I just went back and read page four of this thread and feel the need to say something. Has it occurred to you [MENTION=11786]Sweet J[/MENTION] that the gap in political interest as shown by all of your sources can and should be attributed to the patriarchal society that we live in and the social pressures women face to NOT be interested in politics? I ask because you spoke up against the criticism of patriarchy and mentioned the gap in political interest which is a direct result of the problems of the patriarchy.
When I was a child... like a little kid in elementary school... so many little girls would say they wanted to be the first female president when they grew up. And the teachers would smile and nod and say something like "I wanted to be a fairy princess." When the boys would say "I want to be president when I grow up" the teachers would say "President _fill_in_the_blank_name_. That has a ring to it!" I remember thinking this was particularly strange because I asked my grandmother why that was the case one day and she said "because some people are stupid." I was taken aback because my grandmother never used language like that... and I said "what?" And she said "Never let anyone tell you that women can't be president. Just because it happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen soon."
That was 13 or so years ago. Since then, things have changed... but not that much. Women aren't and haven't been encouraged to be a part of the political system. We couldn't even vote until 1920 for goodness sake! The social atmosphere surrounding politics is oriented towards men.
I believe this is another case of your privilege getting in the way. You've probably never even thought about how the social forces of the patriarchy affect women's involvement in politics. But let me tell you, as a woman who expressed interest in politics when I was younger, the social influences of the patriarchy to NOT be politically minded as a woman are loud and hard to ignore.
You have to recognize that equality doesn't just mean that there are laws about equality. Equality doesn't even mean that these laws be upheld. Equality means socially, men and women are given equal opportunity to do whatever they want.
I can only speak from experience, when I was growing up, we had a president who happened to be female(Mary Robinson), so I never experienced the classroom or societal bias that you are expressing. So the remark that I am speaking from a position of male privilege is unlikely.
The story of your teachers patronising the dreams of the ladies in your class was, I imagine, very insulting and probably disheartening. Be that as it may, I am still unconvinced that the 'patriarchy' is responsible.
I also find it hard to believe that if you really had a taste for getting into politics(like Hilary Clinton and Mary Robinson did) that peer pressure or social conditioning would have gotten in the way of your love.
I'm of the opinion that you're going to love something regardless of what others say.
Not to mention people, both male and female, often remark that criticism for their desires or beliefs usually emboldens them to pursue their desires with even greater tenacity than before.
From personal experience, I'm male and love BtVS, and yes I have had some raised eyebrows levelled at me for expressing my fanship of what might be preceived as a girls show. Despite that, or maybe because of it, I'm still as big a fan of BtVS as ever.
Equality means socially, men and women are given equal opportunity to do whatever they want.
I agree whole heartedly! equal opportunity is central to creating an equal and just world.
Though I think it a stretch to say that Patriachal forces are stifling female opportunity in the western world.
In fact, in many ways, in the western world, women generally have greater opportunity than men:
One highly publicised bias in opportunity is that (up until this year) it was cheaper for women to start driving than men-
http://www.carinsuranceexplained.co...n-why-do-women-get-cheaper-car-insurance.html
Now,I'll be the first one to admit that women are generally more interested in driving safely.
Now this is interesting, why is this? is it because the 'patriarchy' has forced women to be more relaxed drivers? or is it that the female brain is less prone to risk taking?
Furthermore when statements like - ''women are generally more interested in driving safely'' are made, no one criticises them, as it is backed up with statistics and so on. Yet when statements like ''men are generally more interested in cars & politics'' are made there is, bizarrely, an uproar of criticism from modern feminists who attack the evidence and statistics.
Likewise, my original post criticising the feminist who was saved by a man(Ryan Gosling) writing ''I refuse to be cast in some sort of boring supporting female role''. I was asking, why was the fact she was saved by a man so abhorrent to her?
When someone saves your life, you do take a supporting role, regardless of gender. Why are feminists like Penny trying to fight reality?
I've met a lot of feminists like Penny and I'm always struck at just how bizarre they act, is this distaste born out of an napolean complex or something?
I appear to be getting a lot of criticism when saying that men and women are fundamentally different, have different tastes and prefer different things.
When I presented two independent sets of studies that back up the assertion that women generally don't like politics as much as men I got a lot of criticism, some of which tried to explain away that data as a product of 'the patriarchy'.
However if someone says 'women generally like chocolate more than men', which again demonstrates that fundamentally the genders prefer different things, the 'patriarchy' explanation clearly becomes nonsensical.
Women, as it turns out, do generally love chocolate more than men:
http://www.news.wisc.edu/13719
Whether it be a taste for politics or a taste for chocolate it appears that women and men do differ, my criticism is that a lot of modern feminists do not seem to like to admit this, instead shying away from that reality. This is what leaves me and others struggling with agreeing with modern feminists. Feminism appears to no longer be about eliminating discrimination but about fighting reality, and bizarrely, themselves.
Now I'm not saying '''look see, equality is stupid'' what I'm saying is that the current modern radical form of feminism that is prevalent in the western world that blames the 'patriarchy' for the likes of women not being as active in politics, is pretty wild and unsupported.
Why feminism in the western world isn't instead focussed on the very real wage discrimination, and the plight of women in countries that do not treat women as equal citizens, is beyond me.
Male and female brains are fundamentally different.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/men-women-different-brains1.htm
(the page after the one above also discusses the nature vs nurture debate)
None of the studies or writing is saying ''men are better than women'' or vice versa, all it is saying is, we are different.
Women are generally more interested in, and better at, some things, and men at others.
Not because of patriarchal influences but seemingly it's down to biology.
Despite this it appears that modern feminists are aghast at findings that the genders are different, and try to sweep such findings under the rug, or level insults such as 'chauvinistic' towards those that bring them up, instead they prefer to point at the evil 'patriarchy' that is responsible.
This is where more criticism for modern feminists comes from, they refuse to acknowledge this, and because of this Feminism as a whole has been tarred with an unflatterering brush.
Modern Feminists appear aligned with this unscientific point of view:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy
Most sociologists reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy and contend that social and cultural conditioning is primarily responsible for establishing male and female gender roles.
I'm open to the possibilty that 'patriarchy' or social and cultural conditioning is responsible for a part of the reason why women generally have less of a taste for, and are therefore under-represented in politics, car clubs and so on.
Though as the earlier example of women having a greater taste for chocolate than men demonstrates the reason 'why' appears to be more biological than peer pressure.
To reject biological(scientific) explanations is pretty irrational. Again, this is where my, and other peoples criticisms for modern feminists comes from.
To bring up crimes like wage discrimination is rational, but because feminism(especially in the western world) is now concerning itself with trying to fight biology, I've begun to distance myself from it.
Again to reiterate my standpoint, I'm in support of female politicians and women getting invovled in politics, car clubs etc. There should be no snide remarks levelled at either gender for expressing a love of xyz.
However we have to realize that males and females biologically have greater tastes for different things, and by and large this appears to be the reason why women are under- represented in politics, and men under-represented in say the likes of the Veterinary profession.
http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/88/5/1969.abstract
