If we have laws that are gender neutral, and a culture that allows individuals to make the choices they want (regarding work, family, etc), then we’ll see what emerges. Maybe men and women will still make different choices, but then it will be from a much more conscious place.

At the end of the day we cannot tell people what to do, even if their choices go against our ideology. That’s one of the major mistakes of feminism, IMO.

I agree, and it’s probably necessary if we are to survive I believe, BUT, I’m not sure how much of it depends on what we WANT versus what “evolution” (I mean this in the broadest sence, biological and cultural if you wish) “wants”.

But that’s more the debate about free will vs. determinism. Agency vs. structure etc. Depends on your perspective perhaps. But as I said, I really agree with you that the reptilian brain is not the sole influence. And too many times we read about men, who often fight feminism, who uses the biology argument to “prove” their point; “it’s okay for men to stare at women, we’re just born that way.”

I do believe though, no matter how big influence our biology have on our bahoviour, that to be civilized means that we can let our lives be dictated by higher ideals than our reptile brain. Whatever biological influences we have, we can overcome in order to live our lives the way we WANT, not beeing forced to.

It’s even hard to distinguish between what is the biological/sex or the cultural/gender. Where does the one begin and the other end? I’m not saying that everything is just a “social construction” (I’m not even sure, to be honest, what that would mean, it all depends on how you define “culture” and “biology” and where the line is drawn) or that everything is determined by biology. But one thing seems clear; people develop and their roles in society change. Now, how much they change and how they change we don’t know, we’ll have to wait and see. But I’m not 100% confident we’ll get rid of the genderroles, but perhaps we’ll just define them completely different or use another word entirely. Dichotomies are problematic, sometimes outright nasty, but sometimes necessary.

Nothing is certain, except change I guess.

Happy Valentines day!

Jane:

First of all, to sanction disrimination, for any reason, is not morally right. Especially for people and politcal doctrines that allegedly is pro-equality.

Secondly, to sanction discrimination opens up for the view that discrimination is OK under certain circumstances. Its not. Its never OK.

The patriarchy-theory is a Theory, controversial at that. and far from proven true. If we where to make legislation to discriminate based on a theory, at least that theory must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Patriachial theory is not. All the indices that this theory uses to create the idea of a Patriarchy, can be, and have been, explained in alternate ways. Often more believable than a great male conspiracy at that. Beyond doubt. Its nowhere near that status, and probably never will. Because its simply not true.

But all that aside; I truly believe affirmative action is harmful to equality. Especially when its followed by arguments like yours above, women have something special to contribute. What is this specific “femaleness” I wonder? This female perspective? Its gender. Nothing more, nothing less, and affirmative action is just another way to strengthen the genderrolls. And to my mind equality is about the opposite, getting rid of genderrolls and free humanity from this plague of falsly percieved dichotomy.

Furthermore, whenever affirmative action is followed by ideas like, “well female police/firemen have a higher social competence/softer apporach etc”, what really happens it that those rolls are filled, and so the men is expected to fill the vacant rolls instead, ie the macho-roll. Effectively punishing non-macho men, discriminating them since females, trough affirmative action, fills their niche. This is probably not the way to go if we want equality.

On the contrary, the ONLY thing that should be factored in when applying for jobs is relevant skills. Affirmative action creates a divide between male and female when what we really need is a merging of those two roles.

In the recent US presidential elections, there was a woman who made a serious run for the presidency, and another woman who could have been elected vice-president. In developed countries we find women at every level of society, whether we’re talking about politics, corporations, medicine, etc. Girls are doing better in schools than boys (from Sweden, to the UK, to the US), and women dominate colleges and universities.

If there is an “old boys’ club” they’re sure doing a bad job at keeping women in the homes

To stay competitive, companies cannot hire a person simply because he is male. If a company passes over highly qualified women, those women will be picked up by another company that will thereby gain a competitive advantage. So the very forces of a capitalist market economy actively work against any kind of discrimination.

What’s important though is that men and women get the same opportunities to succeed and pursue the career they want. And as I wrote above there are no indications that girls are being shortchanged, on the contrary, girls are doing better than boys in the entire educational system.

What’s also relevant to note is that the public sphere was built by men, and if one accepts that there are certain types of neurohormonal difference between the sexes (eg. difference in brain structure and function), then the public sphere may be constructed in a way which is congruent with a male type of thinking. So how do we incorporate female values and female ways of thinking in the public sphere? I think it’s already happening, due to all the new kinds of jobs that arise in an informational society, and due to men and women alike demanding more humane working conditions and new ways of reaching goals.