Stepford Wives 2004

[LianaLi]

Oww. Wacko. Weird. And yeah, spoilers in this discussion. You've been warned. So the 2004 version was my first introduction to the concept. Blame it on being an emmigrant. There's tons and tons of pop culture out there that I'm missing. I'm working to catch up on that, though. I, of course, absolutely have to watch Revenge of the Stepford Wives, and the orignal version, and read the book. As if I didn't have enough to do with labs, classes, and correspondence.

So the movie genuinely creeped me out, far more than the usual slew of horror flicks. Thank goodness I like studying neurology, and I know that we're about 50 to 100 years away from that kind of understanding of how the brain works, much less manipulating it. It's the kind of horror that will linger with me for days, as I sit and contemplate people who try very hard to pretend that life is that perfect. Perhaps this wouldn't be quite so disturbing if I didn't have to watch my parents cope with how perfect pretending doesn't equal perfect children.

It's the social commentary of the movie that's really going to stick with me. Of course, I'll understand more of it as I go through repeated watchings, but this is just the dry run. I was deeply amused that it was set in Connecticuit, especially since I had just been in West Hartford in September, to visit my best friend. They did a great job of capturing what looked like quintessential New England, small town feel, and that too-perfectness of it all. Wandering around the cute square in West Hartford, I could play "spot the trophy wife"- a game my friend had tired of long before her first semester of law school had even finished. I was also amused by the accuracy of the compensation cars- my, but there were alot of those coupled with boring, classic suits! So the cultural aspect of it amused me deeply. People really live like that, in large victorian-esque mansions, with that many facelifts. And, one can only assume they need the hired help.

Returning the the pretending point- are people honestly happier pretending to live a certain way of life? Or is it just a coping mechanism for when life gets to be too much? How does the balance of power in relationships fall out between the genders? How far away are we from reaching any sort of true equality in that sense? How do those dynamics work? Where's their sense of individuality? How utterly arrogant am I for looking down on that way of life, simply because I know it would not suit me at all? Which is genuinely better? Is it possible to say that either way is better, or it's simply a matter of balancing it? Or do we, as people, forever oscillate between the two extremes, while we hope to find some middle ground before we go insane with the changes? I grew up after the point feminism had taken strong roots in American culture, and it's interesting trying to reconcile the different points of view, because each has their strengths and weaknesses. After trying to spew out the confusion, horror, and amusement the movie left me in, all I can think of is this one quote I read.

"Despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, I have not yet been able to answer... the great question that has never been answered: what does a woman want?" -Sigmund Freud.

The sword cuts both ways.

-Liana

[Adora]

"Despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, I have not yet been able to answer... the great question that has never been answered: what does a woman want?" -Sigmund Freud.
Yeah, cos that little fucked-up Venetian was a standout example of a man who understood females (or males, for that matter), wasn't he? ¬_¬ Give me a fucking break...

Anyway, I have problems with the more recent movie, for a lot of reasons. One is the way every geeks "fantasy" looks like a 1940's pastel housewife. I'm sorry, but no. Oh, and Glenn Close was so wasted on that script.

Now, onto the serious stuff...

How does the balance of power in relationships fall out between the genders?
Power is granted. If you grant someone power over you, they will take it. Power granting can be good, if it is equal. If it is not, it is bad. You must have the knowledge of the granting of power first, though. You must know about the choice.

However, if we're talking about a more global-gender point of view, women are still royally fucked.

How far away are we from reaching any sort of true equality in that sense?
Some British feminists say "the battle is only half won". Yet personally, I don't even think we're a quarter of the way there.

How utterly arrogant am I for looking down on that way of life, simply because I know it would not suit me at all?
Whilst I'm rather disturbed that such an awful movie had this effect on you, you have to remember- power situations in countries and relationships where the woman believes it is "good" for her to be in a submissive role are due to lack of education and choices for the women. Which is why the women in the movie are robots created by men (in the original, they were lobotomised and brainwashed, by the men). A perfect metaphor for the way brainwashing occurs through culture and religious doctrine in such countries. There is no choices for them, because that option is removed from them by men.

Which is genuinely better?
No. Contest. Ever.

Or do we, as people, forever oscillate between the two extremes, while we hope to find some middle ground before we go insane with the changes?
You actually say that like there has ever been any oscillation between power of the two predominant genders in society in the last 7000 years. There hasn't. There have been exemptive circumstances occasionally in individuals or enclosed societies cut off from paradigms that change the rest of the world, but generally, there has been very little oscillation. We're inching closer to equality though, little bit at a time.

I grew up after the point feminism had taken strong roots in American culture, and it's interesting trying to reconcile the different points of view, because each has their strengths and weaknesses.
I see no strength in a society that views 50% of its people as less-than-human. I will never understand how anyone else can either.

Oh, and since we're on topic, November 25th is International Day Against Violence Against Women. You'll know it when the day comes up, because I'll post more about it on the board. But mark your calendars in the meantime.

[LadyShea]

In 1965, after graduating high school, my mother bought herself a brand new Mustang fastback, moved away from home into her own apartment in another town, and went to beauty school (she had her own money from her deceased dad's Social Security, my grandma had divorced him and was long remarried). Sounds commonplace today right? At the time, she was considered a freak to be pitied...the ladies with their beehives who came to see her once a week asked her if she "had lost her family" or something since she "had to work". When she married my dad, most assumed she would quit working, and were again shocked and dismayed when she didn't.

The original Stepford Wives came out not long after being June Cleaver was considered the norm. The late 60's saw the first breaking of the mold, and women were feeling society's backlash against their increasing independence. It seems campy today, and the remake was definitely camp...but at the time I think it might have been a bit uncomfortably close to home.

As to today's plastic people, they still abound. My friend set out to build herself the perfect life; recreate the picture in her head of the perfect house, perfect kids, gorgeous wife, upstanding citizens, church going, SUV driving, etc. What she failed to realize until she achieved it, was that a picture is two dimenional. She was miserable in her Better Homes and Gardens photographed showcase of a house, her husband was always at work, and when he was home ignored her or was downright abusive, her "Mommy's Club" was nothing but a bunch of shallow gossipy plastic people too who bailed on each other if there was any crack in the perfect facade. She ended up having an affair with an alcoholic psycho, her husband divorced her. Two years later she is only now coming to grips with what she actually wants out of life and realizing where she personally went wrong....she sold herself, her thoughts, her autonomy,pride in her own accomplishments for a prettily wrapped and bowed package with nothing inside .

So, no, IME people who are pretending to live instead of living, are not happier. They just simply don't know how to be real, they assume that happiness is at the end of the cul-de-sac with the manicured lawns with Hummers in the driveways. They seek outside approval, or envy, to justify their existence (my sister in law has no self esteem, no self concluded opinions, she is only happy when people call her "perfect" or compliment her constantly. Her opinions are formed based on what other plastic people say the right opinion is.). They either never learned, or forgot, that happiness comes from within. Can people with seemingly perfect lives also be truly happy, sure, absolutely, but only if they are already happy and not trying to buy it.

[LianaLi]

OK, the biochem exam is over. My brain is mush. But I'm back to discuss!

"Despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, I have not yet been able to answer... the great question that has never been answered: what does a woman want?" -Sigmund Freud.
Yeah, cos that little fucked-up Venetian was a standout example of a man who understood females (or males, for that matter), wasn't he? _ Give me a fucking break...


Anecdotal. Even I recognize the point that the vast majority of Freud’s work is rather useless in psychology. It just amused me that a man who initiated the medical field’s inquiry to the brain as a treatable organ was willing to admit that he knew nothing about the people he’d been studying for 30 some odd years.

Anyway, I have problems with the more recent movie, for a lot of reasons. One is the way every geeks "fantasy" looks like a 1940's pastel housewife. I'm sorry, but no. Oh, and Glenn Close was so wasted on that script.

Sorry. I got the pink memo as girl. It’s my favorite color now. Of course, I also look like I somehow wandered off the set of West Side story, thanks to the new wave of 50’s retro that has hit stores. But back to the movie. I enjoyed Nicole Kidman in her role. I like this new streak of roles where she takes on disturbing movies, as she did in “The Others.” Yeah, so sue me. I was totally surprised by that movie too. I tend to willingly suspend disbelief for a movie, when I get into one.


How does the balance of power in relationships fall out between the genders?
Power is granted. If you grant someone power over you, they will take it. Power granting can be good, if it is equal. If it is not, it is bad. You must have the knowledge of the granting of power first, though. You must know about the choice.

However, if we're talking about a more global-gender point of view, women are still royally fucked.


Globally, I agree. In this fluffy Marie Claire magazine article I read, the statistics for my ”homeland” was that 89% of women in the Philippines had been in an abusive relationship. Ewww. I say homeland with quotes, because I grew up in the US. I’m far too American now to ever fit back in, as evidenced by my self-defense that got me kicked out of my parents’ house when my dad hit me. To this day, I wonder what in the world did he expect me to do, after he shoved me in the face? Lie down and take it? Sorry, nope, not gonna do that. (And yeah, I already dealt with all that. I chose not to press charges 1) because I couldn’t bloody remember every thing clearly. 2) pressing charges would have most likely gotten me disowned, and while I was angry enough to enjoy burning all my bridges, I would miss my family later. Plus, they’re paying for textbooks now. Damn things are expensive!)

Which, in a morbid kind of way, illustrates the question I have. How in the world is that power balance ever going to shift? Nobody ever willingly gives up power, once they have it. Reminds me of Machiavelli, and his whole spiel about how power must be taken by those who are strong. I hated reading The Prince in high school. Anyways, on a purely physiological level the power balance between genders has evolved the way it has because the majority of men are stronger than the majority of women. I stress majority, because there always exceptions. With social dynamics working to counteract that need for a physical dominance, will that be sufficient to override genetic programming? Mentally, on a person to person level, a man and a woman can consent to equality within a relationship- but on a social level, how long is that sort of change going to take?


How far away are we from reaching any sort of true equality in that sense?

Some British feminists say "the battle is only half won". Yet personally, I don't even think we're a quarter of the way there.

Nah, not with statistics the way they are. Not with how the inequality in pay is distributed. Not with the percentages of female leading figures as low as they are. I read two articles in the last week or so which made some interesting points. The “softer” social skills at which women excelled (communication, team building) were also strongly exhibited by the vast majority of female CEOs, presidents, and managers and were strongly valued skills in leaders. Or so the article in MSN.com would have a reader believe. However, another article, from Zonta International, turned around and gave something like 3% of today’s top company positions. So obviously, we’re not there yet, if the numbers are that skewed. It’ll be interesting to see how biological differences fall out socially. How substantial was that argument that men were better at math than women, blah blah blah?


How utterly arrogant am I for looking down on that way of life, simply because I know it would not suit me at all?
Whilst I'm rather disturbed that such an awful movie had this effect on you, you have to remember- power situations in countries and relationships where the woman believes it is "good" for her to be in a submissive role are due to lack of education and choices for the women. Which is why the women in the movie are robots created by men (in the original, they were lobotomised and brainwashed, by the men). A perfect metaphor for the way brainwashing occurs through culture and religious doctrine in such countries. There is no choices for them, because that option is removed from them by men.

That’s what disturbed me so much. Good analogy, thank you. Some things still hit close to home, and then the blinders get in the way.

While Mona Lisa Smile was largely one big piece of fluff, it did have a few good points here and there. Julia Stiles’character, who was accepted into Harvard Law, chose not go, and instead became her husband’s wife. Granted, she may have been simply bowing out to social pressures- but it seems unlikely with a woman bright enough to think clearly enough to get into law. Her argument was – is a woman who chooses to stay at home any less deserving of respect than a woman who chooses to support herself? It’s a mutual responsibility thing, to oversee that neither end of the spectrum alienates the other for the choices each one makes. It seems too idealistic to feasibly work, for a more powerful sector of society such as independent women or men to guarantee that a subdued portion of women who stay at home have guaranteed rights and protection. It’s an interesting social contract, and one that would have to be completely embraced by both men and women for it to work. Which returns to the question I had above- how do you get those in power to relinquish part of it, when the vast majority of people work only in self-interest?

Or do we, as people, forever oscillate between the two extremes, while we hope to find some middle ground before we go insane with the changes?
You actually say that like there has ever been any oscillation between power of the two predominant genders in society in the last 7000 years. There hasn't. There have been exemptive circumstances occasionally in individuals or enclosed societies cut off from paradigms that change the rest of the world, but generally, there has been very little oscillation. We're inching closer to equality though, little bit at a time.

Well there goes the matriarchal Native American societies.

I grew up after the point feminism had taken strong roots in American culture, and it's interesting trying to reconcile the different points of view, because each has their strengths and weaknesses.
I see no strength in a society that views 50% of its people as less-than-human. I will never understand how anyone else can either.

I think we forget, in the easier way of life allowed to us by living in America, that in parts of the world there still is a struggle to survive from one day to the next. Which nullifies the feminist movement, because it’s not based on a biological model, but on a social ideal. As for my personal experience? I don’t see too much of the disenfranchised woman right now, not when both my managers are women, my mother studies to get her CFP, and my close friend manages natural resources for the state. Numerically, there is a ways to go, but now the choices are more varied and more socially acceptable than they were years ago.

So, no, IME people who are pretending to live instead of living, are not happier. They just simply don't know how to be real, they assume that happiness is at the end of the cul-de-sac with the manicured lawns with Hummers in the driveways. They seek outside approval, or envy, to justify their existence (my sister in law has no self esteem, no self concluded opinions, she is only happy when people call her "perfect" or compliment her constantly. Her opinions are formed based on what other plastic people say the right opinion is.). They either never learned, or forgot, that happiness comes from within. Can people with seemingly perfect lives also be truly happy, sure, absolutely, but only if they are already happy and not trying to buy it.

That leads back to a discussion a friend and I had about other people who just bow down to social pressures. Ironically, he and I both agreed that men and women are equally guilty of this behavior where it’s easier to go with spoon-fed social acceptance, instead of really questioning ones own values. It requires a degree of self-awareness that seems to scare most people, because they don’t want to ruin that easy-to-accept image. So you get deeply unhappy plastic people instead, which is just sad when you consider the small amount of effort it would take just to sit and reflect on things just a little bit to gain a better understanding of what one person wants out of their own life.

-Liana

[Adora]

I enjoyed Nicole Kidman in her role. I like this new streak of roles where she takes on disturbing movies, as she did in “The Others.” Yeah, so sue me.
I love her in anything. Yes, even BMX Bandits.

How in the world is that power balance ever going to shift?
Well, look at it this way. It took approx 3000 years for a global shift to happen about 10 000-7000 years ago from a kind of "matriachy" to a definite "patriachy". So if we work hard, in the year 5000 there may possibly be equality (though this assumes that equality would take as long to get as a full swing the other way... though it may take longer).

Anyways, on a purely physiological level the power balance between genders has evolved the way it has because the majority of men are stronger than the majority of women.
Sorry, but I think this is crap. Physical strength only matters if it is valued, and violence only occurs if the society allows it to. It is not universal across the entire human race.

With social dynamics working to counteract that need for a physical dominance, will that be sufficient to override genetic programming?
Men do not commit violence because of genetic programming. There is no piece of DNA that says this should happen. It is power, the dynamics of that power in society, the way gender is constructed (especially hegemonic masculinities) and the values society places on genders and their aspects. Most of our lives are dictated by social programming, not biological disposition. It has simply been construced as the other way around in the last 300 or so years as a way to validate already-existing power structures in new capitalist industrial societies. When human society started to expand beyond the realm of religious definites, a new discourse was required to come to the fore and validate moral and social dogma. That discourse was science, and science ever since has been used and abused by those with the power to validate whatever values they hold as essential and "natural". Once we get rid of this valorisation of science as "objective" and "universal" and "proof", and start questioning scientific discourse as we question so much else of society, we'll be taking the first step.

How substantial was that argument that men were better at math than women, blah blah blah?
Not very. It's simply that areas of scientific and academic discrouse (such as science and maths) have been dominated by men to validate the patriachy in society (see above) and so they have become gendered. In education, however, girls (usually from middle to upper class backgrounds) who go into areas like biology, chemistry, mathemathics, physics, etc far outstrip the majority of boys in their classes, because they have a definite passion and talent for the area of study. Many men in the areas are simply there because they're average or below-average at the subject, but it's the blokey-kinda-thing to do. You could, if you wanted to skew these statistics, say that because the average acheivements of girls in these subjects are higher than the average boys, girls are better than boys at these, but that wouldn't be true. You have to take in entire social discourses that create and influence areas like maths, science, physics etc to understand why some people say "girls are better than boys" or "boys are better than girls". Same goes for any area of society you care to name.

Which returns to the question I had above- how do you get those in power to relinquish part of it, when the vast majority of people work only in self-interest?
It's very hard, I can assure you. One of the best ways I think is to show how those in power suffer because of the same system that causes those they subjugate to suffer. In the West, men who control, define, and are defined by hegemonic masculinities benefit from high social status, social power and better economic status in society, but they have shorter lifespans, generally worse health than women in the same and slightly lower bracket, suffer higher rates of suicide, and there's even issues such as sexual repression (ie- The Closet) that come into play as well. When you take the pressure off individuals to maintain issues that continue "The Patriachy"*, then you can look to seriously solving these issues.

I think we forget, in the easier way of life allowed to us by living in America, that in parts of the world there still is a struggle to survive from one day to the next. Which nullifies the feminist movement, because it’s not based on a biological model, but on a social ideal.
I don't see how this nullifies the feminist movement. Legal and spiritual equality, access to health and sexual health services, access to jobs where women and children are not exploited as cheap labour, equal representation in government are as much issues for Japanese, Thai, Chinese, Indonesian, Chechnyan and African women as much as they are for those of us in the West (I am Australian, by the way). In fact, the US is not a very good example of equality at all. Even under Saddam's reign, women made up 20% of Iraq's governing council. In the US, it's currently only 14%. The US is destroying women's health globally with their new Global Gag Rule. The US is also classified as a "rape prone" society by people who study such things, because of issues like power and gender construction & inequality (which are the environments rape exists in). Though other serious issues of equality impact the lives of women living there, Rwanda has the highest rates of female participation in government than any other country in the world. Because society is becoming more and more homogenised, social issues play an even bigger role than they once did, and are more important.

As for my personal experience? I don’t see too much of the disenfranchised woman right now, not when both my managers are women, my mother studies to get her CFP, and my close friend manages natural resources for the state. Numerically, there is a ways to go, but now the choices are more varied and more socially acceptable than they were years ago.
They are in some classes, in some countries. Still, I'd be you that a woman from a lower socio-economic class than yours has more trouble gaining voice and being represented in society. Which is a serious issue globally, since 70% of people living in poverty are women and our societies are becoming more and more economically-based.

*I've always had a problem with this phrase for a lot of reasons. One- that it suggests some kind of global conspiracy or elite group controlling everyone else, male or female. The other is that it ignores multiple issues of gender and identity definition. I simply use it here as a very loose metaphorical term for the general dominance of masculine aspects of society in Western culture and life. To me it's more of an ideology, rather than some grand international scheme or something.

[LadyShea]

Sorry in advance for the following rambly rant, having sort of an introspective week here. Read or ignore as you wish.

So you get deeply unhappy plastic people instead, which is just sad when you consider the small amount of effort it would take just to sit and reflect on things just a little bit to gain a better understanding of what one person wants out of their own life.

-Liana

Most people, IME, never sit down and think about what they want out of life. They just go along with whatever seems the norm....Get out of high school, go to college, get a job, get married, buy a house, have kids, get a bigger house, get divorced maybe, have some kind of mid-life angst about "what happened? this isn't how it's supposed to be", try to find meaning in some extreme way for a short period of time, come back to the mainstream, retire, talk about all the things you're gonna do and places you're gonna go but never do anything or go anywhere, bitch about how your family never comes to see you, end up regretting all the things you never did, never saw, did but didn't want to, etc.

FUCK THAT!

I started paddling against that stream with my decision not to go to college...plenty of people were properly shocked and asked me why....I asked them why they were going. I would say maybe 5% had a goal and a plan, the rest were going because that's just what you do out of high school. I got engaged and married young, at a time when women did the carreer thing first, then married in their 30's. Again, many questions "Married? At 21? Are you pregnant?"...no, I just wanted to marry the boy. While others were waiting tables with their useless degrees (because they didn't know why they wanted to go to college, see) and moving back home or living with a bunch of other bachelors and bachelorettes, we were already homeowners and managing people and getting named executives and traveling all over on business and looking for the big payday with our stock positions. So, then everyone catches up to me after college, and waiting for the appropriate age, and start getting married, getting real jobs, collecting status symbols and having kids (another thing to ask someone "Why do you want kids?"...they don't know, they have never thought about it! Just what you do when you're married), getting divorced, starting all over because they didn't like what they were doing or realized they made a mistake because THEY NEVER FUCKIN THOUGHT ABOUT IT BEFOREHAND. Now we are planning what most people wait for retirement age to do. Slow down, relax, work a minimum wage job and spend the rest of the time fishing, boating, or on the beach. Fuck it, I know what I want and it ain't bundt cake baking to drive the SUV over to the bosses for a kiss ass session disguised as a barbecue.

[dave_a]

Anyways, on a purely physiological level the power balance between genders has evolved the way it has because the majority of men are stronger than the majority of women.
Sorry, but I think this is crap. Physical strength only matters if it is valued, and violence only occurs if the society allows it to. It is not universal across the entire human race.

I dunno, even in developed nations physical strength was highly desirable/neccesary until very recently. Men had it, women didn't.

With social dynamics working to counteract that need for a physical dominance, will that be sufficient to override genetic programming?
Men do not commit violence because of genetic programming. There is no piece of DNA that says this should happen. It is power, the dynamics of that power in society, the way gender is constructed (especially hegemonic masculinities) and the values society places on genders and their aspects. Most of our lives are dictated by social programming, not biological disposition. It has simply been construced as the other way around in the last 300 or so years as a way to validate already-existing power structures in new capitalist industrial societies.[/quote]

What does capitalism have to do with it?

When human society started to expand beyond the realm of religious definites, a new discourse was required to come to the fore and validate moral and social dogma. That discourse was science, and science ever since has been used and abused by those with the power to validate whatever values they hold as essential and "natural". Once we get rid of this valorisation of science as "objective" and "universal" and "proof", and start questioning scientific discourse as we question so much else of society, we'll be taking the first step.

First step? Y'know I always end up amused with feminists who view men as oppressive beings with the full force of society behind them. Stop playing the victim role and you might find you are freer than you thought.

Power works on the vaccuum system. Men may have power, but in the absence of power a woman or man can take it. It is only when women do not take it and wait around for a man to lead that we end up with men holding most of the power. The genders world wide are roughly 50% male 50% female. Why is there a power gap (assuming there really is one in modern societies)? Seems the playing field is numerically equal.

[LianaLi]

This is what I get for starting a thread to re-evaluate my views on feminism, and, to a certain extent, relationships. I'll be back again in a few days, after I've got my lab write up done. Or when I get tired of explaining why it didn't work. :D Looking at this, I realize we've left the realm of the movies far behind us and delved straight into uhhh... social issues? Possible time for moving this thread to a more suitable forum.

Brain dead in Texas,
Liana :wave:

[Adora]

I dunno, even in developed nations physical strength was highly desirable/neccesary until very recently.
There's a big difference between the first and the second qualifiers you put there. The first one proves my point, and as for the second one, ask why it is a necessity. The activities traditionally performed by agricultural cultures values physical strength only if the environment required it, and if there was conflict or violence in which is was required. The majority of the day-to-day agricultural activities were performed by women in most of these cultures, though. However, war, conflict and violence have always been gendered, and have always revolved around men and power. It's a moot point how necessary things like that are.

What does capitalism have to do with it?
Because thats what these dominant societies were, and still are. The capitalist system was possibly the most powerful contributor to the Industrial Revolution and the technological and social changes that happened therein. Everything changed to fit that system, from the whole idea of private/public space, to morality, to the idea of the child, to the view of science in society, sexuality, the social view of religion, government, to just about anything you care to name. It really is the most powerful paradigm shift that has happened for a very long time.

First step?
Is to learn to read...

Patriachy*...*I've always had a problem with this phrase for a lot of reasons. One- that it suggests some kind of global conspiracy or elite group controlling everyone else, male or female. The other is that it ignores multiple issues of gender and identity definition. I simply use it here as a very loose metaphorical term for the general dominance of masculine aspects of society in Western culture and life. To me it's more of an ideology, rather than some grand international scheme or something.

The second, is to address the entire idea of a "vacuum". There. Is. No. Such. Thing. Everything exists within a wider social network with its prejudices, existing inequalities and problems. As I mentioned to Lana, there is societies in which brainwashing is involved to keep the dominant power, so that when there is a vacuum, the chance of a female stepping up and taking it is close to nil. In fact, most cases of female power are what can best be described as "grassroots" movements, which work in underground subversive systems, rather than dominant social constructs because this is the only way to escape the systems designed to make the playing field uneven.

Let me put it this way- it's the same reason things like Affirmative Action groups exist, and policies being forwarded by my current government to put qualifiers of health and work on Aboriginal communities for welfare payments won't work. It assumes an equality between those with privilege who can access power or resources within society with very little resistance, and those who cannot, and therefore judges the latter by grossly unfair standards. When you talk about "power between the sexes", you have to remember this. Those that can access power easily (no matter what their gender) are a far more privileged and well-resourced group than those who have a harder time gaining power in a system, which they sometimes have to totally escape to gain any power at all. Whether it's race, gender, sexuality, age, economic or physical status, whatever.

The genders world wide are roughly 50% male 50% female.
In some societies, in some generations. In others, this is not so.

Why is there a power gap (assuming there really is one in modern societies)?
Because of ingrained social beliefs, backlash, economic inequalities, gender construction, issues that have yet to be addressed such as private/public gendering and domestic violence, religious beliefs, glass ceilings/elevators, and the list goes on and on and fucking on. And if you think there isn't inequality in "modern societies" (I'm assuming you're referring to Minority-World Western industrialised nations) you are seriously mistaken.

[copiae]

Lots of interesting points in this thread thus far. I can't be bothered dividing it up by posts, so instead I'll divide it up by people. There is more to discuss here, especially the pursuit of happiness, which I hope to post by this weekend.


... and I know that we're about 50 to 100 years away from that kind of understanding of how the brain works, much less manipulating it.


Actually, it would probably be more accurate to say that we are one breakthrough away from that kind of understanding, and at least one breakthrough away from manipulation, as after all, perhaps the understanding will also yield a very easy way to manipulate it.


...89% of women in the Philippines had been in an abusive relationship. Ewww.."


To those inclined to do so, statistics of this ilk can always be questioned. The sample size & location, for starters, but more importantly, thier definition of "abuse". Are they talking black-and-blue beatings here, or telling someone to shut up? Also, Do they take into account prior scenarios and situations when questioning about abuse? I'm sure many of us would agree that there is a substantial difference between a drunken husband returning home every day to beat up his wife, and a frustrated husband finally retaliating once against an abusive wife?


Power is granted. If you grant someone power over you, they will take it.


There have been many times where I could have accepted power over people, and in the vast majority of those times, I did not. Why? Because I didn't want to, and it didnt interest me in the slightest. Anecdotal, I know, but I am reasonably certain that I am not the only one to reject power over another, for whatever reason.


Well, look at it this way. It took approx 3000 years for a global shift to happen about 10 000-7000 years ago from a kind of "matriachy" to a definite "patriachy". So if we work hard, in the year 5000 there may possibly be equality


Seeing as the oldest written word is believed to be 5000 or 6000 years old, I have to say I find these numbers to be somewhat interesting. I'm not too familiar with anthropology, but I believe there was an agricultural revolution somewhere around that period of human history. Are you talking about that? Regardless, why do you believe humanity to be kind-of matriarchal prior to this revolution?


most of our lives are dictated by social programming, not biological disposition.


What about the correlation between androgen levels and aggression - which seems to be a biological disposition towards aggression (and by extension, a biological disposition to commit violence) for males, as thery have substantially greater androgen levels, in general.

[Adora]

There have been many times where I could have accepted power over people, and in the vast majority of those times, I did not.
Yes, but you are accepting power over people, only because they grant it.

Regardless, why do you believe humanity to be kind-of matriarchal prior to this revolution?
I'm still trying to remember the books I read these theories in, and I'm coming up with nothing (it was a while ago, and I have a memory like a goldfish as they say). Can you give me a couple of days and I'll get back to you?

What about the correlation between androgen levels and aggression - which seems to be a biological disposition towards aggression (and by extension, a biological disposition to commit violence) for males, as thery have substantially greater androgen levels, in general.
Call me nuts, but I think it kind of pales in comparison to the correlation between being a human being, and our little magical thing that seperates us from the animals called Impulse Control. There's a difference between a "Biological Disposition" and it manifesting in an environment that creates a space for it to do that. You can have the biological disposition to lefthandedness, and yet it may never manifest. You may have a biological disposition to early heart-disease, genetic obesity, advanced-age diabetes, but it may never manifest if you remain healthy (or uber-healthy, if you'd rather be more rigourous) within your environment.

Just because someone or something has a biological disposition to it, does not mean that social conditioning does not play a major hand in how it does or does not manifest.

[copiae]

Yes, but you are accepting power over people, only because they grant it.

My objection was with the "will" in your earlier statement. =)


I'm still trying to remember the books I read these theories in, and I'm coming up with nothing (it was a while ago, and I have a memory like a goldfish as they say). Can you give me a couple of days and I'll get back to you?


Theres no rush. I am especially interested in how they arrived at the matriarchal conclusion, and at both the dates and period of the transition to the patriarchal. Actually, I'm also interested at how they knew society was patriarchal subsequently, until the era where we could 'verify' this for ourselves.



Call me nuts, but I think it kind of pales in comparison to the correlation between being a human being, and our little magical thing that seperates us from the animals called Impulse Control.


Hrm. By impulse control, I am guessing that you mean the ability for humans to control our impulses (read: primal urges)? If this is the case, then animals can also exhibit impulse control, albeit control that is facilitated via conditioning ("I do not do this thing that will give me pleasure now, as it will cause me pain later"). Quite a human thought, actually... Perhaps we could ascribe all human impulse control to pain avoidance as well? Maybe our impulse control isnt really that special, or magical :).


There's a difference between a "Biological Disposition" and it manifesting in an environment that creates a space for it to do that. You can have the biological disposition to lefthandedness, and yet it may never manifest. You may have a biological disposition to early heart-disease, genetic obesity, advanced-age diabetes, but it may never manifest if you remain healthy (or uber-healthy, if you'd rather be more rigourous) within your environment.

Just because someone or something has a biological disposition to it, does not mean that social conditioning does not play a major hand in how it does or does not manifest.

True. But, as you've just implied (and apologies if I am reading too much into what you have written), social conditioning does not play the entire hand in how it does or does not manifest: What I am saying here is that certain biological dispositions may manifest irrespective of social conditioning. Having said that, both the frequency and intensity of any manifestation may be regulated by said conditioning.

N.b.: I'm not really disagreeing with you on this, as the diversity of human behaviour in different areas/eras seems to imply that social conditioning is a major factor. However, it seems that I place significantly more importance on biological dispositions than you do.


Regards,