Hi
I am just seeing your reply now.
Here is a real world example from a Law website:
"Police Responses in the Past
According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), in the 1980s, police were trained to screen domestic violence calls and it became common practice to delay any response to them in hopes that the problem would resolve itself at home, or that the assailant would leave before police arrived.
However, thanks to women's rights groups speaking out on this issue and pushing to make battering a criminal offense, there has been significant reform on the way police deal with domestic violence. It wasn't until the landmark case, Thurman v. City of Torrington, that police started paying more attention to their liability in domestic violence cases, and were made aware that they could pay a severe financial penalty if they failed to do so. In this case, plaintiff Tracy Thurman was awarded $2.3 million when she sued the city of Torrington, CT police department after they repeatedly failed to arrest her abusive husband."
http://family.findlaw.com/domestic-violence/domestic-violence-history-of-police-responses.html
It was just deemed a family or private matter, and yes, that comes from the law and actual police training (not what your father or any well meaning police officer did themselves but something more cultural and historical). Today, police are trained differently and the law sees rape as a possibility within marriage.
From wikipedia:
"One of the origins of the concept of a marital exemption from rape laws (a rule that a husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife) is the idea that by marriage a woman gives irrevocable consent for her husband to have sex with her any time he demands it.[1] This view was described by Sir Matthew Hale (1609-1676) in History of the Pleas of the Crown, published posthumously in 1736, where he wrote that "The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract"." Also, American and English law subscribed until the 20th century to the system of coverture, that is, a legal doctrine under which, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband.[2] The implication was that once unified by marriage, a spouse could no longer be charged with raping one's spouse, anymore than be charged with raping oneself.[3] In the US, the wife's legal subordination to her husband was fully ended by the case of Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981), a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a Louisiana Head and Master law, which gave sole control of marital property to the husband, unconstitutional.[4] English common law also had a great impact on many legal systems of the world through colonialism. (Bovarnik, 2007).
Marriage was traditionally understood as an institution where a husband had control over his wife's life; control over her sexuality was only a part of the greater control that he had in all other areas concerning her."
We continue to disagree about gender. Based on social science consensus about what is nature vs. what is nurture:
Sex refers to the biological differences that you speak of- gender refers to what is culturally expected (what sociologists mean by masculinity and femininity).
In sociological terms, race and gender are comparable in that they both refer to symbolic differences. Both use real physical differences to explain imagined stereotypical ideas. Yes, you are right that there are physical differences . Phenotype, skin color, genitalia, chromosomes--but what these basic differences mean in terms of social role, personality types, etc is the issue. Over the centuries, the idea of what is masculine and feminine changes, and cultures vary in terms of gender. Not all visions of masculinity are sexually aggressive or prone to violence.
We are in a world where Christian/Western ideas have become so dominant- These ideas in terms of gender seem natural because of this dominance.
Intersectional theory does not aim to divide and produce differences-- we did not invent these differences, we are just bringing the existence differences to light--- often in order to eliminate them! For example: Race wasn't invented by racial minorities --- it benefitted European elites, and it often hurt white working classes. Showing this, intersectional research is extremely helpful.
Gender is likewise not invented by feminists-- the idea that all the differences between men and women are NATURAL is what keeps the status quo alive- lets deconstruct the outdated, disproven pseudo-science of gender and get rid of cultural ideas that do not represent and which constrict the lives of men and women.
-People are attracted to stories about differences. What about all the similarities between men and women? Actually we share far more similarities than differences. We all have both hormones, just different levels, for example.
I had a student tell me that she read an article once about male and female differences in genitalia-- the outward genitalia of the man was presented to explain the typical attributes of men (outward,direct,strong, leaderlike, etc etc)- while the inward genitalia explains the inward, emotional, passive,weak qualities of women--- hahah. It is laughable, just as ridiculous as trying to prove personality traits associated with skin color.
-People mistake what is natural from what is learned. There is a persistent cxultural idea that Boys are bioloigically, naturally better at math. But social science research shows that male AND female teachers give boys more one-on-one attention, interact more frequently with boys especially in STEM classes. In my original post, the boy is expected to learn to be "clever" while girls are expected to learn to be beautiful. Parents buy different kinds of toys for boys and girls-- they even treat infants differently and studies show how differential treatment reinforces certain communication behaviors early in life.
What I value is social scientific research --- which was important for debunking the power-ridden "science" of race--- and which has worked to debunk the pseudoscientific claims of biologically-based personality traits of masculinity and femininity.
You are right that marriage had traditionally been a contract whereby a woman exchanges her childbearing years for the security provided to them by men.
Are you aware that women live longer than men and always have? Despite dying in droves in childbirth, women still managed to have longer lives, historically. To me, this makes perfect sense. Protection and security matters. You might bravely repudiate that 17th century English justice now, but if you were a 17th century English maiden, I wonder if you would be so bold as to reject the rights and responsibilities of the patriarchy in those days.
Once upon a time, the world was a terribly dangerous place and societies that deferred to strong, fatherly men (patriarchs) fared better. The debate took place in that vein of thought. That being said, even in the 17th century you couldn't find a justice who would write such an opinion in his legal decisions. Your argument then comes down to, 'there was once a justice in 17th century England who admitted post-humously that he didn't think women had a right to say 'no' to sex.'
In Rome, by the way, a patriarch could kill his wife and children and not be prosecuted. All society would be abhorred, censors would publicize his deeds and he would be hated, but patriarchs were the lawgivers for families. Just because a countries laws don’t touch the matter, doesn’t mean a countries people are not opposed to it. The world is more complex than that.
The marital rape debate is about whether or not a man forcing himself on his wife is exactly the same or different than a man forcing himself on a woman who has never been with him. It was once believed that you couldn’t ‘rape’ your wife – that doesn’t mean you could assault her.
Your article about police delaying responses to domestics doesn’t prove police didn’t care, nor does its reference to a woman whose husband wasn’t charged. Were no men charged with domestic abuse? Or were mistakes made by imperfect people in an imperfect world that are now being exaggerated by an agenda-driven identity movement? I am certain I know the answer to that. By the way, my dad always said that the worst thing about sorting out a domestic was the wife protecting her abuser. I don’t know what to make of that, but these situations are complex and police hate them.
Kirchberg v Feenstra, again, could have proven we are a patriarchal society and instead didn't. It was an antiquated law carried over from harder times that was struck down. In Canada, it is illegal to not bow before the queen. You can find all kinds of weird laws that would get struck down if someone tried to enforce them.
Boys do seem to do better at STEM. Even if it was proved that teachers spend more time with boys, it could easily be because boys show more interest. Even the claim you make proves nothing. Look at women’s rapid advances into a variety of fields that they were traditionally discouraged from, why not these fields?
I find it pretty obvious that men are more object-oriented which is why they tend toward certain fields. It would make sense, too. Think about our 2 million years of evolution and what men and women were almost certainly doing. We know girls talk earlier than boys and better. We know that testosterone makes men ‘men’ and that xyy chromosome men have twice as much testosterone and are more violent, anti-social and sexual. In other words, that compared to women, men are more violent, anti-social and sexual. Anti-social, i.e., taking an interest in objects and ideas more than people. Women tend towards social behavior. If you contest this, let me know how.
Identity politics is why the founding fathers believed democracy was a sick system. No, you guys didn’t invent these identities, but you will exploit them for power and money. Try reading 18th century criticisms of democracy and founding fathers explaining why they wanted the US to be a republic and not drawing the conclusion that they had accurately ascertained that something like identity politics was inevitable. And before you feel that identity politics is still somehow good, remember that before minorities of different kinds, the Democratic party was exploiting the evil instincts of the white majority for power and money. And before you feel that ‘this time, we are right’, just remember that everyone who does this shit does so because they think they are right.