Again, your experience is more extensive than mine. Where did you come across this behaviour? — Amity

As a positive example: I've heard of a man identifying as a feminist who was chair of a disability, diversity inclusion initiative in a company. He was multiply disabled and pretty educated on disability rights, but he was pretty bad at treating women with the same respect.

That's not quite "part of an activist movement". I could find you a paper polling feminist activist groups about this attitude if you like, but it would be some effort. People worry about it. For good reasons I think, men who are feminists still aren't women, and so aren't subject to precisely the same flavours of oppression (even if sources of them may be the same). For that reason, the kind of political activity a feminist man would suggest/find adequate could (arguably) be seen as suspect due to the guy being a man and not having the right standpoint on society to guide what should be done. (See The Effeminist Manifesto for an extreme example of that perspective). Like maybe you wouldn't want a CEO deciding how much capital gains tax they pay...

Where things, I think, get dicey is if you grant that men have unique vectors of oppression from patriarchy and try to organise men to fight them in solidarity with feminists. Some of that might be against, what might be called, "the emotional objectification of men" - the kind of thing that excuses men's suffering in war, our predominance among the homeless, and what can be the emotional core (so to speak) of being expected to be an ideal protector/caretaker - a limitless, stoic repository of material support.

I like to think that feminists have done great work in uprooting interpersonal norms that subjugate women. I think as @unenlightened wrote elsewhere, "patriarchy is dying". My perspective on it is that patriarchy is dying for women (which is great!) but it's currently dying less for men (boo!). A large part of that comes from there not being anti-patriarchy men's political organisations, and some of that large part comes from that addressing "men's issues" in feminist spaces is either a hard sell or justifiably seen as entitlement and entryism.

Regardless of the reason, however, the interpersonal norms that "make men men" are dying in some sense, but those expectations of traditional male conduct still show up interpersonally quite often. Like I imagine they do for women.

But it is nice, nowadays, to be able to hug the blokes at an old man bar while commiserating about the state of the world. So I think the rot in our souls is being excised regardless.

My perspective on it is that patriarchy is dying for women (which is great!) but it's currently dying less for men (boo!). A large part of that comes from there not being anti-patriarchy men's political organisations, and some of that large part comes from that addressing "men's issues" in feminist spaces is either a hard sell or justifiably seen as entitlement and entryism. — fdrake

Perhaps if there were more men willing and able to address the problems of patriarchal structures, then the required change would happen sooner. Do they think that an attack on patriarchy is an attack on males by females? And they are more defensive as a result? Do most men even recognise that they are not alone in any injustices? Perhaps they lag behind because they haven't felt the inequality gap as much as females...who tend to communicate and organise more in social groups. Or there is a fear that any push might go too far in the opposite direction...

'Hugging blokes at a bar' is that the same as Happy Hour at TPF's Shoutbox?

Regardless of the reason, however, the interpersonal norms that "make men men" are dying in some sense, but those expectations of traditional male conduct still show up interpersonally quite often. Like I imagine they do for women. — fdrake

Yup. And that can be strangely comforting in a way. Boys will be boys, accompanied by an eye-roll.
Boys will be girls - stranger.



For balance: Girls will be boys.

We've all heard the term "boys will be boys" banded around as an excuse for male behaviour. Well, 26-year-old Char Ellesse is challenging the phrase and its meaning through her platform "Girls Will Be Boys."

Frustrated with the barriers that solidify around gender norms and binary boxes, Char hopes to liberate minorities from their labels and expand the meaning of what identifying can be. The platform exists to blur the lines between gender roles through content creation and exciting visuals that challenge as much as they do inspire. — Girls will be boys - Vogue

Do they think that an attack on patriarchy is an attack on males by females? — Amity

I see there being two tendencies which result in this impression, one which is silly and unjust and one which is worth considering. The first tendency is equating feminism with man hating. Which is silly. And unjust.

The second tendency is that there is a habit, especially in online discourse, to essentialise minor/largely irrelevant misconduct and thus make someone a living symbol of all that is bad with (enemy of your choice). When that's allied with reactionary/conservative/prejudiced viewpoints it gets called grievance politics. The same dynamic happens to individuals who say the wrong thing in left spaces. Especially online. Mark Fisher wrote a highly controversial piece on this tendency in 2008, Exiting the Vampire Castle. It's worth a read.

Because the second tendency may be nebulous - I've seen someone be branded an incel, predator through online rumours and be ostracised in person for it. It was almost all knee jerk misinterpretation, and a hefty chunk of inopportune phrasing. It is still more justified, and on a smaller scale, than what happened to Contrapoints (and her case studies) in this video here. Worth a watch!

Mark Fisher wrote a highly controversial piece on this tendency in 2008, Exiting the Vampire Castle. It's worth a read. — fdrake

Thanks for reminding me of Mark Fisher. I need to go back and read his books again. :pray:

Thanks for your insights and links. I'll have a look.
I have noticed some of what you mention but I have little online discourse. No Facebook or Twitter accounts. I think I'll keep it that way.

I don't know what such discussions tend to do or how they end. I get the impression that Moliere has lost interest. Perhaps, for him, his questions have been answered adequately... — Amity

Heh, I'm enjoying reading along. I'm contemplating, now, how to make the material dimensional aspect of a critique of gender more explicit. And I feel like the conversation has elevated at this point so I'm taking longer to think it through.

The impetus for the thread began with the practical question of gendered bathrooms. Or, at least, that's how I'd put it -- the other side puts it sexual bathrooms, and holds that gender and sexuality are, if not identical, at least a tight fit, such that we can utilize sex in place of gender with respect to norms of bathroom usage. My counter-point has been that we have never used sex in place of gender, but rather the emphasis on chromosomal patterns is a novel interpretation of the traditional gender distinction - we already knew who the men were when we pointed out they had XY chromosomes. We didn't identify men from their chromosomal characteristics, but rather discovered a possible biological distinction from science which could possibly support the traditional gender bi-section, at least as a rule of thumb. (as it turns out, though, as is almost always the case in science, the picture is much more complicated than all that)

We can describe gender outside of the parameters of sexual characteristics, and we in fact do so whenever we describe a behavior or a tendency of a particular gender expression(Boys will be boys!). Further, individuals show that the sexual characteristics are in no way determinative of a person's gender, given the diversity of genders. In fact there are people who "pass", to use the straightforward but still sad term -- there are already people with different chromosomes than the traditional view of gender would predict but who are able to utilize the facilities they would prefer to use. As such I submit that we do not actually use sexual characteristics to police gendered spaces, but gender, and that gender is much older -- and more practical -- than chromosomal identifiers, given that we do not actually investigate the genome of most people we know.

So, at a minimum, we should address what we mean by gender given that this is the actual rule we use in policing.

The above should be enough to say why I think you cannot support the sex-gender link empirically. People will point out that chromosomal differences are small -- the oft-cited 99.5%/0.5%. But there are so many more genders than even these three possible chromosomal arrangements. There's the four-gender theory I pointed out which gets at a richer expression of what gender is, but it's a bit too abstract for my taste: good for research, but bad for really understanding a particular gender identity in its depth. Which is what I think a lot of this hasty generalization does is attempt to come to some conclusion based upon a small amount of evidence on a topic that, in fact, is incredibly complicated and even difficult to determine in a manner that's not merely a personal reflection on one's own life and gender. So we shouldn't be all that surprised that the traditional view of gender, a quick-and-dirty distinction that's easily filled in with the details of one's personal life so that the partner is the other gender and you complement one another, is empirically inadequate to the task.

That leaves a values approach -- which I'd say patriarchy hasn't really done all that well for itself. The pleasures of patriarchy are the pleasures of power rather than the pleasures of self-sacrifice, as the story is told. Puissance, not protection is the only rational ground to support it. That should be fairly obvious that power for its own sake doesn't exactly pass the ethical bar, or at least, not very many of them. So that leaves an aesthetic grounding -- a non-ethical value. I think most gender-identities fall into this category: they are personally rewarding in that it feels good when we do what feels right to us to do.

But in contrast to the ethical violations of patriarchy I don't think that the aesthetic grounding of traditional masculinity as provider-protector-owner of the family is strong enough. The ethical violations are seen in the statistics of violence against women. If patriarchy is not the reason -- it doesn't exist, or is a dreamed up excuse of a few political radicals with their noses in too many books -- why is it that women are disproportionally subject to violence in intimate relationships?

That is -- in setting out the traditional view of gender, given that we should set out the actual rule we use in policing gendered spaces, I think we lose any attraction said view may have. So even its aesthetic grounding is questionable.

As such I'd submit that such a traditional view of gender ought not be used in public, at least. And public restrooms are certainly public. But the public is for everyone, not just 99.5% of the population, and just because some families like to live a romanticized vision of the traditional model that's not a reason to block people from shitting in public where they'd like to.

But that's just the impetus for these thoughts, and the relevance of a contemplation on gender with respect to the material choices we make on gendered spaces. I think the materiality of gender is most directly experienced in the workplace and the home, in part because the public is a restrained space, and in part because the public is shrinking in the face of the ever-expanding private sphere so most of our personal experiences are at the workplace, or a home, or some other privately owned establishment rather than interacting in a public. The relationship between men and work is a good point to bring up here -- women have been working, often times harder, from the beginning of culture. But it's the man whose work counts as worthy of the name. The picture of a homemaker living a life of comfort and ease is exactly that: nothing but a picture. Traditionally taking care of the home and children is where women work, and it's not a job you get to come home from. Depending on what era we're talking here -- our gender disruptions are incredibly recent! -- the woman couldn't leave her job at home due to the stigma of divorce and a lack of skills that could be sold in the workplace. So men could have their dalliances and get forgiven not because women were forgiving, but because their access to goods is bound up in their relationship.

It's this material relationship between one's personal identity and the goods of life which makes a critique of gender relevant -- gender and property have always gone hand in hand.

And, even there -- this is again in the territory that @fdrake already called attention to, where the masculine and the feminine are being defined by the patriarchal relationship rather than the space that a critique of the patriarchal relationship opens up.

But I really wanted to highlight how the material conditions of our lives are, in fact, wrapped up in gender, because so far I haven't made that very explicit, especially when the original conversation concerned an incredibly practical question -- what to do about gendered bathrooms?

Now I'm trying to think on your question, @fdrake -- the possibility of masculinities after critique.

For one, given the above, I think a post-critique masculinity will be concerned with sharing property. It can even be derived from the same traditional norm -- the desire to protect is better accomplished through distributing by need.

But, well -- this pinko commie would say that, wouldn't he? Still something to chew on for me...

Do they think that an attack on patriarchy is an attack on males by females?
— Amity

I see there being two tendencies which result in this impression, one which is silly and unjust and one which is worth considering. The first tendency is equating feminism with man hating. Which is silly. And unjust. — fdrake

It might be silly and unjust but is certainly worth considering. It ties in with my feeling that most women don't identify as 'feminist' for a variety of reasons.

I have been wondering at various points throughout this discussion whether a separate thread should be started. To thresh out the meaning and understanding of 'feminism'. But I don't really have the time or knowledge to do this effectively. I haven't even had the time to follow all your recommended links!
@fdrake @Baden - your thoughts?

More than a feeling. Global findings and stats:
An excerpt:
A 2018 YouGov poll found that 34% of women in the UK said "yes" when asked whether they were a feminist, up from 27% in 2013.
It's a similar picture in Europe, with fewer than half of men and women polled in five countries agreeing they were a feminist. This ranged from 8% of respondents in Germany, to 40% in Sweden.
However, people do not appear to reject the term feminism because they are against gender equality or believe it has been achieved.
The same study found that eight out of 10 people said men and women should be treated equally in every way, with many agreeing sexism is still an issue.
[...]

Battling stereotypes and misconceptions associated with feminism.

In her introduction to the recently published anthology Feminists Don't Wear Pink and Other Lies, curator Scarlett Curtis refers to the stereotype of feminists as not wearing make-up, or shaving their legs or liking boys.
These stereotypes have persisted through the ages. In the 1920s, feminists were often called spinsters and speculation about their sexual preferences was rife. Almost a century later, these views still hold some sway.
[...]
Having interviewed a diverse group of young German and British women for my research,I found associations of the term "feminism" with man-hating, lesbianism or lack of femininity was a key factor in rejections of the label "feminist".

The majority said they did not want to call themselves feminist because they feared they would be associated with these traits. This was despite many stressing they were not homophobic and some identifying as lesbian or bisexual.

So, how could the image of feminism be improved?
Arguably, as a society we should do more to challenge narrowly defined expectations of how women should look and act.

Working harder to make this movement more inclusive could mean that feminism speaks to the experiences and concerns of diverse groups of women.

Nevertheless, whichever label women choose to adopt, the indication that the vast majority of people now support equality - and acknowledge it has not yet been achieved - is heartening.
— BBC News - Why so many young women don't call themselves feminist

[ emphasis added]

AIso associated with race and class:

Almost one in three people from the top social grade ABC1 - those in managerial, administrative and professional occupations - called themselves a feminist in a 2018 poll. This compared with one in five from grades C2DE, which include manual workers, state pensioners, casual workers, and the unemployed.

But those from lower income backgrounds are just as likely to support equal rights. Eight out of 10 people from both groups agreed men and women should be equal in every way, when asked for a 2015 poll.

This may suggest lower income groups support the principle behind feminism, but aren't keen on the word itself.

I think the important thing is that even if there is a rejection of the word 'feminism', people still understand the disparities in the treatment of women (and others) in e.g. the workplace. Many work hard in mentoring programmes and the like. That is active practice rather than fighting over different theories and ideologies within a movement.

First look or appearance, then, or initial 'intuitions' seems to hold an inordinate sway on how people feel about others. It was ever thus...

'Arguably, as a society we should do more to challenge narrowly defined expectations of how women should look and act.'
Gender judgement. Alive and well.
Why or How do you portray an image...even if it doesn't reflect who you are, think you are or hope to be.
Who are you, really? Could antipathy towards a specific group be a fight within oneself?

Behavioral reinforcement.
Edit to add: ...and 'evolutionary success'. — wonderer1

First of all, I have to make an apology to @wonderer1 for my earlier, flippant dismissal of:

I can see I would need to start a new thread to fill in the details, and while I might be up for that, it would be a sciency explanation of how I see humans as existing within a system, and most affectingly, within a system of their fellow humans and the universe at large.

It would help motivate me to take on such a project, if I had confidence it wasn't going to feel like a waste of my time. So how interested are you? — wonderer1

Of course, I am interested in this. At the time, I felt there was too much onus put on me. I don't do well with perceived pressure, given my lack of all things mentioned. Basically, I didn't feel up to the job.
Given that my understanding has increased a little, are you still interested in starting a new thread as you suggested? I'd hopefully be able to participate along with others.

If behaviour modification and 'evolutionary success' are elements of maintaining patriarchal systems, then I would like to hear more. Given that we are way ahead of ourselves here with talk of 'a new femininity post-patriarchy'. How would we even dismantle it? Where is it found and what perpetuates it?

So long as a space of relative equality can be created between men and women, these things can be talked about and acted upon. In the conditions where that cannot happen readily - a workplace, a boardroom, a hiring decision -, you need advocacy and collective action. That's why ideas are never enough by themselves. — fdrake

Paying more attention to creating 'a space of relative equality' seems to be a basic necessity.
I woke up this morning thinking of how we are politically governed in the UK.
Where were most of the Tory male leaders educated? I thought Eton. Posh, private, male-only boarding school. Powerful and privileged. I think that is right:

This article gives a taster. It concerns 'emotional and ruthless coldness'.
The very architecture plays its part ( also in the adversarial Westminster Parliament).

The determination Okwonga showed is a quality we see in the old boys who have climbed the greasy pole of politics: "No one here ever tells us out loud that Etonians are natural leaders, " he writes. "That's what the architecture is for."

Okwonga's "mask" – Watkins's "coldness" – is one thing that many old Etonians can agree on. Actor Damian Lewis said in 2016: "You go through something which, at that age, defines you and your ability to cope. There's a sudden lack of intimacy with a parent, and your ability to get through that defines you emotionally for the rest of your life." His belief that Eton enables pupils to "compartmentalise their emotional life so successfully that they can go straight to the top" may explain that extraordinary proportion of our political leaders who went there.
[...]
For Musa Okwonga, what Eton tells us about Britain is "the lack of scrutiny you get if you're a certain type of person." He refers to the busts of old Etonian prime ministers in one room of the school and the risk of "revering power without context." It also speaks to what he calls "the funnel effect", where people who are "interpersonally really nice, really friendly… can nonetheless go down a particular funnel where there's a lack of empathy for people who haven't had your lived experience." This sounds like another aspect of the emotional distance mentioned above. — The school that rules Britain - BBC Culture

Again, with more focus, I should have asked questions about:

Where things, I think, get dicey is if you grant that men have unique vectors of oppression from patriarchy and try to organise men to fight them in solidarity with feminists. Some of that might be against, what might be called, "the emotional objectification of men" - the kind of thing that excuses men's suffering in war, our predominance among the homeless, and what can be the emotional core (so to speak) of being expected to be an ideal protector/caretaker - a limitless, stoic repository of material support. — fdrake

What is the 'the emotional objectification of men'? What is self-objectification?

Moreover, self-objectification processes have been taken into account to explain drive for muscularity, excessive exercise and steroid use in men (Daniel and Bridges, 2010; Parent and Moradi, 2011). In sum, a great number of studies grounded in objectification theory have elucidated links between self-objectification processes and relevant psychological outcomes both in female and in male populations.

Fewer studies have driven the attention to the potential antecedents of self-objectification. Most of them emphasize the role played by mass media: literature has clearly demonstrated the relationship between viewing objectified media models and both men and women’s self-objectification (e.g., Groesz et al., 2002; Tiggemann, 2003; Grabe et al., 2008; López-Guimerà et al., 2010; Rollero, 2013; Vandenbosch and Eggermont, 2014). The internalization of the objectifying messages from the media leads individuals to self-objectify and guides the perception of their worth (Thompson and Stice, 2001; Vandenbosch and Eggermont, 2012; Karazsia et al., 2013). — Self-objectification and Personal Values - an exploratory study - Frontiersin

So, @wonderer1. It seems that mass media or even certain 'Tory papers' have a clear role in behaviour modification. Perpetuating patriarchy. Should they be dismantled or made less powerful? And perhaps even in 'evolutionary success'? Whatever you mean by this ...something along the lines of Eton?

Eton is the crucible for generations of political leaders, with 20 of Britain's 55 prime ministers educated there, including the first, Robert Walpole, and the latest, Boris Johnson?

Again, apologies for my earlier dismissal. I made wrong assumptions.

It's this material relationship between one's personal identity and the goods of life which makes a critique of gender relevant -- gender and property have always gone hand in hand. — Moliere

Indeed. A quick dip into history tells us a little. From wiki:

Before 1870, any money made by a woman (either through a wage, from investment, by gift, or through inheritance) instantly became the property of her husband once she was married, with the exception of a dowry. The dowry provided by a bride's father was to be used for his daughter's financial support throughout her married life and into her widowhood, and also a means by which the bride's father was able to obtain from the bridegroom's father a financial commitment to the intended marriage and to the children resulting therefrom.[3][circular reference] It also was an instrument by which the practice of primogeniture was effected by the use of an entail in tail male. Thus, the identity of the wife became legally absorbed into that of her husband, effectively making them one person under the law.[4]

More here:

When did women get the right to inherit property and open bank accounts? How long did it take until women won the legal right to be served in UK pubs? Our timeline traces women’s financial rights from ancient societies to the present day. — Women's rights and their money - Guardian

And:
Why women are still the property of men

Helen Mirren says that seeing men with their arms slung around their girlfriends’ shoulders shows “ownership”. But there are far worse methods men use to control women.
[...]
What is protectionism, and what is control? And is chivalry someone else’s chauvinism?

Despite claims of equality, the reality is that women in every part of the world (yes, even the West) are still considered the property of men — either directly in the home, or indirectly by governments still led by men.
[...]
Countless anti-violence campaigners say that violence against women is not about anger, it is about male abuse of power and control, in addition to men’s sense of entitlement. In her eye-opening book Unspeakable Things, writer and activist Laurie Penny points the finger at traditional masculinity, which, like “traditional femininity, is about control.”

She writes that in reality, “most men have never been powerful. Throughout history, the vast majority of men have had almost no structural power, expect over women and children.”

“In fact, power over women and children — technical and physical dominance within the sphere of one’s own home — has been the sop offered to men who had almost no power outside of it.”
— Why women are still the property of men - Daily Telegraph

Helen Mirren's views are obviously misandrist in nature. It's quite disgusting, honestly, to see this kind of blatant sexism posted in newspapers and here on a philosophy forum, without getting the pushback it deserves.

Hmmm. Interesting response from 'Disgusted of TPF'.
I guess her pushback against the sexism she encountered along her varied and fascinating life, made her what she is today. Amongst many other things, a feminist.

Excerpt from a commencement speech:

And to help you along the way, I want to share a few rules that I picked up during my life of disasters and triumphs. I call them “Helen’s Top 5 Rules for a Happy Life.”

Rule number one: Don’t need to rush to get married. I married Taylor a lot later in my life and it’s worked out great. And always give your partner the freedom and support to achieve their ambitions.

Number two: just treat people like people. A long, long time ago, an actress friend of mine did the most simple thing that taught me a huge lesson. We were in the backseat of a car being driven to the location where we were filming, and she was a smoker, in the prehistoric days when you could smoke in a car, and she got her cigarettes out and before she lit up, she offered the driver one. So simple, but, you know? Thoughtful. To her, he wasn’t a “driver person,” but a “person person” who might want a smoke. Today she would probably be arrested for attempted murder but that’s a lesson I never forgot, and I am grateful to my actress friend to this day. So, remember that every single person, whether they have dominion over your life or not, deserves equal respect and generosity.

And an addendum to rule No. 2. No matter what sex you are, or race, be a feminist. In every country and culture that I have visited, from Sweden to Uganda, from Singapore to Mali, it is clear that when women are given respect, and the ability and freedom to pursue their personal dreams and ambitions, life improves for everyone. I didn’t define myself as a feminist until quite recently, but I had always lived like a feminist and believed in the obvious: that women were as capable and as energetic and as inspiring as men. But to join a movement called feminism seemed too didactic, too political. However, I have come to understand that feminism is not an abstract idea but a necessity if we — and really by “we,” I mean you guys — are to move us forward and not backward into ignorance and fearful jealousy. So now, I am a declared feminist and I would encourage you to be the same.

Oh, and addendum to the addendum — never again allow a group of old, rather grumpy, rich white men define the health care of a country that is 50.8% women and 37% other races. — Tulane University - Helen Mirren speech

I guess her pushback against the sexism she encountered along her varied and fascinating life, made her what she is today. — Amity

She became what she hated. What a winner. :clap:

Oh more from 'Disgusted and Sarcastic of TPF'.
You see what you want to see and disregard the rest.
But you don't need me to tell you that, do ya'?

First of all, I have to make an apology to wonderer1 for my earlier, flippant dismissal... — Amity

No problem. It was perfectly understandable for you to respond as you did, in light of my newness here on TPF.

I'll try to get around to writing something up relatively soon. However, I'm finding it a bit difficult to keep up with all the discussions here on TPF that I am interested in, and I already feel that I owe a couple of other forum members responses that are likely to take me significant time to formulate.

In any case, I'm not going to present much (if any) of a case for what people should do. That's way above my pay grade. At best I'd hope to present some stuff that might spark some recognition of what you can do with some degree of effectiveness.

Where were most of the Tory male leaders educated? — Amity

This is a thing. I could hunt up the name of the author -- believe I heard her interviewed on Intelligence Squared.

Anyway, she wrote a book about party leadership and the Oxford Union, citing Boris Johnson as an example of what you get. The Union encourages a certain performance style, a kind of charm and an ability to think on your feet, but mainly the ability to say things that have a convincing ring to them, even if you're making it up. Britain, she claimed, is run by men very good at sounding like they know what they're doing, but who in fact have only the most superficial grasp of policy.

OK. Look forward to that, if and when.

[...] citing Boris Johnson as an example of what you get...the ability to say things that have a convincing ring to them, even if you're making it up.
Britain, she claimed, is run by men very good at sounding like they know what they're doing, but who in fact have only the most superficial grasp of policy. — Srap Tasmaner

The thing is, this bull-shitting capability and lying is pretty much global. But yes, it is prevalent in UK politics and leads to unfortunate consequences like Boris Johnson as PM... and Brexit.
Much more besides. Difficulties persist in holding them to account. Structures of inequality rule.

***

I've been looking around for contemporary female pragmatist philosophers.
I found Charlene Haddock Siegfried.
Frustrated at the lack of access to her article: 'Where are all the pragmatist feminists?'
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3810093
I turned to this fascinating interview. Downloadable as pdf with search function. Enter the word 'bullshit'.
Also turn to p5/12 - for difficulties women philosophers faced:

[...] When I returned to the university, I was furious, and I asked my chairman whether I was one of their best graduate students and he said, “Of course!” And then I said, “Why wasn’t I on the list, then? Didn’t you know I am looking for a job?” He said “Oh, well, since you had a baby, I didn’t think you’d be interested in a job.” He had never consulted me about it but just assumed that, like all the other women he knew, I’d naturally want to stay home.
[...] The interviewers always downplayed the importance of a professional career for a woman and told me I should be happy to have a part-time position. These were the early years before any affirmative action or non-discrimination policies were in place. — Interview with Charlene Haddock Seigfried - Open Edition journals

Who here are pragmatist philosophers? What are your thoughts regarding the suggestion that 'pragmatists and feminists are necessary partners'? (see my underline below)

@Ciceronianus I know for sure. @apokrisis @aletheist @t clark @universeness - anyone?

Contemporary Feminist Pragmatism
Maurice Hamington and Celia Bardwell-Jones (eds.), Contemporary Feminist Pragmatism, Routledge, 2012, 279pp., $125.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780415899918.
Reviewed by John Kaag, University of Massachusetts-Lowell.

In 1991, Charlene Haddock Seigfreid asked, "Where Are All the Pragmatist Feminists?"[1]
In their Introduction, Maurice Hamington and Celia Bardwell-Jones answer her call: "We're Here, We're Here!" (1) They have produced a volume that is as valuable as it is overdue. For a very long time, Seigfried received no response.

[...] what this volume makes abundantly clear is that pragmatists and feminists are necessary partners, partners that have slowly forced their way back into mainstream philosophy and aim to make it genuinely world-ready. As one of the contributors, Erin McKenna, stated almost a decade ago, the diverse voices of feminist pragmatism express a common concern, namely to "develop theories that are informed by experience and used to guide action." (2)

[...] Claudia Gillberg makes some of the strongest philosophical points of the volume. In "A Methodological Interpretation of Feminist Pragmatism," Gillberg suggests that feminist action research is a way of expanding pragmatism's scope of inquiry, along the lines that Lisa Heldke has set out in her work on John Dewey.

For academic philosophers who don't know what action research is (and I was one of them before reading Gillberg's selection), it is a form of experimental method that focuses on the consequences of a researcher's direct actions on a participatory community in order to improve the performance of said community or to ameliorate a problem that its members are experiencing.

Gillberg is right in suggesting that early feminist pragmatists such as Jane Addams, Ellen Gates Starr, Ella Flagg Young, and Alice Dewey were all pioneers in this sort of inquiry. What is powerful about her analysis is the way that she anticipates the criticism of those that would claim that such a methodology lacks coherent standards or measurable objectives.
This is, not coincidently, a criticism that is often leveled against pragmatism on the whole.

In response, Gillberg puts forth a set of validity criteria (229) for feminist action research that might very well serve feminist pragmatism as it gains momentum in the coming years. Additionally, she articulates the goal of feminist action research as combatting the "bureaucratization and simplification" of knowledge claims. (233) — Contemporary feminist pragmatism - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

'Feminist action research' - how's that going, I wonder...
How would it combat 'bureaucratization and simplification' of knowledge claims'. Whatever those are.
Is that about dealing with male bullshit of the political kind...or is the feminist 'goal' bullshit in and of itself?

I guess before any action can be taken with regard to any gender inequalities that @Moliere references, we need to listen to as many perspectives as possible. Solving practical problems via both normative and applied ethics?

But I really wanted to highlight how the material conditions of our lives are, in fact, wrapped up in gender, because so far I haven't made that very explicit, especially when the original conversation concerned an incredibly practical question -- what to do about gendered bathrooms? — Moliere

***

Is 'Pragmatic humanism' or a version of it, the best way to critically challenge the established status quo.
Does it make sense to take responsibility for the way the world is shaped?
We all live in it and have a stake in its and our well-being, no?
The question is 'What can be done, if anything?'
Over to you:

In any case, I'm not going to present much (if any) of a case for what people should do. That's way above my pay grade. At best I'd hope to present some stuff that might spark some recognition of what you can do with some degree of effectiveness. — wonderer1

Is 'Pragmatic humanism' or a version of it, the best way to critically challenge the established status quo. — Amity

For me, secular humanism and democratic socialism are practical/pragmatic goals, yes.
Do I think a female/feminine approach is the best way to nurture and advance local/national/international and global secular humanism and democratic socialism? No, I don't. Unfettered masculinity has unquestionably demonstrated, how backwards it can be. Such has been a foundational support for the establishment of autocratic elites.

I recently watched a 2.5 h, YouTube documentary about the Sumerians and the Akkadians and the early city states.
I also watched a recent 3.5 h, YouTube documentary about the foundations of China and the rise of the first emperor, the Qin dynasty and on to the Han dynasty.
These are both BC histories and demonstrate that human civilisation was well established in China and Mesopotamia way before Christ. You can trace the Mesopotamian fables directly to Christianity but during the same time in China, the larger and more powerful (imo), Han dynasty was developing, with no involvement whatsoever, of Canaanite gods like Yahweh and it's further fabled human form of blood sacrifice manifested, with the ridiculous purpose of sacrifice of itself to itself.
To me, this history demonstrates the folly of unfettered masculinity in two completely separate human developments on either side of our planet. Yet, the exact same results occurred.
Rule by a nefarious few and suffering and very poor experience of life as a human, for the majority of humans.

The influence of fabled female deities, did little to counteract the effects of unfettered masculinity in history. Female gods and female rulers were every bit as bad as male ones. From horrors such as Cleopatra or Catherine the great to modern horrors such as Margaret Thatcher or even horrible female philosophers like Ayn Rand.

The term pragmatic humanism is a better term to me, than pragmatic feminism, but I do think that the feminine approach is much slower to choose war as the way to solve major disputes between human groupings. The feminine approach does seem to offer more chance of co-operative solutions, rather than a knee jerk, quick jump towards the traditional male competitive solution of physical combat/war.

Does it make sense to take responsibility for the way the world is shaped? — Amity

For me, it's not a matter of such making sense, it's more that we will never 'grow up' as a species, until we do fully and irreversibly accept, that we (all humans) and we alone, shape our local/national/international and global lives. Scapegoating gods has always just been a subterfuge and a delusion.

We all live in it and have a stake in its and our well-being, no? — Amity

Yes!

The question is 'What can be done, if anything?' — Amity

Organise, debate, discuss, protest, direct non-violent civil disobedience, educate ourselves, advocate for secular humanism, democratic socialism, a united planet, freedom from the money trick, resource based economics, no governance via party politics (vote for a person, not a party,), pragmatic humanism (the best that feminine and masculine can muster, working in co-operation and not competition.)

I don't see it as misandrist. While a stereotype, surely it's known that men can be possessive of their women? This isn't an "all men" statement, but a statement about cultural meanings and general attitudes, and she acknowledged her young-self's naivete. I'd say that's what she's attacking -- not men, but naivete, and in particular female naivete that she had once felt.

I'm not seeing the obvious misandry, at least. Feminism attacks the male power structure, not the male-identity. (Unless, of course, one comes to identify as the powerful gender)

Masculinity isn't something males have a monopoly on. Women have the same characteristics, though they may be sanctioned for broadcasting it. That's why criticizing the way some males behave doesn't contribute much to understanding the animus.

Masculinity isn't something males have a monopoly on. Women have the same characteristics, though they may be sanctioned for broadcasting it. That's why criticizing the way some males behave doesn't contribute much to understanding the animus. — frank

I agree with your first statement, but I disagree with your second. I've come around in saying difference is a part of some gender identities. And while I don't think it's the traits or characteristics that make up a gender-identity, so that men and women can share characteristics, I'm not sure I'd go all the way and say women are the same -- some are the same, sure, and they are definitely sanctioned for not conforming to expectation in those cases, whatever that expectation happens to be in the particular cultural milieu.

But there's room for trans-identity in all this, and gender-identity is connected to a world, so I don't believe that males have some kind of special position, or standpoint, from which to speak on masculinity. In general I tend to believe that it's the dis-enfranchised who have a better eye towards the truth, because their life often times depends upon it, while the enfranchised are more prone towards fantasy, because being powerful means you can indulge in the pursuit of fantasy. If you follow me this far then it's the women who have the better standpoint, but given that gender-identity isn't as clean-cut as 2nd wave feminism puts it -- well, it's not even that easy to lay out who has the better standpoint. Are we in a position at all to speak of a post-patriarchal masculinity, while the old family laws are still in place?

@Moliere
Just read an article, so thought I'd share it in the meantime. It addresses issues of 'Masculinity' - Managing expectations of what it is to be a man. Wanting to fit in. Male and female collaboration. Exploring spaces creatively. A different kind of flag-waving. Giving back to the community - exploring 'modern masculinity'.

I desperately wanted to be liked at school,” recalls Corbin Shaw. “I was always trying to fit in with this group of boys, which is where a lot of my work stems from.” Explorations of what is expected of young men permeate much of the 24-year-old’s work. Utilising textiles, flags and slogans, masculinity runs through its core. Take the selection of reimagined St George’s flags: “Soften Up Hard Lad” reads one; “I’m Never Going to Be One of the Lads” reads another; the Burberry check backdrop of one has the words “Sweet and Tender Hooligan” hand-stitched on to it.

Shaw’s upbringing on the outskirts of Sheffield, and his exposure to football terraces, boxing gyms and pubs, informs much of his work. His dad encouraged him to be a footballer or a boxer but neither took. “I just wanted to be creative,” he reflects. “I didn’t match up to the expectations of what he wanted me to be as a man. There’s a lot of things I’ve never said to my dad that come out in the work.”

[...] Then, in 2022, Shaw collaborated with Women’s Aid in a powerful campaign to highlight spikes in domestic abuse during the World Cup with a St George’s Flag that read: “He’s Coming Home”.

[...] “Something I’ve been continuously obsessed with in my practice is exploring spaces where we don’t expect love and tenderness among men. We tend to paint football with this brush of being hypermasculine, violent and segregational but there are moments where things happen that are really gorgeous, such as all these men singing together. It unites people.”

[...] Moving forward, Shaw has been deeply motivated by working with groups of year 8 boys back in Sheffield. “We did a flag-making workshop about modern masculinity,” he says. “It was quite scary because there’s these really toxic figureheads such as Andrew Tate who are influencing what they’re saying and doing – they were all talking about the self-made man and the alpha and sigma male. If I can try to combat that with my work, that’s what I need to do. I want to work with as many people as possible in communities to get a message across. I think that’s where my work really shines.” — Corbin Shaw - How masculinity inspires his work

[emphases added]
***

Interesting to consider the ugly and tender side of football.
Hooliganism and Hugging in the beautiful game.

The aesthetics of football are now on display at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, where a new exhibition examines the world’s most popular sport. Fútbol: The Beautiful Game features the work of 32 artists who look at the sport through the lenses of celebrity, nationalism, commerce, spectacle and athleticism.

[...] Lyle Ashton Harris’ Verona #2 looks like a political demonstration with fists raised in protest but is actually a depiction of rioting football fans. (Lyle Ashton Harris)

This photograph, titled Pieta, reinforces the idea that football is practically a religion in much of the world. (Generic Art Solutions)

[...] Not every component about the beautiful game is so beautiful, of course. Football is very big business, and, not unlike the unregulated art market, offers prime opportunities for money laundering, tax evasion, insider trading and other financial shenanigans.
Football can lead to massive, glorious celebrations, as in Stephen Dean’s film of a wild Brazilian crowd that undulates like an anemone. Or it can lean to hooliganism and worse, as recalled in the paintings of Wendy White, whose Curva series takes its name from the Italian word for the part of a football stadium behind the goals where the ultra-obsessed fans have their seats. — The beautiful game - is football art?

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20140203-beautiful-game-is-football-art

Predominated by males for various reasons, now women's football is popular but has its problems.
Sexism, dress codes, insufficient pay...reports of systemic gender-related abuse of players, including sexual abuse being ignored by league or federation officials; and a lack of benefits specific to women, such as maternity leave and child care - from wiki.

Male domination banned women's football for decades:

After the "first golden age" of women's football occurred in the United Kingdom in the 1920s, with one match attracting over 50,000 spectators,[4] The Football Association instituted a ban from 1921 to 1970 in England that disallowed women's football on the grounds used by its member clubs.[5]
In many other nations,female footballers faced similarly hostile treatment and bans by male-dominated organisations.
[...] It has been suggested that this was motivated by a perceived threat to the "masculinity" of the game.
Players and football writers have argued that this ban was due to envy of the large crowds that women's matches attracted,[29] and because the FA had no control over the money made from the women's game.[28] Dick, Kerr Ladies player Alice Barlow said, "we could only put it down to jealousy. We were more popular than the men and our bigger gates were for charity". — Women's Association Football - wiki

Money, power and control. In whose hands? The Big Man Business...

And while I don't think it's the traits or characteristics that make up a gender-identity, so that men and women can share characteristics, I'm not sure I'd go all the way and say women are the same -- some are the same, sure, and they are definitely sanctioned for not conforming to expectation in those cases, whatever that expectation happens to be in the particular cultural milieu. — Moliere

Are there characteristics we associate with masculinity (I'm talking gender identity here) that women never have? Like what?

Are we in a position at all to speak of a post-patriarchal masculinity, while the old family laws are still in place? — Moliere

We aren't in a post-patriarchal world, so probably not. I think it's important to distinguish between masculinity as the portion of the human potential we traditionally associate with males, and toxic masculinity which is the result of a pathological mindset, that is, the need to look down on someone else, or fear of women. The first is a fount of creativity. The second is something all need to be aware of.
When one decides that there is no difference between the two, that's misanthropy.

There's scarcely a sentence in the quoted sections that isn't overtly sexist.

Note how Mirren literally says that men are 'offered their families as sop'.

Disgusting.

And what's worse is that, apparently, there are people with a functioning(?) brain who see nothing wrong with a statement such as that one.

Note how Mirren literally says that men are 'offered their families as sop'. — Tzeentch

No, she doesn't. Perhaps read the whole article.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/why-women-are-still-the-property-of-men/news-story/b18f0a4d456db6967e7c05f4f309604f

Are there characteristics we associate with masculinity (I'm talking gender identity here) that women never have? — frank

Nope. That's why I've been careful to say men and women can have the same characteristics, and a difference cannot be found in differentiating characteristics.

So far I've been of the mind that it's a manner of expression, rather than a set of characteristics, that makes a gender-identity. But, then, some gender-identities get tied to characteristics in their particular way, so while in general it's better to say gender-identity is a manner of expression, a particular gender-identity may very well fixate on particular characteristics and act to put those on display more often, or improve them, or some such.

There's scarcely a sentence in the quoted sections that isn't overtly sexist.

Note how Mirren literally says that men are 'offered their families as sop'.

Disgusting.

And what's worse is that, apparently, there are people with a functioning(?) brain who see nothing wrong with a statement such as that one. — Tzeentch

Oh I wouldn't go so far as to call my brain functioning -- why would I continue to revisit the same questions with new answers in spite of knowing that my previous answers were unsatisfactory by this same method if I had a functioning brain?

I understand your sentiment, but can you make the argument that connects Mirren's statements with a hatred of men? It's possible, of course. Hatred for hatred is a pretty common exchange in the political world. It's just not what I read when I read the article.

No, she doesn't. Perhaps read the whole article. — Amity

Yes, she literally does.

I understand your sentiment, but can you make the argument that connects Mirren's statements with a hatred of men? — Moliere

The fact that she takes fatherhood and equates it to "sop offered as compensation for not having real power".

Spare me any apologetics. If you don't condemn this type of blatant sexism for what it is, I have nothing more to say to you.