"I think there is an adjustment of that type happening."

thanks for acknowledging this. i don't think it undermines your basic perspective.


"I want to make a few proposals for you to consider--the first is that men's apparent hostility towards women in the public sphere may have nothing to do with their sex at all--it's how men treat other men as well, and more importantly it seems to be how women treat others in that sphere as well--it may just be how humans react and relate in that social context. "

insofar as this sphere is an historical extension of hunter culture and male displays, which you have provisionally granted, it carries some flavors of that past, complete with the endocrinological and neurological adaptations common to many males of our species. i don't think it's just a matter of power is this way, and women will become this way to have power entirely; i witness female leaders in corporations all the time -- some are as you say, some bring more relational and coalitional energies to their position than many men (as of course there is variety among males as well). there is a slew of strategies to get what you want out of others. the carrot, the stick. the come-to-jesus. i'd expect the exigencies of power itself to constrain which are used, which is what you are offering, but a skew probably in more mid-level positions of power toward the relational side among women leaders, with a skew toward the cut-throat style the higher up you go -- kind of like what you see with men, but perhaps a little softer in the middle range. i think it's likely to at least a small degree to affect the strategies used to wield power the more women lead. certainly relational and coalitional feminine styles are not exclusively or consistently female qualities either.


"The worst sexism I have ever personally witnessed has come from feminists. I have seen hooliganism, and the very worst sort of mob behaviour. And I have seen a great deal of hate and outright discrimination based on sex. "

i think rape accounts for some of this. it's part of how the brain is affected by trauma. the identity markers of the perpetrator become heavily significant and coded by the associational system as the amygdala gets hypermetabolized in situations that remind the survivor of their experience. it's part of the healing process for people to learn that not all people who look similar on some generic level to their abuser is like them essentially. rape is pretty tragically common.

it's also about the gendered nature of how anger is expressed and how many feminist women learn to come to terms with anger and express it. imagine an unused muscle that you start to use after it's been out of play for a while... your first uses are awkward, sometimes you overcompensate, swing too far this way or that. many women have trouble expressing anger. i think it historically relates to some of the differences in expressions of power and violence we've discussed before. the endocrine system of most men seems to me to be adapted to a greater sensitivity to fear index along with a more sensitive aggressive response matrix. many men are quicker to feel fear and quicker to respond out of fear aggressively. indirect strategies for women were probably more successful in much of the EEA, but again, if we're seeing an anachronism between divisions of labor and disproportionate female disenfranchisement, then i would expect that more anger and female coalitioning would arise to advocate for inclusion and being taken seriously on the playing field of influence. and i think that's what we're seeing.

i want to check out the only book i know of that is about evolutionary psych and women proper, but it's so damned expensive!!!

www.amazon.com/Mind-Her-O.../ref=sr_1_1


"Which interests? I think all people should be treated as individuals and judged on their own merits--free to rise as high as they can by virtue of their native abilities and willingness to work regardless of their sex or hue or tastes in playmates. Is that not supportive of their interests? "

that's what i meant, too, but i used to err more often on supporting sexism against males at that time.

i think you are what most feminists would call feminist. i would advocate a "both/and" approach to you. you are feminist AND anti-racist AND anti-exploitation AND... etc. anti-assholes. i don't see any reason why you should feel alienated from feminism by your intellectual position at all. why not take charge of your own definition of it? there is no feminist council that will stop you. we have to work with the fact that, despite the underlying commonalities among various power relations, people DO THINK and in fact by thinking ENACT assholic behavior with SEX as rationale. and you're against that. you seem to me to be among the most feminist people i know. the only exception to this is your lack of recognition of common ground with other feminists, and apparently their lack of recognition as well. i think that's a distance that can be shortened greatly.

feminism IS undergoing another revolution, as are all the social sciences and movements: taking into account the knowledge we are gaining from neuroscience and genetics, among other areas of rapidly increasing knowledge.

"The second is that if women want a greater share of the power in the public sphere, it is likely they will have to yield some in the home. "

c'est la guerre?