Girl Power

YOU can help expand it. Guests are encouraged to do so primarily by adding sections, not by editing the existing ones. More ideas, and some possible material are on the related discussion page

A 5000 years-old Mother Goddess statue, from Harappa, in The Indus Valley A minority of feminists, the differentialist feminists, consider that the essence of Women is not fully expressed and experienced because of an enduring domination of male thinking.

One of the anomalies in paleontology is the people of the Indus Valley. An abundance of statues like this one were found in this region, suggesting a great importance of the Mother Goddess in the worldview of this people. The archeological record also suggests, in contrast, that these people were rather peaceful, wealthy and equalitarian. (It suggests such a thing.)

This represents a threat not only, of course to some men (macho intellectuals) but also, paradoxically, to many feminists.

Although feminists certainly accept the notion that patriarchy (and its culture of rape and violence, the various means of penetration?) is the first enemy, they are in general against the idea that there might have been a putative matriarchal society or a more equalitarian one taken over by violent blood thirsty male dominated nomadic tribes.

Why is it difficult to accept that those from the Indus Valley could live peacefully for so many centuries, produce ample food, build large cities — with a remarkable water supply system —, and only worry about the testosterone-driven barbarians around, by building protective walls around the city?

This idea appeared as obvious to early XXth century archeologists and anthropologists. But nowadays, it seems that saying so is extremely naive and romantic. Why?

Although most persons would love the idea that we used to have a more peaceful way of living because women were infusing more peace, sensitivity and caring to society, many feminist intellectuals abhor and despise this psycho-pop view of history.

But what if, what if, it was true? What if big bad science had the final word?

Wouldn't you working for the patriarchic enemy?

Gateway to Harappa (reconstitution from ruins, which are remarkably well preserved, especially in Mohenjo-Daro)

—

Postmoderns feminists can be very critical of this 'essentialism' as well, because it can mask the multifaceted nature of women's (and human's) experience.

Is there any basis to the idea that women and men are profoundly, radically different and that this difference is more important than the others? Is the "are from Mars/Venus" all nonsense?

Simon Baron-Cohen created the extreme male brain theory (http://www.autism.org.uk/content/1/c4/78/85/Saturday_SimonBaron-Cohen.pdf; http://mentor.lscf.ucsb.edu/course/winter2007/int94is/baron_cohen_male_brain_autism.pdf) to explain autism and asperger syndrome. Males, like autists and Aspergers (define Asperger) but to a lesser extent, love many kinds of systems: computers, car engines, sport statistics, and many kinds of theories. We can see this expressed to the extreme in autists, and especially Aspergers. They can spend hours on a given system, sometimes days, a whole life, and develop an extreme degree of competence with this system... to the exclusion of others, and of Others. It can be a single object, like that the 'poorly functioning' autist will move around endlessly, or the theory of games or of relativity.

One thing that is troubling, however, is the idea that all men should be radically different from women, when it is very obvious that some men are quite womanly, and also the opposite. What's very interesting with the Baron-Cohen's system is that it does acknowledge that about 17% of each sex have brains wired like the opposite sex, and that around 35%, on both sides, have androgynous brains!

Morevover, male and female brains, in this system, are not exclusionary: the most sexually differentiated brain characteristics are not inaccessible from one end of the spectrum to the other; an extreme male has the ability to develop empathy, and an extreme female brain can systematize. So, no, Baron-Cohen is not creating a new solar system of sexual identities (Mars, Venus, androgynous Mercury, mis-sexed Uranus and who knows what): he's describing different horizons for differently situated humans.

And this is how real science is. Like anything else (except that it's much more pretentious): full of surprises. After all, as Feyerabend witted, "Science" is nothing but a flag — that scientist can waive with some pride while looking at the others, who also have their own flags ("art", "medicine", "solidarity", etc.).

So, little to worry about: this Science is not likely to swallow us alive with its simplistic generalizations.

For more on sex differences and the possible role of science in changing humanity by allowing a better understanding of sex differences, please visit Profound sex differences? -- The science

What are the skills that humans lack nowadays because women are oppressed?

Social skills
Communication skills
Ability to imagine other minds

What are those that humans have overdevelopped?

Get in your category, woman!

Reason is the true, the eternal!

Most of the “blog war” is a testosterone driven point-scoring game. It’s not about figuring out whether the planet will warm, it’s about winning points in a mental rugby match where there are few gentlemen. Women prefer to achieve their aims through other mechanisms than a stand-up fight.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/women-dont-want-to-face-global-bullies/