Feminism

What exactly happens when inane cultural behaviors, such as holding the door for someone, seemingly imply that women are delicate flowers that need protection and assistance? I know the answer varies from woman to woman, but I'd like to hear a more philosophical approach towards the problem, starting from as close to base principles as possible.

For me, I think that this raises larger questions of the interaction of culture and theory, but I will leave that for another time.

Many of our contemporary gender roles and interactions descend from eras and cultures wherein religions and/or autocrats unilaterally determined which customs were socially acceptable. However, material factors which transcend religion and authority likely impacted the development of gender roles as well, e.g., there have been many instances throughout history in which female labor was considered acceptable, even within highly sexist cultures, when male workers were in short supply. Anthropological investigations into various cultures indicates a relatively high degree of gender role variance between populations.

There's no telling what affect these customs may have on an individual's psychology. Surely many women must have felt inferior relative to men for much of history, thereby artificially limiting their hopes and aspirations in life.

Holding a door for someone is "inane"? I have always figured that it was polite, regardless of gender. What else do you consider to be "inane" cultural behavior? Feminism aims at social equality for women, not to eradicate all traces of gender. There does exist a minute but vociferous segment of the feminist movement which is seemingly anti-male and is therefore affronted by the slightest display of uninhibited masculinity, but this faction is irrelevant.

I believe that since gender identity remains an integral component of individual being (indeed, it has increased in complexity rather than the opposite), human interaction will continue to adapt such to social and cultural factors.

Rev Scare wrote:Holding a door for someone is "inane"? I have always figured that it was polite, regardless of gender. What else do you consider to be "inane" cultural behavior? Feminism aims at social equality for women, not to eradicate all traces of gender. There does exist a minute but vociferous segment of the feminist movement which is seemingly anti-male and is therefore affronted by the slightest display of uninhibited masculinity, but this faction is irrelevant.

I believe that since gender identity remains an integral component of individual being (indeed, it has increased in complexity rather than the opposite), human interaction will continue to adapt such to social and cultural factors.

It's nice that you think that it's polite, but my question has not been addressed by your post. You said that the fact that gender is a part of society and the individual, and that culture will adapt to it. Speaking in these generalities does nothing to clarify a, from how I see it, murky subject. Also, I felt like you were taking a dig at me without even asking if I follow these cultural practices.

Celtiberian wrote:Many of our contemporary gender roles and interactions descend from eras and cultures wherein religions and/or autocrats unilaterally determined which customs were socially acceptable. However, material factors which transcend religion and authority likely impacted the development of gender roles as well, e.g., there have been many instances throughout history in which female labor was considered acceptable, even within highly sexist cultures, when male workers were in short supply. Anthropological investigations into various cultures indicates a relatively high degree of gender role variance between populations.

There's no telling what affect these customs may have on an individual's psychology. Surely many women must have felt inferior relative to men for much of history, thereby artificially limiting their hopes and aspirations in life.

Maybe I should refine my question: what should you follow when one's personal feminism runs counter towards the culture? You were answering the questions: what defines gender rolls, and how does that make women feel?

I hope that clears up my question.

Red Aegis wrote:Maybe I should refine my question: what should you follow when one's personal feminism runs counter towards the culture?

I'm not sure if I understand the question. Are you asking how someone should behave when their feminist views run contrary to gender norms in the society they reside in? If so, I think it varies according to how offensive the behavior is and the general level of consciousness in the location one is in. If ideas of female emancipation are just emerging in a highly sexist culture, for example, the ascendant feminist segment of society should be patient and logically explain to sexist individuals why their behavior is unacceptable. As with any radical idea that hopes to gain traction, it must be presented in a manner that is both civil and mindful of the current state of mental conceptions. Hypersensitive feminists who verbally attack any man or woman for behaving in a manner they disagree with do nothing but harm their cause.

Red Aegis wrote:Maybe I should refine my question: what should you follow when one's personal feminism runs counter towards the culture?

Your question remains vague. Clearly, many feminists do view that the cultural practices which predominate run counter to their own views and the interests of women: this is why they express their opinions. They presumably desire to bring about social change that reflects their values. As for what should be followed, that refuses a strict response. Sensible activism is always desirable over vulgar diatribes.

Rev Scare wrote:Your question remains vague. Clearly, many feminists do view that the cultural practices which predominate run counter to their own views and the interests of women: this is why they express their opinions. They presumably desire to bring about social change that reflects their values. As for what should be followed, that refuses a strict response. Sensible activism is always desirable over vulgar diatribes.

I agree with you that activism is better than yelling at random strangers in the mall for trying to be polite. I'm merely trying to decide what the appropriate thing is, not force it on others through verbal or physical violence. I can't start activist activities until I have fully thought out my position, which is what I'm trying to do, with everyone's help of course.

I hate modern radical feminism that wants to make women into men but I am in favor of women being given the same rights as men. Biologically women have their primary role is as mothers but women are also entitled to have occupations. Women should be entitled to most occupations men are entitled to and men should be entitled to most occupations women are entitled to.

What exactly do you mean by 'most'?

I think women being firemen, construction workers and having other manly occupations is silly. I suppose their could be some exceptions to the rule.

TotalitarianSocialist wrote:I think women being firemen, construction workers and having other manly occupations is silly. I suppose their could be some exceptions to the rule.

Of course there are "exceptions to the rule" (apparently you don't understand what averages indicate). And ignoring the fact that women are, on average, less physically capable than men, most professions today possess equipment which lightens the physical requirements of work to a considerable extent. People who meet the requirements of the profession their applying for simply shouldn't be discriminated against.