> No one is suggesting there aren't physical differences between men
> and women. However I have yet to find any emotion, attitude or
> behaviour which is unique to either sex. And where there is a
> tendency for one to be associated with a particular sex it usually
> turns out to apply only in specific cultures.
Good word "tendency", it's one I like to use myself when talking about
gender issues. Nevertheless, although I can move closer to your position
than the one you began with "What sexist rubbish!", I don't think we're
going to completely agree on this.
Regarding what you first said, to wit, that 'Women are no more "inherently
nurturing and inclusive" then men.' I can go along with the "no more
inclusive" bit - I know an awful lot of women who are extremely cliquey and
exclusive, but I do think that women *in general* are more inclined to
nurturing than men *in general*, and I think that has a biological, not
sociological root. It is a tendency that becomes more pronounced after a
woman has given birth, partly due to circumstance and partly due to hormonal
changes that occur at the time.
Obviously, this doesn't mean that all women are natural nurturers, any more
than in means that all men are violent sociopaths, but I am absolutely
certain that there are emotional and behavioural differences between men and
women, which although they are best expressed as tendencies rather than
absolutes, and the way in which they are manifested might vary between
cultures, are in fact founded in the physical differences rather than just
societal expectations.
> I also remember the first enthusiasm of feminism which claimed that
> all the world's problems would be solved by having female leaders
> because they were naturally more caring and concilitary. Then we
> got Margaret Thatcher as PM.....
Well, quite. On that point, we can sing from the same hymn sheet. Probably
in glorious harmony! But then I doubt that many women would be entirely
happy with Maggie as representative of their gender, even the deluded souls
that actually like the old termagant.
Cheers -
Malk.
P.S. Point of interest, of tangential relevance to the matriarchy
discussion. A few years ago, the Anglican Church concluded a debate that
led to the ordination of female priests. I am given to understand by one
who should know (a female Anglican priest!) that the bulk of the opposition
to the change actually came from female church members, who are a powerful
force within the Church. I am not going to try to draw any conclusions from
that regarding the possible nature of matriarchies, or on the nature of
women in general, but I thought it was interesting, nevertheless.
Received on Wed 05 Jul 2006 - 17:47:24 EEST