An aspect of this is that I would expect the courage of women to tend to show up most strongly in defense of their offspring (and perhaps children in general). I think the trope of the human 'mama bear' fits well with this. Men I would expect to be more inclined to band together with other men, in defense of the whole social group. — wonderer1

This seems to be quite a narrow expectation of where 'courage' shows up. Especially, if we are talking about increasing social awareness of gender issues and the like. Of course, people will look to their own first and foremost. Survival of the fittest comes into it.
However, many women and men do not have or even desire offspring. Also, it's difficult to band together to deal with holistic and systemic structural inequalities and problems. Important issues perhaps not even recognised as undermining people's circumstances and abilities to progress. To fitness and wellbeing.

It takes courage to stand up for change. But even then, when a 'movement' [*] like #MeToo starts up, it can exclude significant others. The media tend to focus on prominent white women. Fair enough if it draws immediate attention but not good enough for those women who stand up but whose voices are unheard.

Overall, the #MeToo movement has raised consciousness of women’s sexual objectification on a global scale. But we still have a lot to learn. That is, we need to be more intersectional. We need to listen to all women which includes listening to women of colour, working class women, trans women, disabled women and the list can go on. We need to acknowledge the various forms of inequality and how they operate, intersect and reinforce each other. We must stand with each other, understand each other and speak out against all inequality in order to build a brighter and more equal society. As Kimberlé Crenshaw put it, “if we aren’t intersectional, some of us, the most vulnerable, are going to fall through the cracks”. — The #MeToo Movement: Intersectionality - Glasgow Women's Library

[*]

Sarah J Jackson, a professor of communication studies at Northeastern University, believes context is the key to anchoring Me Too.
"I wouldn't call hashtag 'Me Too' a movement at all," she says. "I would call it a campaign that is part of a larger movement. So I would call women's rights the movement, and feminism the movement. And I would say #MeToo is one indication of the sort of conversations that need to happen.

"The next step is, OK so now we know the problem - how do we as a global community expand this conversation?" — What has #MeToo actually changed? - BBC News

OK, I read about 'intersectionality' and thought I had a grasp. However, this moving 18 min video is powerful in its presentation and its graphics. Understanding and awareness increased by :100:

A TED talk - The urgency of intersectionality | Kimberlé Crenshaw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=akOe5-UsQ2o

Now more than ever, it's important to look boldly at the reality of race and gender bias -- and understand how the two can combine to create even more harm. Kimberlé Crenshaw uses the term "intersectionality" to describe this phenomenon; as she says, if you're standing in the path of multiple forms of exclusion, you're likely to get hit by both. In this moving talk, she calls on us to bear witness to this reality and speak up for victims of prejudice.

Oh, thanks for that quick reply and links. SEP always good. :up: :smile:

Maybe that's a weak version of intersectionality though, I'm claiming that some of the time it makes sense to try it for some problems, rather than it ought to be the primary viewpoint used for formulating those problems. — fdrake

Just to say that when you first used the word ' intersectionality' I didn't know what it meant.
I found this and emailed the link to myself for later perusal. I share it here now. Lest I forget.
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/20/18542843/intersectionality-conservatism-law-race-gender-discrimination

[...] In my conversations with right-wing critics of intersectionality, I’ve found that what upsets them isn’t the theory itself. Indeed, they largely agree that it accurately describes the way people from different backgrounds encounter the world. The lived experiences — and experiences of discrimination — of a black woman will be different from those of a white woman, or a black man, for example. They object to its implications, uses, and, most importantly, its consequences, what some conservatives view as the upending of racial and cultural hierarchies to create a new one.

But Crenshaw isn’t seeking to build a racial hierarchy with black women at the top. Through her work, she’s attempting to demolish racial hierarchies altogether.

[...] But Crenshaw said that contrary to her critics’ objections, intersectionality isn’t “an effort to create the world in an inverted image of what it is now.” Rather, she said, the point of intersectionality is to make room “for more advocacy and remedial practices” to create a more egalitarian system.

[...] Indeed, intersectionality is intended to ask a lot of individuals and movements alike, requiring that efforts to address one form of oppression take others into account. Efforts to fight racism would require examining other forms of prejudice (like anti-Semitism, for example); efforts to eliminate gender disparities would require examining how women of color experience gender bias differently from white women (and how nonwhite men do too, compared to white men).

Thanks again. It does indeed look good. Not sure if I want to buy it though! If you ever read it, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Please let me know :sparkle:

I know of a pragmatist I admire who is a woman. She's Susan Haack, a valiant defender of pragmatism from the vagaries of such as Rorty, who thinks Dewey was a postmodernist before postmodernism became popular. I don't know if she qualifies as a feminist. — Ciceronianus

Thanks for the introduction to Susan Haack. After reading an in-depth and lengthy interview of Susan Haack by Richard Carrier (2012) I can see why you would admire her and her work. I've just picked a few bits out:

Three papers she wrote involved a challenging look at her own career 'in uncomfortable ways' and speaking candidly.
1. “The Best Man for the Job may be a Woman” (1998), - her reflections on 'preferential hiring of women in our profession,' which apparently was only reviewed, appreciated and challenged a decade later.
Nobody wanted to touch it.
2. “Preposterism and Its Consequences” (1996), on her negative views of the culture of grants-and-research-projects.
3. “Out of Step” (2011) - on the erosion of academic ethics.

According to Haack, her writing represented 'something of the power of thinking things through and the value of plain speech.'

During the interview, she replies to questions as to the 'difficulties and annoyances' faced as a woman seeking an academic position and in her life of philosophy. Similar to other stories: 'the chairman opened the proceedings by assuring me that he had nothing against the employment of married women, he thought they might be quite good for the women students. I told him—vamping it up just a little—that actually I hoped to be good for the men (too). And that, naturally, was that.'

Haack also clear that any problems might not have arisen because she was female but because of her other characteristics:

For one thing, I’m very independent: rather than follow philosophical fads and fashions, I pursue questions I believe are important, and tackle them in the ways that seem most likely to yield results; I am beholden to no clique or citation cartel; I put no stock in the ranking of philosophy graduate programs over which my colleagues obsess; I accept no research or travel funds from my university; I avoid publishing in journals that insist on taking all the rights to my work; etc., etc. Naturally, this independence comes at a price; but it also earns me the freedom to do the best work I can, without self-censorship, and to communicate with a much wider audience than the usual “niche literature” does — Interview with Susan Haack - Richard Carrier blogs

Re the question of whether or no Haack was/is a feminist. Apparently, there was an incident when a (female) faculty member at another university, 'disapproving of my old-fashioned style of feminism', had encouraged graduate students to stay away from her lectures.
I get the impression that she would not label herself a feminist as such but instead puts certain principles into practice. A holistic perspective.

She expresses unease about the questioner's focus on getting more women into the profession of philosophy.

The aim should be to get the most thoughtful, creative, discriminating, honest, philosophically constructive people into the profession; and—essential to achieving this goal—to prevent such irrelevant factors as a person’s sex (or race) from distorting our judgment of the quality of his or her mind. If only we could achieve this, artificial attempts to create “diversity” would be unnecessary.

The interview is fascinating and cutting; delving into questions of what (real) philosophy is, atheism, criticisms of fragmentation and pretentious, self-important 'worldviews'.
I realise that this is getting away from the thread topic and my question re feminist pragmatists.
So, here's one BTL comment I found interesting. Shame no reply from Haack:

Susan Haack says: “the kind of feminism that appeals to me places the stress on what all of us, regardless of sex, have in common as human beings, and on the vitally important differences between one individual and another. This is why your hypothetical generic-woman-aspiring-to-be-a-philosopher strikes me a distraction at best… I am saddened to think how glacially slow our progress seems to be towards acknowledging the simple fact that, just like men, women are all different, and, as Dorothy Sayers put it many decades ago, shouldn’t be expected “to toddle along all in a flock, like sheep.”

No doubt, she’s more than right: Women are different individuals. Look at Susan Haack versus Dorothy Murdock. Reason versus fantastic beliefs. The contrast is striking.

Still, the ideal of focusing only on what “all of us…have in common as human beings”, making abstraction of all other particulars, such as, in this case, erasing the difference in sex is illusory — one of the great tenets of the fallacy of imposing PC ideology on the working of the brain.

The “human being” as such doesn’t exist. This is an abstraction conceived by the Enlightenment, in its fight agains the rules of gods. Only physical persons do exist. Those are the characteristics immediately perceived in encountering another “human being”: sex, age, ethnic markers, native environment, then friendly or hostile intentions, face, hair, dress, language, religious beliefs etc…Those are vital components of social recognition and vital to our survival.

The dream of erasing the social and biological particularities of life is the goal of political correctness, but it is a self-imposed illusion, a modern form of ideology trying to enforce an abstraction as another primary, immediate belief.

But the abstraction of the modern “human being” remains in fact the product of a long chain of rational thinking that cannot of itself erase the immediate modes of brain functions. It may with the help of sanctions and enforcement control behavior, and play a big role in political and legal theorizing, but it will not become a spontaneous belief of “fast thinking”.

So, sex, age, language, native origins do remain a factor in the formation of the self. Even John Locke would have to admit it.

And so, of course, Susan Haack does give us an excellent reminder to refresh our acquaintance with John Locke’s ” Of the Conduct of the Understanding”, and perhaps to review the whole life of John Locke as well.

Enough already. This is becoming tedious. As such, I will no longer be responding to your comments.

If such criticisms are expressed with some wisdom and nuance, obviously I would not consider that man-hating.

However, some people seem to slip into these sorts of discussions and take it as a carte blanche to vent their personal grievances with men on the rest of the world. Suddenly gestures of genuine affection become symbols of male oppression, and fatherhood becomes a means of enacting a power fantasy (as per one of the articles that was linked earlier).

Such ideas are vile, destructive and sexist.

In any other context they would be immediately recognized as such, but here they seem to get a pass just because there might be some merit to the wider discussion. And they shouldn't.

When I see things like this going repeatedly unchallenged, I feel the need to speak up. — Tzeentch

This post was addressed to @fdrake as a complaint against 'some people' and their 'vile, destructive and sexist' ideas. Apparently, they have been given a 'pass' which they shouldn't have.

I am confident that @fdrake will respond to this in his usual measured way.
If any such people and ideas are found, then action will be taken.

What are your thoughts regarding the suggestion that 'pragmatists and feminists are necessary partners'?
— Amity

I don't know much about feminist philosophy beyond what gets out in public, which I'm sure is not representative. What I see on TV and read about is anything but pragmatic. Pragmatists focus on solving problems. I don't see that in public feminism. — T Clark

Appreciate your positive contribution. Like you, I don't know much about feminist philosophy. Haven't really been all that interested until @Moliere started this discussion. In the last 18 days, I have read and reflected on posts and useful links before attempting my own replies. Still have a lot of questions...and still to catch up on those linked to by e.g. @fdrake.

I don't know that I'd even paid attention to 'public feminism'.
What do you include in that category? Youtube videos ? Open articles by academic feminist philosophers or radical activists...? They can address or highlight problems or issues related to gender but don't necessarily solve them. Some feminists might be pragmatic, but not all are Pragmatists.

With regards to the big P of Pragmatism (philosophy) - I don't know as much as I would like.

Pragmatism carries an everyday meaning as being practical, paying attention to the particular context in which you find yourself and not being weighed down by doctrine or ideology.

[...] Pragmatism is not a methodology and pragmatic principles can inform many kinds of research. However the logical stance of a Pragmatic inquiry is to be action oriented – there is close link between pragmatism and action research for example (Hammond, 2015). Pragmatists will see knowledge as fallible. Past research can inform action however researchers cannot claim to offer ‘anywhere, anytime’ answers or incontrovertible ‘best practice’ (for example, Biesta and Burbules, 2003). — what is pragmatism?warwick.ac.uk

I don't think that feminists and pragmatists are necessary partners.
However, a combination sounds like something I want to explore further.

Yes. I don't always understand a point of view. Your thread has been helpful in teasing out thoughts and attitudes. Thank you :flower:

Thank you. I'll need to read your post again later. Most of it makes perfect sense to me on a first read but there are a few bits I think I need to look at again. Later...or not :flower:

I may be a careful reader, but I got my wires crossed all the same :D — Moliere

All down to my shoddy quoting. Ooops! :smile:

I've edited my post re you being a careful reader!

This is the quote from the article. Note well the comment is made by Laurie Penny, NOT Mirren.

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.”

The article might well be considered 'garbage' but you misrepresent what is being said by whom.
You know it.

It's just not what I read when I read the article. — Moliere

:up: @Tzeentch is not a careful reader.

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

@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...

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

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

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'?

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

Mrs America

But in real life most people who aren't familiar with feminism think that a man calling themselves a feminist is trying to get sex -- most people interpret the expression as a kind of virtue signal for partners rather than a serious political or philosophical commitment with a whole body of thought behind it — Moliere

I had never thought of that aspect. And really struggle with it, never having had that kind of experience.
I've always admired men who have the guts to stand up and be counted as a feminist. So, I suppose yes, I can see how a male might self-describe as a feminist to show good character or social conscience if he desired the approval of a feminist (female/male/other). However, action and behaviour count more.

And all I really mean are the books and ideas and politics, so it's just easier to not call myself a Feminist and stay at the level of books and ideas and politics.
Though there's something about Feminist thought that brings what was traditionally thought to be a personal affair into the open, into the public. — Moliere

That is the challenge. When any theory meets the real world and practices. So, any understanding becomes more meaningful with regard to change. Of course, you are involved. Why else would you read the stuff and think in the first place?

So it'll come out eventually. I don't mind that, insofar that I get to say what I mean, though. I certainly am inspired by the Feminist writers! At the very least I think it makes sense to pay homage to them. — Moliere

It sounds like a guilty or dirty secret. What freedom lies in coming out the closet; speaking your mind, and engaging with others who want to advance positive change in society. And not be made to feel less of a man, or to be shamed by the ignorant.
You've done heaps more than I have when it comes to reading and reflecting.
So yes, I have more to learn, thanks to you! Excellent work :clap: :100:
If that doesn't sound too condescending...
***

Yes. And I've met several who believe men calling themselves feminists is an inherently entryist ploy to subvert women's institutions and discourse. — fdrake

Again, your experience is more extensive than mine. Where did you come across this behaviour?
Any examples and how successful are such ploys?

I can think of two different flavours of "personal is political" struggles. The first would be when a societal norm imposes itself upon a person (or group), the second would be when a person has internalised a norm and it's become egosyntonic. — fdrake

Thanks for the link.

Capital and patriarchy go hand in hand. To work against this, it would be to psychically reimagine yourself and live by another set of values. To find profound discomfort in your own life. It is a hard sell. — fdrake

Grateful for your clear descriptions; helpful in imagining tough situations and decision-making.
It's difficult to stick to principles when circumstance throws reality in your face.

That's a transition from finding oneself profoundly alienated from society due to intellectual convictions, to largely feeling in accordance with due to practical necessities. No matter how strong a belief is, it doesn't cut it. — fdrake

I wonder how many on TPF have lived through this process. You? I've never held beliefs so strong that have resulted in being 'profoundly alienated from society'. The nearest is a fairly typical experience of loss of faith in the religion of upbringing. I simply stopped attending church and was never challenged by my parents. And I never felt a strong atheism, so never challenged them.

There can also be a reflexive pathologisation of women who choose to live more traditionally in patriarchy-critical spaces. Something must be wrong with you if you want to live unjustly. I don't find that a fair judgement btw. — fdrake

I'm now thinking of female Republicans and a film... was it 'Mrs America'?
There's nothing wrong with women who choose to live traditionally. Just don't enforce it on others.

It's relatively common place to have "the personal is political" discussions about housework sharing, it's less common to have these discussions about the psychosexual aspects of patriarchy. — fdrake

Indeed. I remember a scene where the woman clearly didn't want sex but her husband did.
She laid back and let him. I guess because of her beliefs. Based on Christianity? Given her obvious lack of desire and passionate action, he must have known. What was this, other than 'relieving' himself? Or a power move. Animal.

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

How long will it take before people can relax and know that any hard-won rights or equal responsibilities will not be overturned by extremist politicians? Never.

And also, unfortunately, why things are slower to change than any right minded human being would like. — fdrake

The madness continues...

For @Moliere - a follow-up to our discussion at the discomfort of being seen as a 'feminist'.
History from the 17th century on:

Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the majority of pro-feminist authors emerged from France including François Poullain de La Barre, Denis Diderot, Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach, and Charles Louis de Montesquieu.[1] Montesquieu introduced female characters, like Roxana in Persian Letters, who subverted patriarchal systems, and represented his arguments against despotism. The 18th century saw male philosophers attracted to issues of human rights, and men such as the Marquis de Condorcet championed women's education. Liberals, such as the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham, demanded equal rights for women in every sense, as people increasingly came to believe that women were treated unfairly under the law.[2]
[...]
American sociologist Michael Kimmel categorized American male responses to feminism at the turn of the twentieth century into three categories: pro-feminist, masculinist, and antifeminist.[10][11] Pro-feminist men, believing that changes would also benefit men, generally welcomed women's increased participation in the public sphere, and changes in the division of labour in the home;[11] in contrast anti-feminists opposed women's suffrage and participation in public life, supporting a traditional patriarchal family model.[11] Finally, the masculinist movement was characterized by men's groups, and developed as an indirect reaction to the perceived femininization of manhood. — Men in feminism - wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_feminism

***
Perhaps the label 'profeminist' or 'pro-feminist' sits better?
If there has to be a label...

So, what is your story and how would you tell it? If at all...
The question can be answered by anyone, if so desired. To rage or not to rage?
Would it, does it help? — Amity

For some reason, I'm thinking of the short-story extravaganza and @Noble Dust and Marilyn Monroe.
No, it was @_db and the discussion here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12312/amnesis-by-_db

Also, others who might write semi-autobiography with a focus on the male/female relationship.
Like @Tobias and @180 Proof. Not sure that any reflect feminism but femininity...masculinity.
Love and sex more than rage. Perhaps elements of fear...?

And then @hypericin's micro story with a no gender-specified narrator. We made assumptions:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13839/new-sun-by-hypericin

***
Follow-up re stories and fiction. Links. Mostly for myself - to be read later
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_literature

[...] Feminist science fiction is a subgenre of science fiction (abbreviated "SF") focused on theories that include feminist themes including but not limited to, gender inequality, sexuality, race, economics, and reproduction. Feminist SF is political because of its tendency to critique the dominant culture. Some of the most notable feminist science fiction works have illustrated these themes using utopias to explore a society in which gender differences or gender power imbalances do not exist, or dystopias to explore worlds in which gender inequalities are intensified, thus asserting a need for feminist work to continue.[12]

Science fiction and fantasy serve as important vehicles for feminist thought, particularly as bridges between theory and practice. No other genres so actively invite representations of the ultimate goals of feminism: worlds free of sexism, worlds in which women's contributions (to science) are recognized and valued, worlds that explore the diversity of women's desire and sexuality, and worlds that move beyond gender.

— Elyce Rae Helford[13]

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_literary_criticism

[...] More contemporary scholars attempt to understand the intersecting points of femininity and complicate our common assumptions about gender politics by accessing different categories of identity (race, class, sexual orientation, etc.) The ultimate goal of any of these tools is to uncover and expose patriarchal underlying tensions within novels and interrogate the ways in which our basic literary assumptions about such novels are contingent on female subordination. In this way, the accessibility of literature broadens to a far more inclusive and holistic population. Moreover, works that historically received little or no attention, given the historical constraints around female authorship in some cultures, are able to be heard in their original form and unabridged. This makes a broader collection of literature for all readers insofar as all great works of literature are given exposure without bias towards a gender influenced system.[7]

[...]
When looking at literature, modern feminist literary critics also seek ask how feminist, literary, and critical the critique practices are, with scholars such as Susan Lanser looking to improve both literature analysis and the analyzer's own practices to be more diverse.

Boring essays and technical reports. — fdrake

Did you consider them boring when you wrote them? What made them so? Subject matter, style...?
Lack of choice or passion? But what now...?

Your writing here has been magnificent. Strong, sensitive, even sensible. Seductive and sexy as it
shines and probes; illuminating different or new ways of thinking, and questioning.
I'm surprised you haven't written an essay elsewhere.

Inspired and a bit fired up by your question re 'new femininity after patriarchy' I turned my attention to essays from the female perspective. Wondering if what matters is the way we talk and think. The importance of language in how the world can be changed. How useful would the terms 'femininity' and 'patriarchy' be in a new societal structure?

Anyway, this is only a fumbling start. I found this:
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20191216-essays-by-women-how-do-you-use-your-rage

Still sleepy, I read the title as 'How do you use your image?' and then thought:
Why 'rage'? Is it catchier than 'outrage'? Wouldn't that be a 'turn-off' for some?

The old adage ‘the personal is political’ is finding truly exciting new applications. The feminist women’s essays of 2019 combine stringent forensic analysis with fearless movement in and out of autobiography. The personal is elbowing its way rudely into the discourse, and altering the definition of being rude. In the process, new kinds of personhood are being created.

As Rebecca Solnit says in The Mother of All Questions, 2017: “There is no good answer to how to be a woman; the art may instead lie in how we refuse the question.”
[...]
Rebecca Solnit, who published the collection of essays Whose Story Is This? in 2019, has been a superb essay writer for decades, and is certainly one of the most eminent feminist writers alive. She has written on many subjects other than gender politics; she is an environmentalist, political activist, art critic, historian. She is a genuine public intellectual. One of her better-known essays is the sardonic Men Explain Things to Me (2008), which gave rise to the term ‘mansplaining’.

In 2019 Rachel Cusk published a collection of essays called Coventry, which spans about a decade of her work. Although she is arguably a literary giant, she has won few awards, probably because she very wilfully sidesteps categories.
[...]
Volume three was an unflinching look at the aftermath of divorce, truly a sidestep too far. She writes that what others call “cruelty” she calls “the discipline of self-criticism”. The third book got such an ugly response that she mused about her “creative death . . . I was heading into total silence”.
Almost mockingly, in the Outline trilogy, her latest set of books, she embraces silence and passivity. Faye, the anti-heroine of those novels, is like a radio dish, absorbing everything around her in what has been called ‘violent’ detail, and giving almost nothing back. This non-personality throws everyone around her into relief, and especially men, who cannot resist a feminine vacuum. Faye is no-one, but Cusk’s life is woven into her in playful ways. No more presenting an easy target. — Essays by women - 'How do you use your rage?' - BBC Culture

[my emphases]

There's so much more to this article including the journalists who broke the Harvey Weinstein story and helped catalyse the #MeToo movement. The ‘Non-disclosure agreements’ as a way to de-personalise female targets and stop them from telling their stories.

Reaching the end, I find the answer to my question above: 'Why 'rage' ?'.

Penguin this year reissued Sister Outsider, a collection of Audre Lorde’s essays. She described herself as a “Black, lesbian, mother, warrior, poet”, and firmly grounded her politics in personal honesty. Her strange, lyrical, visceral prose defines her as one of the gods of feminism and political activism.
In one of her essays she asks, “How do you use your rage?

The emphasis is on 'your'.
So, what is your story and how would you tell it? If at all...
The question can be answered by anyone, if so desired. To rage or not to rage?
Would it, does it help?

Personally? I read a lot of that stuff. — fdrake

Have you written anything? Apart from on here...

. The social, the biological and the aesthetic all intermingle here into an inexhaustible clusterfuck of overlapping criteria and milieux — fdrake

:up: :lol:
Cue glazed eyes or strabismus :nerd:
Previously, I paid little attention whenever talk turned to 'patriarchy' and 'feminism'. Gender issues.
However, my eyes have been opened. Thanks to you, others, and especially @Moliere for triggering questions and thoughts in this most informative discussion.
Important not only for the individual but for today's politics. How they turn. So easily backward.

I found their book in a charity shop. The pun in the title made me pick it up. The prose kept me reading it. — fdrake

Do you think Daly would appreciate having a gender-neutral pronoun applied to her?
I read of one feminist who said something to the effect that after all the decades of fighting for recognition, why would she want to be called 'they'? Doesn't that reinforce invisibility?
Another discussion perhaps.
So, you were drawn to the book...because you already have a strong interest in gender theory and language and theology? Or just because.

The book is also feminist theology, some of it comes from confronting highly conservative Catholic theologians and priests at various conferences with this material. Affirming the value of witches in that context, I think, is a delicious rhetorical move. — fdrake

Daly sounds like someone that should have a thread of her own! Touches all the hot spots.

I must say that I find it ironic that discussions about the essence of masculinity - or its absence - tend to orbit around the effect masculinity has on women through patriarchy. The cynic in me sees this as an internalisation of the men=active/women=passive dichotomy within feminist discourse. Of course the essence of men is the effect they have on women, despite that being a resentful/misogynist trope! And it's ultimately reductive. — fdrake

Yes. I've been wondering about how we talked of 'opposites' earlier. Questions were raised as to what is 'Masculinity' or a 'Real Man' as opposed to what?
@Moliere gave his view that it was the transition from boyhood to man/adulthood that was most relevant. If I remember correctly.

Another 'opposite' to be considered - a 'Fake man' or perhaps a 'Real Woman' or 'Femininity'.
Then 'Feminism' with its focus on the fight against patriarchy. Not passive but active. Not only concerning females but males and others affected by such a system.

Did we talk of 'Masculinism' - whatever that is?

adjective
1. advocating for men’s rights, in opposition to feminism, and supporting traditional gender roles:
Nostalgia for a bygone era inspires core masculinist ideals of femininity and manliness.
2. maintaining the superiority of men over women:
masculinist hiring practices;
masculinist and patriarchal bias in politics.
noun
3. an advocate of men’s rights:
Masculinists are asking the police force to allocate resources specifically for male victims of domestic violence. — Masculinist - dictionary

***

Not saying you are doing this by the way, just that these discussion tend to terminate in the discussion of patriarchy, not the space criticising it opens up for men and women. A book like Connell's "Masculinities" takes this extra step for men, do you know of any which conceive of a a new femininity after patriarchy? Or find the seeds of a new femininity like Daly does? — fdrake

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...
I'm glad that you and others have continued to respond. A serious but fun conversation.
Enjoyable and seductive new dance steps to take to another level?

As a newcomer to the field of 'Critical Femininities', I have no idea whether there could be any such thing as a new 'femininity after patriarchy'. What would that even look like...
There will always be seeds planted but what, where, how, when, why, and by whom?
Daly, I don't know enough about. At first glance, seems quite the mad hag :fire:

Here's something I found after a quick google:

ABSTRACT
Critical femininities examines femininity through a nuanced, multidimensional framework, moving beyond femininity as a patriarchal tool, to instead consider the historical, ideological, and intersectional underpinnings of femininity, particularly those that contribute to femmephobia. While Critical Femininities is often deemed an emergent area of scholarship, this framing is both paradoxical and, conceivably, inaccurate. Rather than being a nascent field, interdisciplinary scholars have contributed to Critical Femininities for over 60 years, whether or not they labeled their research as such. Arguably, Critical Femininities is a field whose emergence can be traced back to the second wave of feminism or even earlier. However, while Dahl (2012) notes that the question of “what is femininity” is as old as de Beauvoir’s (1949) Second Sex, there is a continued lack of scholarly endeavours not only in terms of how the question of femininity has been addressed, but also in terms of how this question is integrated within research. In this article we theorize why Critical Femininities has remained in a continuous state of emerging without recognition for its contributions as a field. We argue that the field’s stalled emergence can be explained by the tendency to view femininity as unidimensional, anti–intellectual, and infantile. Moreover, we see this stalled emergence as a product of the masculine epistemological centre that informs the very fabrics of society. In response, we aim to facilitate the continued growth of the field, and to make visible the taken–for–granted presence of masculinity that remains pervasive within gender theory and epistemological frameworks. — Critical Femininities - A 'new' approach to gender theory

It was a nod to Mary Daly's Gyn/Ecology, she calls middle aged and up women that make their own sets of norms "crones", especially if they criticise or re-evaluate patriarchy. — fdrake

Intriguing. I had never heard of Mary Daly before. I'm wondering how you came to know her and her work. Via an interest in feminism or language. Both?
From wiki:

In Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism[18] (1978), Daly argues that men throughout history have sought to oppress women. In this book she moves beyond her previous thoughts on the history of patriarchy to the focus on the actual practices that, in her view, perpetuate patriarchy, which she calls a religion.[17]

Daly's Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy[19] (1984) and Websters' First New Intergalactic Wickedary of the English Language[20] (1987) introduce and explore an alternative language to explain the process of exorcism and ecstasy.

In Wickedary Daly provides definitions as well as chants that she says can be used by women to free themselves from patriarchal oppression. She also explores the labels that she says patriarchal society places on women to prolong what she sees as male domination of society. Daly said it is the role of women to unveil the liberatory nature of labels such as "Hag", "Witch", and "Lunatic". — Mary Daly - wiki

How on earth is using a term like 'witch' liberatory? Because there is no longer the threat of male persecution? Nevertheless, it still has negative connotations. Who wants to be called a 'hag'?

Interesting, how the term 'witch-hunt' is used by those being investigated for gross dismeanours.
Think Trump and Johnson and their supporters.

Former US president Donald Trump frequently used the term on Twitter, referring to various investigations[166][167] and the impeachment proceedings against him as witch-hunts.[168][169][170] During his presidency, he used the phrase over 330 times -wiki.

What effect does this have on justice and those who would uphold the law?
Is there a deep-seated male anger or fear of women becoming too powerful?
So, the ex-PM and President might present as victims (witches) but really it is those who hunt them down who are the evil witches who will kill the MAGA dream.

This, of course, is nothing, NOTHING like the terrors historically experienced by women. Perpetrated systematically by men in power. Patriarchy in practice. Just one example:

In the North Berwick witch trials in Scotland, over 70 people were accused of witchcraft on account of bad weather when James VI of Scotland, who shared the Danish king's interest in witch trials, sailed to Denmark in 1590 to meet his betrothed Anne of Denmark. According to a widely circulated pamphlet, "Newes from Scotland," James VI personally presided over the torture and execution of Doctor Fian.[63] Indeed, James published a witch-hunting manual, Daemonologie, which contains the famous dictum: "Experience daily proves how loath they are to confess without torture." Later, the Pendle witch trials of 1612 joined the ranks of the most famous witch trials in English history. — Witch-hunt - wiki

Witch-hunting was Global. Victims tortured and executed on sometimes the flimsiest of excuses.

Even in modern times:

A 2010 estimate places the number of women killed as witches in India at between 150 and 200 per year, or a total of 2,500 in the period of 1995 to 2009.[139] The lynchings are particularly common in the poor northern states of Jharkhand,[140] Bihar and the central state of Chhattisgarh.

[...] In India, labeling a woman as a witch is a common ploy to grab land, settle scores or even to punish her for turning down sexual advances. In a majority of the cases, it is difficult for the accused woman to reach out for help and she is forced to either abandon her home and family or driven to commit suicide. Most cases are not documented because it is difficult for poor and illiterate women to travel from isolated regions to file police reports. Less than 2 percent of those accused of witch-hunting are actually convicted, according to a study by the Free Legal Aid Committee, a group that works with victims in the state of Jharkhand.

The importance of free, legal aid. Not always available to the poor and powerless. And yet, the likes of Johnson take from the taxpayers' purse to pay for their defense. Criminal. The privileged male.

***

I'm sure you know what it is if you've flirted with blokes before and felt like you were following a script. Every time one ought to do something for one's partner because it just seems right, a norm is at work. — fdrake

Oh yeah, I am that flirty, bewitching female. Males succumb to the sprinkling of my magical prowess. Driven to lust and beyond. And so it is, the female has the power. For all of 15 minutes.
If some script is followed, any honeymoon period is soon over. Faces change. Bodies age.
History repeats with little change. Even in the rom-com genre. Physiology. Biology seems to rule.
We are, after all, human animals.

..."beauty fades" more for women (or so it's seen). Though "MILF" and "Cougar" are always popular search terms on porn sites. Motherhood and spinsterhood are also sexually objectified, equality! — fdrake

I'll have to take your word for it. I'm too much of a lady to go searching on porn sites. Then again, for the sake of research...

Brook Benton - Rainy Night In Georgia (live 1982)
Songwriter - Tony Joe White

Here's the original. No hyper-sexual male gyrations to distract from the story and social context of poor Annie. The singer/composer is no less masculine than Elvis but shows a little bit more understanding and compassion. He wrote about what he knew. Elvis was being Elvis. Or was he?

Tony Joe White - Polk Salad Annie

I think what matters is the context and the way in which Elvis sings this song.
He sexualises it.
Watch his use of mike, thrusting fingers and I think he sings ' suck' rather than 'sock'.

In a January 17, 2014, interview with music journalist Ray Shasho, White explained the thought process behind the writing of "Polk Salad Annie" and "Rainy Night in Georgia".
I heard "Ode to Billie Joe" on the radio and I thought, man, how real, because I am Billie Joe, I know that life. I've been in the cotton fields. So I thought if I ever tried to write, I'm going to write about something I know about. At that time I was doing a lot of Elvis and John Lee Hooker onstage with my drummer. No original songs and I hadn't really thought about it. But after I heard Bobbie Gentry I sat down and thought … well I know about polk because I had ate a bunch of it and I knew about rainy nights because I spent a lot of rainy nights in Marietta, Georgia. So I was real lucky with my first tries to write something that was not only real and hit pretty close to the bone, but lasted that long. So it was kind of a guide for me then on through life to always try to write what I know about.[4] — Polk Salad Annie - wiki

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polk_Salad_Annie
"Polk Salad Annie" is a 1968 song written and performed by Tony Joe White.[1] Its lyrics describe the lifestyle of a poor rural Southern girl and her family. Traditionally, the term to describe the type of food highlighted in the song is polk or poke salad, a cooked greens dish made from pokeweed.[2] Its 1969 single release peaked at No. 8 on the Billboard Hot 100. In Canada, the song made No. 10 on the RPM Magazine Hot Singles chart. Elvis Presley's version also made the song popular.

***

Polk Salad Annie - Elvis Presley

Some you all never been down South too much
Some y'all never been South too
I'm gonna tell you a little story, so you'll understand what I'm talking about
Down there we have a plant that grows out in the woods and the fields
And it looks something like a turnip green
Everybody calls it Polk salad
Now that's Polk
Salad
Used to know a girl that lived down there and she'd go out in the evenings to pick a mess of it
Carry it home and cook it for supper, 'cause that's about all they had to eat
But they did all right
Down in Louisiana
Where the alligators grow so mean
Lived a girl that I swear to the world
Made the alligators look tame
Polk salad Annie
'Gators got your granny (shook, shook)
Everybody said it was a shame
For the mama was working on the chain-gang
A mean, vicious woman
Ah!
Everyday before suppertime
She'd go down by the truck patch
And pick her a mess of Polk salad
And carry it home in a tote sack
Polk salad Annie
'Gators got you granny (Ooo)
Everybody said it was a shame
Because the mama was working on the chain-gang
A wretched, spiteful, straight razor toting woman
Lord have mercy
Sock a little Polk salad to me
You know what
Her daddy was a lazy and no-account
Claimed he had a bad back
All her brothers were fit for
Stealing watermelons out of my truck patch
Polk salad Annie
'Gators got your granny (shook, shook)
Everybody said it was a shame
Because the mama was working on the chain-gang
Oh
He sock a little Polk salad to me
You know what need a meal mention
You sock a little (hey, hey, hey, yeah, yeah)
Sock a little Polk salad to me
You know what need a meal mention
Sock a little Polk salad you know what need a meal
Chang chang a chang chang
Chang chang a chang chang laga la la
Chang chang a chang chang laga...

About sex and gender. Philosophical theories.

In feminist philosophy, this distinction has generated a lively debate. Central questions include: What does it mean for gender to be distinct from sex, if anything at all? How should we understand the claim that gender depends on social and/or cultural factors? What does it mean to be gendered woman, man, or genderqueer? This entry outlines and discusses distinctly feminist debates on sex and gender considering both historical and more contemporary positions.


Conclusion
This entry first looked at feminist objections to biological determinism and the claim that gender is socially constructed. Next, it examined feminist critiques of prevalent understandings of gender and sex, and the distinction itself. In response to these concerns, the entry looked at how a unified women’s category could be articulated for feminist political purposes. This illustrated that gender metaphysics — or what it is to be a woman or a man or a genderqueer person — is still very much a live issue. And although contemporary feminist philosophical debates have questioned some of the tenets and details of the original 1960s sex/gender distinction, most still hold onto the view that gender is about social factors and that it is (in some sense) distinct from biological sex. The jury is still out on what the best, the most useful, or (even) the correct definition of gender is. — Sex and Gender - SEP