crete and in Sparta, we know that women wore breasts bared, especially high-status women. (Spartan women were famously sexy BTW.) The breasts are at once a sexual display and also a status/power one. A woman displaying them is showing her sexual independence, not her lack of sexual attractiveness.

I grant you, outside the cultural stream which ended up with modern Western culture, things may be slightly different; however within that cultural stream, breasts do have great sexual significance. This is the real reason why intensely patriarchal and mysogynist cultures insist that women cover up. I attach a pic believed to be of a Cretan statuette of a priestess (thus a very high-status person) and the snakes she's holding are of course symbolic of the Goddess, so this person is, by holding the snakes, directing all of the Goddess' awesome power, which of course, is sexually derived.

[danthepoetman]

If I might make just a few more remarks about this, although I'm sure you're conscious of what I'm going to add here, Trish.


Hi broncofan. Good points. Thanks for you observations and questions. I would say almost all of my feminist friends acknowledge the existence of genetically determined, gender specific behavioral traits that were probably primarily driven by natural selection as opposed to sexual selection; e.g. the urge to have children, nurse and care for them.
These differences would already commend a behavior quite different from males that we can imagine extends much beyond the simple care given. So are the consequences of the endocrine differences.


However, in Western societies many other stereotyped gendered behaviors are not genetic predispositions and serve primarily to appeal to the prurient aesthetic of men.
Well, we agree that "the desire to be attactive to the opposite sex is genetic", as you're saying after, Trish, so we can't possibly find shocking that women should try to call upon the "prurient aesthetic of men". And you see, that's another recurrent element in feminism in general that makes me believe that there's quite a bit of christian remnants in this "new moral"...
Btw, a simple look at the fashion magazines convinces one that this aesthetic is entertained by women also, and maybe primarely, as an exercice of a seductive power -these magazines are indeed destined to please women. I mean that there is a conscious exercice of this power by women and a definite influence over this aesthetic.


Yes, the desire to be attractive to the opposite sex is genetic, but there is no gene for applying lipstick or eyeliner. These specific behaviors are not biological imperatives, but rather cultural demands which most woman feel they must meet if they are to have any hope of meeting the more biological demands of reproduction. This really is very much akin to sexual selection among Avians for colorful plumage; except that there is an Avian gene for feather color but there is no human gene for glossy lips or magenta hair. One may be inclined to say, "What does any of this matter?" But one's appearance, is personal. Whether you extend your eyelashes each morning, apply shadow and liner use blush or wear colored contacts etc. all these things are expressions of one's personal self. Expressions of personal self that are selected by cultural norms and industrial marketing campaigns. (...) Hence there are some feminists who burn their bras, forsake the use of cosmetics and refuse to shave their body hair. It's a consciousness raising enterprise, so they want other women to join. There's the quandary. I'm doing exactly the opposite. I see their point. I understand the argument. But I'm unable to participate. My lifestyle endorses the very behaviors they abhor. Perhaps it's shallow to say, but in some sense my identity depends on them.

What's striking here, to me, is that these artifices in women's aesthetic are essentially emphasizing physiological traits. It's what characterises women's physique in general, and by opposition to the male physique, that is amplified. Lipstick as women usually have more pulpy lips, hair removal as women tend to have less body hair and a softer skin, hair dressing as women have more abundant, generous, softer hair, eye liner and stuff (?) on eye lashes as women tend to have broader eyes in proportion to the face, etc. These are all artifices that are emphasizing on genetic traits...

[VictoriaVeil]

I liked your insinuation here. :)

It wasn't an insinuation. I know the man.

[MacShreach]

Thanks MacShreach for the intriguing post. I am not familiar with the work of Kuhn and Stiner on Neanderthal division of labor or lack thereof. One immediately wonders if the fossil evidence bone injuries is found at all Neanderthal known Neanderthal sites and whether the injuries are evidence of confrontations with prey, are they running injuries, injuries incurred while setting traps etc. But most of all one wonders whether the evidence warrants the conclusion that Homo Sapiens succeeded where Neanderthals didn't because the former practiced a gender specific division of labor. There is also the question of whether our survival now depends on such a division.

I'm in the middle of reading Jared Diamond's newest tome on Traditional Societies. I'm impressed by the variety of behaviors practiced by traditional peoples around the world. In some societies mother's don't let their children out of sight and just around the mountain the neighboring tribe allows even their toddlers to walk around freely and play with anything they find, fire, knives, scorpions etc. Success is as much a matter of luck as strategy. Many behaviors have survival value and some do not.

Hi broncofan. Good points. Thanks for you observations and questions. I would say almost all of my feminist friends acknowledge the existence of genetically determined, gender specific behavioral traits that were probably primarily driven by natural selection as opposed to sexual selection; e.g. the urge to have children, nurse and care for them. However, in Western societies many other stereotyped gendered behaviors are not genetic predispositions and serve primarily to appeal to the prurient aesthetic of men. Yes, the desire to be attractive to the opposite sex is genetic, but there is no gene for applying lipstick or eyeliner. These specific behaviors are not biological imperatives, but rather cultural demands which most woman feel they must meet if they are to have any hope of meeting the more biological demands of reproduction. This really is very much akin to sexual selection among Avians for colorful plumage; except that there is an Avian gene for feather color but there is no human gene for glossy lips or magenta hair. One may be inclined to say, "What does any of this matter?" But one's appearance, is personal. Whether you extend your eyelashes each morning, apply shadow and liner use blush or wear colored contacts etc. all these things are expressions of one's personal self. Expressions of personal self that are selected by cultural norms and industrial marketing campaigns. Still these issues are probably not as important as getting paid commensurate to men for the same labor. Or having the same opportunities as men in all walks of life. But it's a place to start when your desire is to raise consciousness among your fellow women. Hence there are some feminists who burn their bras, forsake the use of cosmetics and refuse to shave their body hair. It's a consciousness raising enterprise, so they want other women to join. There's the quandary. I'm doing exactly the opposite. I see their point. I understand the argument. But I'm unable to participate. My lifestyle endorses the very behaviors they abhor. Perhaps it's shallow to say, but in some sense my identity depends on them.

(Once again I made a long post without proof reading it. It's way to late and I wanna go to bed. Please just skip over all the grammatical blunders. Night all)

Hi Trish,

I'm not an anthropologist, cultural history is my area, but Kuhn and Stiner are very well respected. It is some time since I read their findings on this, but they did sample a broad base of skeletal evidence. If you like I will plough through my notes and find refs and links.

Neanderthals used a heavy stone spear head attached to a thick wooden haft which was no good for throwing, but was used (we assume) as a close-quarters stabbing weapon, putting the hunter at great risk. The Neanderthal method seems to have been to ambush, physically overpower the prey and then stab it to death...messy.

The recent (it was just a few weeks ago) announcement that the few finds in India which had been the basis for conjecture that modern humans had left Africa before Toba were misinterpreted, really does change things. It's going to be a while before the science squares this, but at least we now have a reliable timeline.

Toba was an evolutionary forcing event which nearly killed us off-- down to less than 500 breeding pairs globally-- and I can't see how that would not have led us to make behavioural adaptations to survive. So it would not be that we developed division of task by sex in response to challenge from Neanderthals, but that we arrived on the block with these already in place, and we out-competed them. (4-8% of the genome of Europeans is Neanderthal, so in the end we bred them out of existence.)

It's also interesting that we are smaller and lighter than the other two hominid species we know did leave Africa before us, Neanderthalis (which is actually now considered a subspecies) and Erectus. Again, the extended period of near-starvation caused by Toba would have favoured smaller, more opportunistic species over larger more specialised ones (Erectus was very specialised for running).

I personally conjecture that it was Toba that brought us out of the savannah grassland to the coast, where there would still have been food, and again this would have favoured foragers and trappers over hunters. It was our coastwise wandering that led us out of the Continent and over the globe. In cultural terms, the sea and water remain hugely important. I mean, even fundies get dipped in water, which is the sacred amniotic fluid of the Mother, and she, for the Sumerians, was the Sea, Nammu.

There's still a lot of that story to be told, and I think over the next few years we will see much effort to fill in these blanks.