![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was doing some housecleaning of my computer files and came across an old post I made on a message forum. While reading it, I decided I should archive it somewhere and possibly share it with those who care about this sort of thing.
I do not consider myself a "feminist". I consider myself both egalitarian and an individualist. I believe in equal opportunity to do whatever it is each individual wants and is capable of doing, even if that means what the individual wants to do is currently what is considered "traditional" or if it is the exact opposite of what is considered "traditional". I also believe people should be allowed to not participate in activities for which they are not suited and not be forced to comply or not force society to make compensation for them (women in the military ... if you can't lift your male teammate, you shouldn't be allowed in infantry!). I believe that everyone should be allowed and encouraged to do whatever suits them best, for the good of all. I believe it hurts a family, group, society, race, when people are not allowed to participate in whatever activities they have the skills for, especially when people are discouraged from said activities based on arbitrary groupings or distinctions that are made on false premises. I believe it hurts the family, group. society, race when people are expected to uphold certain roles even if the individual is not suited for that role in the slightest.
Because of these views, I often get offended by even casual statements regarding race or gender, particularly gender biases (I really hate people saying "you guys" then adding "and women" after a pause when the notice a female in the group). Most of what offends me is not so much that the statement is untrue (which does offend me too), but that it is uttered with such acceptance and those speaking such statements never question the statements' validity. With the more intellectual minds, when someone finds themselves a victim of social programming and makes the type of statement to set me off, I find myself in a discussion of Nature vs. Nurture.
Our western-centric view of "how things should be" is quite skewed and often taken as "fact", using tradition and historic precedent as "proof" that it has been so for this long, therefore it must be so by nature. We tend to put this filter over our eyes when observing other cultures, so it is often believed that other cultural organizational structures reinforce our own setup, and therefore is more "proof" that a totally seperate culture evolved the same way, so it must be natural.
I got into an argument on a message forum sometime last year. The headline was something like "purtecting the wimmenfolk". It was a guy who noticed when a female is in an uncomfortable situation (imagine an obnoxious guy hitting on her in a bar), he wants to jump in and help her, but he does not feel the same desire to help men in similar situations. The women in his life apparently got upset about this and it prompted a thread asking how many other people do the same thing.
I, of course, chimed in about the unfairness of the behaviour and added my offense to that of his women. The strange part about the whole thread was that many women were on the other side of the argument! Both women and men, in this thread, appeared to accept the statement that "a woman should be treated like a Queen by her lover" and other silly comments. People on the forum seemed to want to lump in "opening doors for women" with "women should be the cooks and take care of kids while men were the provider" type statements. I tried to clarify that I was not against common courtesy, but that courtesy and polite gestures should be performed regardless of gender and with individual preferences in mind and none of that had anything to do with the roles each gender was expected to play. So naturally this included nature vs. nurture type arguments about how women were biologically more suited to X and men were biologically inclined to do Y. I proposed that it has very little to do with biology and much more to do with cultural programming. Some people got (unreasonably) upset over my proposal and my character was attacked (as is to be expected in an online message forum) and I was challenged to offer proof of my theories, since the opposing side had all the "proof" they needed, in the idea that Western culture has been patriarchal for all of history, and all other cultures are also patriarchal and have gender-defined roles. Now, it has been quite some years since I majored in sociology and anthropology, but I did provide quite a lengthy response:
For the most part, only Western cultures assume a dichotomy based on gender, one or the other, better and worse. Many other cultures do not have one gender higher than another and therefore do not have Patriarchal or Matriarchal societies, as we understand them. It is a Eurocentric trait that we impose our own value systems onto another culture. For example: When we view a tribal culture in which the men go hunting and the women stay at home with the children, we (as a society) assume the men have higher status as the hunter, the food provider. But to the tribe, neither men nor women have higher value as they both provide equally important, life-sustaining jobs for the greater wellbeing of the family/tribe. And for the most part, if someone of one gender shows aptitude for an activity traditionally performed by the other gender, they are usually allowed to participate with none of the resentment and insecurity that people in our society feel. If a man does not do "housework", it is not because housework is beneath him, nor is it because he is genetically bred for non-housework, it is because he values the contribution his wife provides to the household - she is considered the "breadwinner" because she dominates the food production, and she takes pride in her abilities as a provider. In the tribes' eyes, the woman is the head of the household, but not in our eyes. Those cultures that were previously assumed to be partriarchal and male dominated are now being reassessed with more objective viewpoints and it is being discovered that women are either in charge or share equal distribution of power within their cultures ... disproving the theory that men in charge, in control, the protector, the provider, etc. is a biological trait. The very existence of such societies proves that gender-based cultural associations (such as "purtecting the wimmenfolk") are not biological in nature. If they were biological, entire societies would not be able to develop with differing or even contrary associations. Individuals could exist, but it would be a biological aberration in their genetic patterns. Entire cultures with different hierarchal associations and gender-based patterns are culturally ingrained, not biological - by definition.
As requested, here are a few sources citing societies in which our version of gender-based dichotomies are not observed and prove that our version of gender-based behaviours are not biological in nature and a few other related issues. Sorry, I no longer have my textbooks from my college years where I majored in sociology and anthropology so I can only provide those websites I was able to find during a cursory internet search:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/Feminism/matriarchy.html - Quote: In addition to these "matriarchal" examples there is a large number of societies where women enjoy full sexual, and economical control over themselves.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/Feminism/KhasiGaro.html - Quote: women share leadership with men; a strong matrilineage system having political functions exists, with women playing significant roles in decision making and ceremonialism. Quote: Other girls select their own husbands. 'Initiative is always taken by the Garo girl. Boys behave demurely... Quote: A Khasi clan mother is viewed as the wordly equivalent of the Primal Mother, Ka Blei. She is the most important person of the community, its chief and priestess, who administers the clan property. Quote: It says that women are overbearing and dominating. Men complain: "We are sick of playing the roles of breeding bulls and baby-sitters." Quote: We have no lines of succession. We have no land, no business. Quote: A Machiguenga man is not expected to be violent and aggressive
http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/Feminism/matrifoc.html - Quote: the Berber resistance leader Kosaila, a woman, defeated them but was killed in a battle three years later in 686. She was succeeded by another woman of Jerawa tribe. Quote: Among the Tuareg, women enjoy freedom of choice in sexual involvement and actively pursue romantic preferences. Quote: In Saharawi culture we don't regard there as being any difference between girls and boys in childhood. Quote: The roles of the male pharaoh and the female queen were interpreted as one element in a system of complementary dualities. Quote: Vanatinai of Sudest island in the Coral Sea: they are an egalitarian society without chiefs or dichotomic gender ideology, male and female tasks overlap greatly. Quote: Not only did married Cherokee women own property, such as homes, horses, cattle and fields of growing crops and fruit trees, but they also participated in both the fighting of wars and the Council of War, and sat with the Civil Council of Peace ... Their female warrior chief had the title of Beloved woman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy - encyclopedia entry about societies that are run by females rather than males. Their very existence proves that it is not biological to be male dominated or male "protector". If it was a biological trait, its opposite wouldn't exist as an entire society.
http://www.answers.com/topic/matriarchy - Quote: The universality of male dominance is not, however, natural or biological, because the form of, and reasons given for, patriarchy differ in most cultures. Through studying the various ways that male dominance is organized and justified, anthropologists have concluded that it is culturally constructed.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_amazon/ - evidence to support female warriors in Eurasia, and in Greek history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia - the warrior women who may have inspired the Greek Amazon myths: Quote: certain women, probably young and unmarried, could be warriors, literally Amazons. It didn't offend the principles of nomadic society
http://www.silk-road.com/artl/sarmatian.shtml - societies of Women Warriors. Quote: Archaeological materials seem to confirm Sarmatian women's active role in military operation and social life
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/womenprehist.html - Women warriors throughout prehistory
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/womenrom.html - Women warriors in Celtic and Roman times. Quote: Women were members of the venatores, (gladiators who fought wild animals in the Roman arena). Quote: Among the ancient Celts women rulers and warriors were so common that when a group of Brigantian captives was brought to Rome in the reign of Claudius they automatically assumed his wife, Agrippina the Younger, was the ruler and ignored the Emperor while making their obeisance to her. Quote: The Roman historian Plutarch described a battle in 102 B.C. between Romans and Celts: "the fight had been no less fierce with the women than with the men themselves... the women charged with swords and axes and fell upon their opponents uttering a hideous outcry."
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women13.html - Quote: The Order of the Glorious Saint Mary was the first religious order of knighthood to grant the rank of "militissa" to women.
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women14.html - Isabelle of England formed a troupe of women that caused so much trouble that upon her conquest, King Edward forced her to "retire to a convent life lest she try further conquests"
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women16.html - Quote: the governor's daughter, led a troop of women who broke a siege at Marseilles in 1524. Quote: women leading South American native warbands and taking part in attacks. Quote: In 1568, two sisters, Amaron and Kenau Hasselaar, led a battalion of 300 women who fought on the walls and outside the gates to defend the Dutch city of Haarlem against a Spanish invasion.
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women18.html - Quote: European traders recorded existence of the fighting-women of the Fon (Dahomey) and the Ashanti in Africa in 1729. Quote: Prudence Wright led a troop of women who defended the town of Pepperell Massachusetts against the British. Quote: An estimated 8,000 women belonged to the women's brigades which served as "front line troops" during the French Revolution
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women19.html - Quote: Gertrudis Bocanegra raised an army of women and led them in battle in 1810 during the Mexican War of Independence. Quote: A young girl fought a duel with a man who had jilted her in France in 1828 (there are many cases of women fighting their own duels and need no man to protect them). Quote: In 1871 the women of the commune banded together, armed themselves and joined the fighting as an all female brigade.
http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women20.html - Quote: Mme Arno organized a regiment of Parisian women to fight the Germans in 1915. Quote: More than 200 women fought in the Polish legion in 1916. Quote: Serbian peasant women were also fighting in the Serbian Army during WW1. Quote: The Turkish army at Gallipolli had women snipers. Quote: Lieutenant Marie Baktscharow, led the first Russian women's battalion (of 250 women) in 1917. Quote: A Russian womens batallion was dubbed the "Battalion of Death". Quote: The Indian National Army (INA) had an all women regiment. Quote: Britain had women in the Special Operations Forces (or SOE) working behind enemy lines during WW2. Quote: The Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF) had 1,700 members at the outbreak of WW2 and 180,000 by 1943. In 1949 it became the Women's Royal Air Force (WRAF). Quote: During the Greek Civil War (1943-1947) at least 20% of all combat troops were women. Quote: Tito's Resistance Army in Yugoslavia included more than 100,000 women (partizanka) At least 2,000 women were promoted to officer ranks The first all woman partisan unit in Yugoslavia was formed in the Serbian village of Lika on August 25, 1942, 700 women volunteered for the 110 positions available. Quote: 70% of the 800,000 Russian women who served in the Soviet army in WW2 fought at the front. Quote: Israeli Army included 12,000 women were combatants in the 1948 War of Independence, Initially women were fully integrated into the Israeli army, they trained, fought and were billeted with men. Quote: The Israeli Army did research into women's effectiveness as front line troops, and discovered that childless women were just as good or better than men
http://www.gendergap.com/military/Warriors-1.htm - Women in the Military through the 19th century
http://www.koryu.com/library/wwj1.html - blurb at the end about the Bushi women who were Japanese pioneers who helped settle the land, fought in defense of their homes, were trained in the art of weapons and given Steward rights to supervise land and property.
http://www.geocities.com/dakshina_kan_pa/art31/women1.htm - Great Women of India
http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/warriors.html - Quote: the Amazons of Dahomey were crack all-female troops
http://www.turanianhorse.org/scythians.html - more on the Scythians
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/wom-kn.htm - women knights in the middle ages
Nature vs. Nurture debate:
http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture_2.htm - Quote: While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people do things. Which means that we still get to choose who we'll be when we grow up
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/11_00/Hardwired_review.php - Quote: Are We Hardwired? : The Role of Genes in Human Behavior. The short answer is No."
http://genealogy.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=genealogy&zu=http%3A%2F%2Ffacstaff.uww.edu%2Fmohanp%2Ftwinhumor.html - Quote: A new study suggests sense of humor is a learned trait, influenced by family and cultural environment. In other words, many things are culturally learned, not genetically given traits.
http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=1789 - Quote: The intellectual cornerstone of women’s studies is “gender,” the notion that differences between men and women are not rooted in biology, as Summers had hypothesized some might be, but are cultural artifacts, inculcated by an oppressive patriarchal society - a look into how androgyny and other egalitarian experiments, and the reasons why they failed and hypothesis on how they could succeed.
Just for fun - the biological poly/mono debate:
http://www.reuniting.info/science/evolution_monogamy_and_promiscuity - Quote: The intense sensation we experience when pursuing and having sex with a new lover is in part composed of dopamine. The dopamine lure is so powerful that rats will cross an electrically-charged metal plate to get the equivalent of a dopamine buzz, although they will not cross it to get food…even if they are starving. This penchant for sexual enticement lurks in all mammalian brains. No wonder lovers committed adultery even when the punishment was to burn at the stake. By means of this effective, well-hidden mechanism deep in the brain, Mother Nature persuades us that any sacrifice (including death) is worth the chance of gene propagation. - Granted, this article takes the opinion that emotionally-intimate monogamy is preferable to highly-promiscuous sexual activity, but the comments in favor of mongamy for a person's wellbeing can be applied to those who engage in loving multiple relationship, as opposed to empty sexual relationships, which this article claims is the only alternative, even though it does use the word "polyamory".
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/polygamy.html - Quote: Polygamy has been practiced by mankind for thousands of years.
http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/FYS/Barash%20on%20monogamy.htm - Quote: There is no question about monogamy's being natural. It isn't. But at the same time, there is no reason to conclude that adultery is unavoidable, or that it is good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy - Quote: A notable example of polyandry occurs in Hindu culture ... almost exclusively observed in the Toda tribe of India ... in many traditional Islamic societies, and in Imperial China ... the Old Testament clearly demonstrates polygamy among the Biblical patriarchs ... In Hinduism, polygamy was practiced since ancient times
http://www.theperspective.org/polygyny.html - Quote: To Africans including Liberians, the institution of polygyny (polygamy) is nothing strange. Polygyny was the acceptable form of marriage in Africa prior to the arrival of the colonizers and Christianity
As stated earlier (in an earlier post in the same thread), many species of animals are known for the females being the more vicious of the genders, such as the great cats, like lions, who do the hunting, and the various insects and arachnids who kill their mate after conception, and let's not forget the famous sea horses whose males give birth to their young. Many animals are notorious for the females protecting their young with little or no help from the males and a few are known for the males taking the "mothering" role for themselves. Females historically, traditionally and across the animal kingdom have not needed male "protection" - this idea is relatively recent in human history and specific to only certain cultures, proving that is is not biological but rather cultural.
So yes, courtesy from all people is welcome. The strong protecting the weak is good. But men protecting women SIMPLY because they are women is not only not welcome by me, it is also not biological in nature but culturally programmed.
