I've moved on to some of my thesis-oriented reading finally, language politics and rent theory. I think the feminists may be easier to get along with than some of these language people. I certainly can see a need for a language of record for federal and state level business, so that all people are held to a single standard wrt laws and policies. But to try to legislate private language use, or to use policy to bully people into speaking English is just plain wrong. The argument that 'our' common language is what brings us together as Americans is baloney. Just because a house full of Hispanic migrant workers can and do speak English, they would not automatically be accepted as full Americans by those who are against them now for their Spanish. The new law in Arizona that allows people suspected of being illegal aliens is almost certainly put into practice by people watching for poor-looking, Spanish speaking Hispanic people, and no doubt if these people are detained and questioned, they are not always fully informed and questioned in Spanish, in the presence of an attorney, as they ought to be if they turn out to be citizens of the US. I can't actually imagine how the implementation would come about except in big cities. In a small town, no doubt everyone knows who everyone else is, so unless this thing turned into a staged witch hunt to clear out undesirables, who could a small town target? And if I, a white English-speaking person, was in Arizona, out in public, would I be questioned? If so, could I prove my identity as a citizen? I don't drive, so I don't have a drivers' license, and while I have a state ID, my hair is rather different in that picture, taken a few years back, and no one on first meeting me thinks I look 31. But no, I would never be questioned, let alone detained on suspicion of being foreign, because I am white and speak English with a Western accent. Even if I spoke entirely in a French, or German, or Russian accent, no one would be at all alarmed. If I spoke with a Spanish accent even, I'd be safe. It isn't the English then that protects me, but my skin-color. There are Mexicans who speak better English than their US citizen counterparts this side of the border, so the language test won't root out the 'extra' Hispanics, but it'll keep their numbers down, perhaps. (And this language business is bringing us all together?)
Call me old-fashioned, but to my thinking people are drawn together when they seek to understand and appreciate each other as human beings. Last I checked, speaking English was not synonymous with being human, as a necessary and sufficient condition for inclusion in our species.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Seeking the patterns of the universe underlying all things
I think I have settled enough for myself of a coherent theory of gender that I can read other people's ideas, however blatantly and intentionally offensive, and assess them reasonably. Does gender have much to do with my thesis? Not directly. Rent is due to the differences in production costs or productivities of things all operating within the same system. On a very brief timescale gender can operate as this sort of relation, for instance in a place like China, where modernization is accelerated and both genders are expected to work in factories and science/technology positions, and in modern business models, if women were traditionally socialized to be further from the new ideal than men were, then it would cost more to bring women up to speed relative to the cost for retraining the men, This would be a cost that could be assessed by using variations on rent models, but in general gender issues are not this simple or of this pattern.
One criticism of using rent concepts to discuss gender, which I consider pretty weak, is that it uses a cold mathematical construct from with paternalistic knowledge, from economics in particular, to try to discuss something which involves emotions and experiences at an individual level, beyond the reach of economic modeling. It could, indeed, be misused such that this would be good criticism. But using a mathematical model correctly, as a tool to understand the relationships between things, is no more wrong than using a hammer to nail a bench together.
The problem with rent being applied to gender where it is less homogenized than the China example above is that there is no single standard of productivity or value against which all people are measured, and no homogeneous group of 'women' or 'men' to compare. Human beings vary in enough details that the things we might wish to calculate are more likely to run on a continuous distribution, with the male and female mean, mode and average shifting only slightly relative to the overall values. But, underneath the idea of using rent in social and political theory lies the idea of considering the mathematical shapes of systems as they compare across fields. I still want to try mapping chemistry equations against social behaviors like voting, or the matrix and differential equations from parts of ecology mapped against multiculturalism. The importance here is pattern. The details matter, of course, but there are equations with some degree of success in describing complex events in the 'hard' sciences that could be mapped into social systems as well, to get at the underlying dynamics of societies. Would this be useful? At one point many of the physics concept demonstrations were mostly considered cheap parlor tricks, not really of much use, and not worthy of much funding outside the ivory tower of academia. Those demonstrations and the physics behind them lie at the foundation of our whole modern high-tech world. I doubt a computer will ever regulate society any more than a computer really regulates the Internet. Big complex systems have too many complex dynamics, generating emergent systems and all sort of odd singularities, so that for a species as stubborn and vain as humans, there may always be too much going on for a computer to manage. Being able, though, to discover more completely how stable peaceful governments become established might help improve the lives of millions of people, and figuring out how to successfully address the growing population of pets in the US might help prevent the millions of cats and dogs and other animals killed or abandoned to die each year as excess pets. These are the sorts of dynamics where math is a tool our species would be foolish not to utilize.
One criticism of using rent concepts to discuss gender, which I consider pretty weak, is that it uses a cold mathematical construct from with paternalistic knowledge, from economics in particular, to try to discuss something which involves emotions and experiences at an individual level, beyond the reach of economic modeling. It could, indeed, be misused such that this would be good criticism. But using a mathematical model correctly, as a tool to understand the relationships between things, is no more wrong than using a hammer to nail a bench together.
The problem with rent being applied to gender where it is less homogenized than the China example above is that there is no single standard of productivity or value against which all people are measured, and no homogeneous group of 'women' or 'men' to compare. Human beings vary in enough details that the things we might wish to calculate are more likely to run on a continuous distribution, with the male and female mean, mode and average shifting only slightly relative to the overall values. But, underneath the idea of using rent in social and political theory lies the idea of considering the mathematical shapes of systems as they compare across fields. I still want to try mapping chemistry equations against social behaviors like voting, or the matrix and differential equations from parts of ecology mapped against multiculturalism. The importance here is pattern. The details matter, of course, but there are equations with some degree of success in describing complex events in the 'hard' sciences that could be mapped into social systems as well, to get at the underlying dynamics of societies. Would this be useful? At one point many of the physics concept demonstrations were mostly considered cheap parlor tricks, not really of much use, and not worthy of much funding outside the ivory tower of academia. Those demonstrations and the physics behind them lie at the foundation of our whole modern high-tech world. I doubt a computer will ever regulate society any more than a computer really regulates the Internet. Big complex systems have too many complex dynamics, generating emergent systems and all sort of odd singularities, so that for a species as stubborn and vain as humans, there may always be too much going on for a computer to manage. Being able, though, to discover more completely how stable peaceful governments become established might help improve the lives of millions of people, and figuring out how to successfully address the growing population of pets in the US might help prevent the millions of cats and dogs and other animals killed or abandoned to die each year as excess pets. These are the sorts of dynamics where math is a tool our species would be foolish not to utilize.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Escaping Killer Vaginas and Endless Warfare
In the time since I started reading these gender books, I have had several rather long conversations with others, male and female, in conjunction with my readings. Though in my younger days I might have pounced on some poor unsuspecting souls in the student center for these conversations, this time around the people I spoke with are all friends. The sum of my impressions from these many hours of talk, plus lots of thinking and reading, and grumbling and arguing with each essay I read, all together have left me slightly shifted from my last post.
First, as far as essentialist arguments go- There are differences between male and female humans, most obviously bodily differences. I haven't yet read it this time, but years ago when I took my last college gender studies course, some of the authors we read made a huge deal of the experience a young woman has learning about sex, specifically learning that sex means allowing a man to enter/penetrate/violate her body, in a part of her anatomy she may have never really even acknowledged. It was stated by many of these authors repeatedly that control of the knowledge of sex was a part of how men kept control over their sexual relations with women. Boys certainly have a more obviously accessible sexual region for self-exploration, and engage in more masturbation, and in some eras and places were encouraged to explore sex with prostitutes or other lower-status women prior to and during marriage. But the knowledge boys have to gain about sex is not really any nicer than that girls get, according to such models of sex.
Many classic authors, of fiction and non-fiction, drill into their readers that a man's life energy or essence drains out with his semen, prompting some rather visible men to avoid sex entirely, and live as monks. The idea of the sex act, for an uninitiated boy, is perhaps as scary as for a girl, too, in the idea of his most sensitive organ being engulfed/taken/devoured by the body of a woman. Two images from popular media come to mind here. The first is a rather bizarre porn horror film about killer vaginas with teeth, that bite off men's penises. The second, from a book by Neil Gaiman, describes a goddess who consumes men during sex, absorbing them penis-first through the rift in her skin that is her vagina. I am sure if I went looking I could find plenty more. Even if men don't exactly buy into them literally, there are other interpretations of these images as metaphors, which many men seem to accept, such that when they have sex with women they expect sex to be a way for women to entrap them into marriage and domesticity. Meanwhile women, who have grown up on the same range of stories in many ways, expect that they can only get a husband by such entrapments, and also assume they actually want domesticity.
A study I came across in a social psychology course years ago comes to mind. In this study, researchers wanted to know whether men and women differ with respect to visual-sexual arousal. The primary target, still, for pornography is men, and certainly the plots and aesthetics in many types of porn are geared towards men exclusively. That the market is so structured does not mean women wouldn't enjoy porn, yet most women don't use pornography. The researchers set up conditions so that test subjects would view various sexual, semi-sexual and neutral imagery, with sensors arrayed to monitor where the subject's eyes focused, and for how long, as well as gathering heart rate, respiration, etc. Male subjects liked porn, according to the results. Women didn't respond much to the porn, which, was not to surprising either. However, women also didn't really look at the porn; their eyes kept sliding away from the naked bodies on the screen, and especially from penises. Follow-ups to this found that women, if they became used to the idea of it being ok to be sexually aroused by the sight of naked men, they looked at pictures of naked men longer, and their physical arousal began to resemble that of male subjects.
In the decade since reading about these experiments I have paid much closer attention to my own and my friends' behavior with respect to sexuality. Considering that I started out as a 'good' Seventh Day Adventist, this really may just mean that I went from pretending sex didn't exist to acknowledging that it might be fun to try sometime. Still, I think the potential for men and women to be practically identical in their degree of sexual interest is huge. If our parents and communities weren't hell-bent on training us out of being comfortable in our own skins, girls could figure out and enjoy masturbation almost as easily as boys. And, if it is not culturally taboo for women to enjoy the sight of naked men, and sexuality on screen, women can and do find such sights arousing.
All this does in fact link into what else I have been thinking about tonight, though on the surface I am still pitting men against women in endless comparison. Ultimately, though, just as with environmental issues and racial issues, after so man decades of debate and argument, it isn't that the points are unclear, or that there is no sign of a direction in which to move. The biggest problem I see in gender studies is that we are all individuals. We do not have 'man' or 'woman', or 'white', or 'black', or any other category stamps on our hides when we are born. Gender is made up of the interaction between our own individual traits and the gender constructs our families and society buy into. Race, a different concept from gender structurally (one is born with the phenotypic 'race' of one's parents, whereas, one is always born by way of a woman's pregnancy, through the sexual coupling in some form of a man and a woman.) is also socially constructed, as can be seen in the label 'white', which now includes the Irish, and Eastern Europeans, and usually Italians, though all these groups were at various times set apart as racially inferior, and which does not include Japanese or Chinese people even when these people have paler skin. I, as a 'white' woman, am a sort of yellowish orangeish pink color, and the only 'black' person I met who really looked black in color was from a particular Sudanese group. (yes, I see the beginnings of a typical rambling rant starting here. sorry.). . .
So long as we are stuck trying to come to a consensus about who is right and who is wronged, bickering back and forth, training each new generation to pick up the fight where the departing generation left off, we'll get nowhere. If anyone recalls the Doctor Who episode where the Doctor has a daughter by a DNA replication device, that is the sort of war we have going on with respect to a lot of things anymore. So long as we band together as men and women (or human and hath, in the episode) we won't know each other, understand each other, like each other or really be able to love each other. Each of us is an individual person, first, and so long as we can interact with each other at this fundamental level, we stand some chance of shedding the baggage we've all inherited, our parents' parents' wars, that have kept us at odds for these generations. Is this rewriting history? Perhaps, but really it is saying, whatever the history, we are here now, real flesh-and-blood humans, with our brief shimmeringly glorious lives still in full swing. What happened in the past is over, and if we want to thoroughly enjoy the life we have left to savor and enrich, we need to do it by actually living our own lives. The only place gender studies has in this model of my life or of life in general is to the extent that others can force gender upon me and those around me. The only way to really beat such forces seems to be to embrace life even more tenaciously. If Society, or Government, or History, or any force can make me into some sort of boxed-up gendered white disabled woman, it is not because they hold a gun to my head, but because I choose to change myself in response to them. That would, by the way, be a lot easier to say if I was independently wealthy; as an introverted intellectual, I find it hard to attract the supportive network of friends and loved ones that would make it certain that a roof will always be available, a meal always there when needed. I really envy some of those classic thinkers who could afford to just live and write, and think, without worry of homelessness and starvation. I will almost certainly have to find a job that will test my sense of self, in a part of society with plenty of boxes to put me in.
But, where there's a will (or whip?) there is a way.
First, as far as essentialist arguments go- There are differences between male and female humans, most obviously bodily differences. I haven't yet read it this time, but years ago when I took my last college gender studies course, some of the authors we read made a huge deal of the experience a young woman has learning about sex, specifically learning that sex means allowing a man to enter/penetrate/violate her body, in a part of her anatomy she may have never really even acknowledged. It was stated by many of these authors repeatedly that control of the knowledge of sex was a part of how men kept control over their sexual relations with women. Boys certainly have a more obviously accessible sexual region for self-exploration, and engage in more masturbation, and in some eras and places were encouraged to explore sex with prostitutes or other lower-status women prior to and during marriage. But the knowledge boys have to gain about sex is not really any nicer than that girls get, according to such models of sex.
Many classic authors, of fiction and non-fiction, drill into their readers that a man's life energy or essence drains out with his semen, prompting some rather visible men to avoid sex entirely, and live as monks. The idea of the sex act, for an uninitiated boy, is perhaps as scary as for a girl, too, in the idea of his most sensitive organ being engulfed/taken/devoured by the body of a woman. Two images from popular media come to mind here. The first is a rather bizarre porn horror film about killer vaginas with teeth, that bite off men's penises. The second, from a book by Neil Gaiman, describes a goddess who consumes men during sex, absorbing them penis-first through the rift in her skin that is her vagina. I am sure if I went looking I could find plenty more. Even if men don't exactly buy into them literally, there are other interpretations of these images as metaphors, which many men seem to accept, such that when they have sex with women they expect sex to be a way for women to entrap them into marriage and domesticity. Meanwhile women, who have grown up on the same range of stories in many ways, expect that they can only get a husband by such entrapments, and also assume they actually want domesticity.
A study I came across in a social psychology course years ago comes to mind. In this study, researchers wanted to know whether men and women differ with respect to visual-sexual arousal. The primary target, still, for pornography is men, and certainly the plots and aesthetics in many types of porn are geared towards men exclusively. That the market is so structured does not mean women wouldn't enjoy porn, yet most women don't use pornography. The researchers set up conditions so that test subjects would view various sexual, semi-sexual and neutral imagery, with sensors arrayed to monitor where the subject's eyes focused, and for how long, as well as gathering heart rate, respiration, etc. Male subjects liked porn, according to the results. Women didn't respond much to the porn, which, was not to surprising either. However, women also didn't really look at the porn; their eyes kept sliding away from the naked bodies on the screen, and especially from penises. Follow-ups to this found that women, if they became used to the idea of it being ok to be sexually aroused by the sight of naked men, they looked at pictures of naked men longer, and their physical arousal began to resemble that of male subjects.
In the decade since reading about these experiments I have paid much closer attention to my own and my friends' behavior with respect to sexuality. Considering that I started out as a 'good' Seventh Day Adventist, this really may just mean that I went from pretending sex didn't exist to acknowledging that it might be fun to try sometime. Still, I think the potential for men and women to be practically identical in their degree of sexual interest is huge. If our parents and communities weren't hell-bent on training us out of being comfortable in our own skins, girls could figure out and enjoy masturbation almost as easily as boys. And, if it is not culturally taboo for women to enjoy the sight of naked men, and sexuality on screen, women can and do find such sights arousing.
All this does in fact link into what else I have been thinking about tonight, though on the surface I am still pitting men against women in endless comparison. Ultimately, though, just as with environmental issues and racial issues, after so man decades of debate and argument, it isn't that the points are unclear, or that there is no sign of a direction in which to move. The biggest problem I see in gender studies is that we are all individuals. We do not have 'man' or 'woman', or 'white', or 'black', or any other category stamps on our hides when we are born. Gender is made up of the interaction between our own individual traits and the gender constructs our families and society buy into. Race, a different concept from gender structurally (one is born with the phenotypic 'race' of one's parents, whereas, one is always born by way of a woman's pregnancy, through the sexual coupling in some form of a man and a woman.) is also socially constructed, as can be seen in the label 'white', which now includes the Irish, and Eastern Europeans, and usually Italians, though all these groups were at various times set apart as racially inferior, and which does not include Japanese or Chinese people even when these people have paler skin. I, as a 'white' woman, am a sort of yellowish orangeish pink color, and the only 'black' person I met who really looked black in color was from a particular Sudanese group. (yes, I see the beginnings of a typical rambling rant starting here. sorry.). . .
So long as we are stuck trying to come to a consensus about who is right and who is wronged, bickering back and forth, training each new generation to pick up the fight where the departing generation left off, we'll get nowhere. If anyone recalls the Doctor Who episode where the Doctor has a daughter by a DNA replication device, that is the sort of war we have going on with respect to a lot of things anymore. So long as we band together as men and women (or human and hath, in the episode) we won't know each other, understand each other, like each other or really be able to love each other. Each of us is an individual person, first, and so long as we can interact with each other at this fundamental level, we stand some chance of shedding the baggage we've all inherited, our parents' parents' wars, that have kept us at odds for these generations. Is this rewriting history? Perhaps, but really it is saying, whatever the history, we are here now, real flesh-and-blood humans, with our brief shimmeringly glorious lives still in full swing. What happened in the past is over, and if we want to thoroughly enjoy the life we have left to savor and enrich, we need to do it by actually living our own lives. The only place gender studies has in this model of my life or of life in general is to the extent that others can force gender upon me and those around me. The only way to really beat such forces seems to be to embrace life even more tenaciously. If Society, or Government, or History, or any force can make me into some sort of boxed-up gendered white disabled woman, it is not because they hold a gun to my head, but because I choose to change myself in response to them. That would, by the way, be a lot easier to say if I was independently wealthy; as an introverted intellectual, I find it hard to attract the supportive network of friends and loved ones that would make it certain that a roof will always be available, a meal always there when needed. I really envy some of those classic thinkers who could afford to just live and write, and think, without worry of homelessness and starvation. I will almost certainly have to find a job that will test my sense of self, in a part of society with plenty of boxes to put me in.
But, where there's a will (or whip?) there is a way.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Where I stand, so far
Where I Stand
1.People are people. Female, male, heterosexual, homosexual, tall, short, fat, skinny, and all other terms often applied to people are details, but not the essence of any person. A fat person has different traits compared to a skinny person, and a person with a penis has different traits from one with a vulva. Some traits seem to appear most commonly together, for instance penises and lots of body hair, or morbidly obese people and sore feet. But there are always exceptions or potentials for exceptions. A morbidly obese royal person who is always carried everywhere, for instance, is unlikely to have sore feet.
2.Feminism and masculinism are not monolithic. One cannot predict a person's opinions, feelings or beliefs very precisely based on these designations, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Femininity and masculinity are socially constructed concepts, built from traits that naturally occur in people, but trained from infancy within established cultures. Just as a tree can be trained to grow flat along a trellis, a human can be trained to be a “manly man” or a “girly girl.” Just as a tree left untended will begin to regain its natural shape, a human can, if allowed, regain lost aspects of itself. Thus traditional women can learn to enjoy life as independant people, not appended as wives or girlfriends to anyone; traditional men can learn to appreciate and understand their vast emotional repertoire.
3.The way gender conversations often go, it seems the only solution is for all men to pick up their toys and go east, and all women pick up their toys and go west, and forget about playing together. Except that there would be a bunch of people stuck in the middle, who are not sure they want to just be on the men's side, or just on the women's side, for various reasons. There are biological differences between genders that would mean eventually that nobody would exist on the east side, since men can't give birth, and only women would exist on the west side, since cloning women could only produce women. In the middle things might be more complicated, and maybe those center folks would be responsible for restoring healthy civilization.
4.So long as men insist that they are in charge by virtue of their penises, women hold a trump card that only socialization prevents them from playing, unless men choose to go to war against women, bringing violence and rape to bear against all 'recalcitrant women'. If women have sex as much as men do, with as many partners as men have, than no one man out of her selection of partners is necessarily the father of any particular child she may give birth to. Even if she only has one partner, however, there is little sense in talking about automatic 'paternal rights' simply because when she had sex with that man, his sperm met up with her egg. Up to that point, assuming they were consensual and both enjoyed it, they're even. But now, for 9 months, she is pregnant. This doesn't usually mean that she lolls about, munching food and watching movies for 9 months. Even if she isn't working somewhere, she is almost certainly still doing housework, especially if she isn't working. And regardless of how she spends that time, she is still pregnant, with the cramps, sore feet, morning sickness, etc, and then the pleasures of childbirth to cap it off. After that she gets to nurse the baby while her body pulls itself slowly back into shape as best it can, and she gets to find out just how egalitarian her partner really is with respect to childcare and housework. Considering all this, a modern woman may more reasonably choose not to have children with any man, ever. And, without babies, she has less reason to want a man around all the time, since life is simpler living on her own, with a lover she can see when they are both feeling interested. Both men and women would miss out on the fulfillment of deeper, longer-lasting love and companionship, but this may be the best way to go if men and women can't work out their issues any better.
5.I like men. That is, I find male bodies attractive, and I so far only fall in love or in lust with male humans. I would be and am disappointed that there are so few men fully comfortable with themselves and their bodies. I hate being with a man who seems uneasy that he has a penis when he finds himself standing naked in plain sight of his lover. I'd assume the point of his being there naked with his lover is in part because he has a penis, so being shy or ashamed of it is silly. Obviously I am not a passive sort of lover overall, though I have my days, as many people seem to. The men I wind up with are thus men who are more ok with having a more sexually equal partner, at least to the extent that they are happy to try new positions and enjoy being under a naked woman. But, they somehow lost balance; they have so far all been rather passive, unable to be equal, and so unfortunately easily dominated. I'm not sure how men lasted so many centuries having passive sex partners- it's terribly dull, and pointless after a while.
6.I prefer to sort of life and interests for myself that tend to belong to men in our society. I was a boy scout, after all, not a girl scout. I do not see these things as gendered- anyone can like tying knots and building things out of ropes and logs, or riding horses, or practicing archery. But, many men seem to not know how to enjoy a woman who is more a boy scout than a girl scout. They've grown up on stories in which women act in certain ways, and they expect that in real life. Real women, though, in our modern times, are not simpering pretty dolls, to be escorted to movies and treated to chocolate malts on the way home. I doubt women have ever really been that dull, but now it is socially possible for men and women to talk, to explore and discover life together as friends and equals. Somehow I still meet men every year who are my age and have no female friends besides myself, and I certainly know women who don't really have male friends, but they are in both cases the minority.
7.It's not a matter of making mountains out of molehills, but nonetheless, if we don't solve gender this year, life will not suddenly grind to a halt. With ~7 billion people on the planet, there will likely be both men and women someplaces on the planet being oppressed and mistreated, and there will also be michrocosms of egalitarianism where it seems things have finally worked out right. Kids will be born to people throughout this vast spectrum of socialization, and as they meet each other, the boundaries we set on our lives will continue to morph. Despite all the hatred and anger spewed on all sides regarding gender issues, many people do eventually meet a special someone, and fall in love, at least for a while. Even if the genders did all pick up their toys and quit the game, there would be quiet liasons on the borders. Little homesteads would begin popping up towards the center from both sides as people with burning hatreds against “men” or “women” found a man, or a woman wonderful enough to share life with.
1.People are people. Female, male, heterosexual, homosexual, tall, short, fat, skinny, and all other terms often applied to people are details, but not the essence of any person. A fat person has different traits compared to a skinny person, and a person with a penis has different traits from one with a vulva. Some traits seem to appear most commonly together, for instance penises and lots of body hair, or morbidly obese people and sore feet. But there are always exceptions or potentials for exceptions. A morbidly obese royal person who is always carried everywhere, for instance, is unlikely to have sore feet.
2.Feminism and masculinism are not monolithic. One cannot predict a person's opinions, feelings or beliefs very precisely based on these designations, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Femininity and masculinity are socially constructed concepts, built from traits that naturally occur in people, but trained from infancy within established cultures. Just as a tree can be trained to grow flat along a trellis, a human can be trained to be a “manly man” or a “girly girl.” Just as a tree left untended will begin to regain its natural shape, a human can, if allowed, regain lost aspects of itself. Thus traditional women can learn to enjoy life as independant people, not appended as wives or girlfriends to anyone; traditional men can learn to appreciate and understand their vast emotional repertoire.
3.The way gender conversations often go, it seems the only solution is for all men to pick up their toys and go east, and all women pick up their toys and go west, and forget about playing together. Except that there would be a bunch of people stuck in the middle, who are not sure they want to just be on the men's side, or just on the women's side, for various reasons. There are biological differences between genders that would mean eventually that nobody would exist on the east side, since men can't give birth, and only women would exist on the west side, since cloning women could only produce women. In the middle things might be more complicated, and maybe those center folks would be responsible for restoring healthy civilization.
4.So long as men insist that they are in charge by virtue of their penises, women hold a trump card that only socialization prevents them from playing, unless men choose to go to war against women, bringing violence and rape to bear against all 'recalcitrant women'. If women have sex as much as men do, with as many partners as men have, than no one man out of her selection of partners is necessarily the father of any particular child she may give birth to. Even if she only has one partner, however, there is little sense in talking about automatic 'paternal rights' simply because when she had sex with that man, his sperm met up with her egg. Up to that point, assuming they were consensual and both enjoyed it, they're even. But now, for 9 months, she is pregnant. This doesn't usually mean that she lolls about, munching food and watching movies for 9 months. Even if she isn't working somewhere, she is almost certainly still doing housework, especially if she isn't working. And regardless of how she spends that time, she is still pregnant, with the cramps, sore feet, morning sickness, etc, and then the pleasures of childbirth to cap it off. After that she gets to nurse the baby while her body pulls itself slowly back into shape as best it can, and she gets to find out just how egalitarian her partner really is with respect to childcare and housework. Considering all this, a modern woman may more reasonably choose not to have children with any man, ever. And, without babies, she has less reason to want a man around all the time, since life is simpler living on her own, with a lover she can see when they are both feeling interested. Both men and women would miss out on the fulfillment of deeper, longer-lasting love and companionship, but this may be the best way to go if men and women can't work out their issues any better.
5.I like men. That is, I find male bodies attractive, and I so far only fall in love or in lust with male humans. I would be and am disappointed that there are so few men fully comfortable with themselves and their bodies. I hate being with a man who seems uneasy that he has a penis when he finds himself standing naked in plain sight of his lover. I'd assume the point of his being there naked with his lover is in part because he has a penis, so being shy or ashamed of it is silly. Obviously I am not a passive sort of lover overall, though I have my days, as many people seem to. The men I wind up with are thus men who are more ok with having a more sexually equal partner, at least to the extent that they are happy to try new positions and enjoy being under a naked woman. But, they somehow lost balance; they have so far all been rather passive, unable to be equal, and so unfortunately easily dominated. I'm not sure how men lasted so many centuries having passive sex partners- it's terribly dull, and pointless after a while.
6.I prefer to sort of life and interests for myself that tend to belong to men in our society. I was a boy scout, after all, not a girl scout. I do not see these things as gendered- anyone can like tying knots and building things out of ropes and logs, or riding horses, or practicing archery. But, many men seem to not know how to enjoy a woman who is more a boy scout than a girl scout. They've grown up on stories in which women act in certain ways, and they expect that in real life. Real women, though, in our modern times, are not simpering pretty dolls, to be escorted to movies and treated to chocolate malts on the way home. I doubt women have ever really been that dull, but now it is socially possible for men and women to talk, to explore and discover life together as friends and equals. Somehow I still meet men every year who are my age and have no female friends besides myself, and I certainly know women who don't really have male friends, but they are in both cases the minority.
7.It's not a matter of making mountains out of molehills, but nonetheless, if we don't solve gender this year, life will not suddenly grind to a halt. With ~7 billion people on the planet, there will likely be both men and women someplaces on the planet being oppressed and mistreated, and there will also be michrocosms of egalitarianism where it seems things have finally worked out right. Kids will be born to people throughout this vast spectrum of socialization, and as they meet each other, the boundaries we set on our lives will continue to morph. Despite all the hatred and anger spewed on all sides regarding gender issues, many people do eventually meet a special someone, and fall in love, at least for a while. Even if the genders did all pick up their toys and quit the game, there would be quiet liasons on the borders. Little homesteads would begin popping up towards the center from both sides as people with burning hatreds against “men” or “women” found a man, or a woman wonderful enough to share life with.
More reflection on gender
I could probably write a few books' worth on this topic, all my gripes and gut reactions to reading my stack of books on gender studies. But, I've held back a bit, in the interest of anyone who actually reads my blog. I am currently in the middle of several books at once, a state I try to avoid, as it is nice to focus on one at a time.
Women Respond to the Men's Movement, edited by Kay Leigh Hagan
The Politics of Manhood, edited by Michael S. Kimmel
Theories of Comparative Politics, by Ronald H. Chilcote
Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, by Aldous Huxley
These, plus my own background, are the influences behind my current gripes/perspective. I have read many of the key mythopoetic men's movement books, a few years ago as well.
I am particularly concerned about the socialization of gender, having spent so many years in Boy Scouts. I've met the scoutmasters who just can't get over the idea of a female camp counselor at their boys' scout camp, and been a campsite host for several Mormon scout troops where initially neither men nor boys wanted a woman around at camp, especially in a leadership role. I've also seen what happens with these people over the course of a week at scout camp, as these campers almost always learned to accept and appreciate my presence at 'their' camp. I've taught Mormon troops how to put up a dining fly correctly after it blew down over night, when the men in charge insisted on doing things their way, summarily discounting my suggestions. I've also been invited to eat at those dining flies, as an honored guest ("no, let the boys cook. So, how did you wind up at a Boy Scouts' camp?") I've rarely met any man or boy at camp who remained unhappy about my presence at their camp through the whole week, and this was not by my adopting a passive or more "feminine" role while they were around. I taught knots, and led work projects and nature hikes, taught about ecosystems using decaying animals found in the woods, ....
I could be easily accepted at camp because my role and that of the campers had already been well defined. My gender was irrelevant to what I was teaching, and to my staff duties. This was true both when I was an area director, basically middle-management with a staff of 0-5 people, and teaching duties, and when I was in charge as a program director, with a staff of ~50. I wasn't there to flirt with boys, or to do anything outside my official role as camp staff, and I never acted otherwise. There were no rumors floating around about my exploits with the male staff, and while I did have a romance while on camp for a couple of the years I was there, it never necessitated my being perceived differently by campers. I would hardly call my manner as camp staff 'masculine', just straightforward and reasonable. I never pretended I was not a woman, for sure.
I found myself thinking about camp in particular while reading Margo Adair's essay in the first of my current books. She mentions at one point feeling safe while in the midst of lots of men, as if this is unusual and really special. Really? I will admit, I've been around men who made me uneasy, but because they were mean or creepy, not because they are men. I've crossed the street to avoid crossing paths with very drunk men at night, sure, but in my neck of the woods that is it. Men aren't scary. Some individual men are scary. I never, ever got the impression that I was unsafe at scout camp, surrounded by men, even alone with a bunch of 'em a mile or two from anyone else. I met a few men I am still sure are child molesters, among the thousands of adults who came to camp each summer, but in that environment, they might molest a boy they knew would keep quiet, but not a woman they just met. There were just too many other people there who might just lynch any man who tried to rape or assault a woman on camp.
Is camp unusual? Sure. For one thing, everyone has a set role. I've met quite a few young men who shelter in such camps, where they need never learn to relate to women on a personal, romantic level. Indeed, no one at such camps is interacting with a woman as a woman during the week. In our society this is hardly unusual, since most jobs and school settings also allow men and women to interact in contexts where gender is irrelevant. Camp makes it easier to see because it is almost all male, and very formalized. No wonder so few men know how to ask a woman out on a date, if our society stifles gendered interaction so much. Puritanism's influence, no doubt. It is after all still an insult to call someone a flirt, and still a recognized ideal for a man and woman to save their first sexual experience till marriage. Many, if not most sexual hookups among young adults are accomplished at parties between moderately drunk people, and there need never be any hint of romance in such encounters. Such a hookup is not about social gender, just about bodies- not a bad thing necessarily, but something which is bound to get stale after a while. Both men and women have a psychological component to sexuality, which requires a bit more than just a night of drunken sex.
I am sure in big cities women's lives are different, and since many feminist writers are familiar with the cities, New York, L.A., etc, the issues they are describing may be quite real even though the world they describe is not the one I've lived in for 31 years. In my generation, here, women and men are certainly both screwed up, but as people, not as distinct genders. Quite a few of the people I've met flirt with being bisexual in their young 20's, around the same time they are learning about vodka and rent. They talk about everything-sex, drugs, alcohol, music, religion- just as generations before them did at that age. The boys and girls try pairing up, whichever way the winds blow them, and start sorting out what sorts of partners they want. In this environment, women are pursuing men at least as much as men pursue women, and those women may very well just want sex. Everyone is trying to make it in the world, getting educated, finding jobs, making money, and at such a pace that there is no time really for many to bother finding more than just a hookup. Since women are less interested in following a man around, going where he needs to go for work, and men are equally uninterested in following a woman around, both are just looking for fun, until they have found where they want to settle. Presumably, if they never really settle, they'll never really want a committed partner. Meanwhile all of them act like they know they are missing something. Their lives are frenzied emptiness, jitterbugs unable to find the joy and happiness their efforts were meant to achieve.
Women Respond to the Men's Movement, edited by Kay Leigh Hagan
The Politics of Manhood, edited by Michael S. Kimmel
Theories of Comparative Politics, by Ronald H. Chilcote
Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, by Aldous Huxley
These, plus my own background, are the influences behind my current gripes/perspective. I have read many of the key mythopoetic men's movement books, a few years ago as well.
I am particularly concerned about the socialization of gender, having spent so many years in Boy Scouts. I've met the scoutmasters who just can't get over the idea of a female camp counselor at their boys' scout camp, and been a campsite host for several Mormon scout troops where initially neither men nor boys wanted a woman around at camp, especially in a leadership role. I've also seen what happens with these people over the course of a week at scout camp, as these campers almost always learned to accept and appreciate my presence at 'their' camp. I've taught Mormon troops how to put up a dining fly correctly after it blew down over night, when the men in charge insisted on doing things their way, summarily discounting my suggestions. I've also been invited to eat at those dining flies, as an honored guest ("no, let the boys cook. So, how did you wind up at a Boy Scouts' camp?") I've rarely met any man or boy at camp who remained unhappy about my presence at their camp through the whole week, and this was not by my adopting a passive or more "feminine" role while they were around. I taught knots, and led work projects and nature hikes, taught about ecosystems using decaying animals found in the woods, ....
I could be easily accepted at camp because my role and that of the campers had already been well defined. My gender was irrelevant to what I was teaching, and to my staff duties. This was true both when I was an area director, basically middle-management with a staff of 0-5 people, and teaching duties, and when I was in charge as a program director, with a staff of ~50. I wasn't there to flirt with boys, or to do anything outside my official role as camp staff, and I never acted otherwise. There were no rumors floating around about my exploits with the male staff, and while I did have a romance while on camp for a couple of the years I was there, it never necessitated my being perceived differently by campers. I would hardly call my manner as camp staff 'masculine', just straightforward and reasonable. I never pretended I was not a woman, for sure.
I found myself thinking about camp in particular while reading Margo Adair's essay in the first of my current books. She mentions at one point feeling safe while in the midst of lots of men, as if this is unusual and really special. Really? I will admit, I've been around men who made me uneasy, but because they were mean or creepy, not because they are men. I've crossed the street to avoid crossing paths with very drunk men at night, sure, but in my neck of the woods that is it. Men aren't scary. Some individual men are scary. I never, ever got the impression that I was unsafe at scout camp, surrounded by men, even alone with a bunch of 'em a mile or two from anyone else. I met a few men I am still sure are child molesters, among the thousands of adults who came to camp each summer, but in that environment, they might molest a boy they knew would keep quiet, but not a woman they just met. There were just too many other people there who might just lynch any man who tried to rape or assault a woman on camp.
Is camp unusual? Sure. For one thing, everyone has a set role. I've met quite a few young men who shelter in such camps, where they need never learn to relate to women on a personal, romantic level. Indeed, no one at such camps is interacting with a woman as a woman during the week. In our society this is hardly unusual, since most jobs and school settings also allow men and women to interact in contexts where gender is irrelevant. Camp makes it easier to see because it is almost all male, and very formalized. No wonder so few men know how to ask a woman out on a date, if our society stifles gendered interaction so much. Puritanism's influence, no doubt. It is after all still an insult to call someone a flirt, and still a recognized ideal for a man and woman to save their first sexual experience till marriage. Many, if not most sexual hookups among young adults are accomplished at parties between moderately drunk people, and there need never be any hint of romance in such encounters. Such a hookup is not about social gender, just about bodies- not a bad thing necessarily, but something which is bound to get stale after a while. Both men and women have a psychological component to sexuality, which requires a bit more than just a night of drunken sex.
I am sure in big cities women's lives are different, and since many feminist writers are familiar with the cities, New York, L.A., etc, the issues they are describing may be quite real even though the world they describe is not the one I've lived in for 31 years. In my generation, here, women and men are certainly both screwed up, but as people, not as distinct genders. Quite a few of the people I've met flirt with being bisexual in their young 20's, around the same time they are learning about vodka and rent. They talk about everything-sex, drugs, alcohol, music, religion- just as generations before them did at that age. The boys and girls try pairing up, whichever way the winds blow them, and start sorting out what sorts of partners they want. In this environment, women are pursuing men at least as much as men pursue women, and those women may very well just want sex. Everyone is trying to make it in the world, getting educated, finding jobs, making money, and at such a pace that there is no time really for many to bother finding more than just a hookup. Since women are less interested in following a man around, going where he needs to go for work, and men are equally uninterested in following a woman around, both are just looking for fun, until they have found where they want to settle. Presumably, if they never really settle, they'll never really want a committed partner. Meanwhile all of them act like they know they are missing something. Their lives are frenzied emptiness, jitterbugs unable to find the joy and happiness their efforts were meant to achieve.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Gender studies rxn Part 1
After reading critique of Bly's Iron John which pointed out all his rather racist and insensitive borrowing of bits and pieces of other cultures, the next essay in this book has me thinking along similar lines with respect to gender. Just as playing "Indian" with drums and war-paint in the woods takes isolated elements of another group's culture, out of context, and without concern for really understanding the rest of the originating culture, some of the changes in modern masculinity smack of insensitive borrowing. Real life is always more complex than any generalized essay could suggest, of course, and many real men are a lot more aware of women's perspectives now. Still, if helping with parenting, taking an interest in family, and crying in public are mens' attempts at creating a more equal society, they are only a beginning, and a mixed one at that. If a man helps to create a family, it seems only fitting that he should continue to take an interest in it; this is not going above and beyond, but simply taking a bit of responsibility for his own actions. And crying in public, as something that one just does, in response to some upsetting event, does not seem to be very sensible as a men's movement. If they are crying because it is natural for them, great, but if this is supposed to be something along the lines of 'getting in touch with the feminine side', it is as insulting to women as stolen Indian cultural aspects can be to Indian people. Modern women are hardly characterized by the fact of their walking around sobbing in public, after all.
Beneath all of this feminist and masculinist(?) crap, there is a deeper issue. Putting people into categories makes policy-making easier, and may simplify other areas of social life somewhat, but at a cost. It would indeed be silly to assert that men and women are identical, but beyond that, trying to define 'man' and 'woman' precisely is at least as difficult as defining precisely 'dog' or 'chair'. Unfortunately, our society is built on the intellectual foundations of earlier eras, and these foundations assume a central role for gender in shaping society. In addition to this foundation, Western society is still dominated by men, and by so-called "men's interests". To what extent these interests are really gender neutral, and what society would be doing instead if women were in charge remains to be fully determined. Certainly a woman as US president, however important as a milestone, would not change much in US politics, since she would still operate within the existing political framework.
Defining what is masculine and feminine is political, in that it is a group determination, which is then applied to everyone, regardless of their status relative to the general consensus. No law can change this, but it is still valid to ask why such determinations are necessary for lawmaking and policy-making. Is a parent more or less of a parent depending on how masculine or feminine she is? Certainly, any parent who is abusing her children should be subject to the law, but that is a response to an act of violence, not to a state of being.
What is concerning to me about modern masculinity, moreso than femininity, is that the masculine is still largely defined in the negative, as being what feminine is not. A man's physical strength is a partial exception to this, but a strong man is still liable to be considered feminine if he acts in ways considered too soft and feminine for a man. Women have this too, to some extent, but feminist movements exist to back up women who want to act themselves in spite of too narrow definitions. Men all too often lack these sorts of resources.
Beneath all of this feminist and masculinist(?) crap, there is a deeper issue. Putting people into categories makes policy-making easier, and may simplify other areas of social life somewhat, but at a cost. It would indeed be silly to assert that men and women are identical, but beyond that, trying to define 'man' and 'woman' precisely is at least as difficult as defining precisely 'dog' or 'chair'. Unfortunately, our society is built on the intellectual foundations of earlier eras, and these foundations assume a central role for gender in shaping society. In addition to this foundation, Western society is still dominated by men, and by so-called "men's interests". To what extent these interests are really gender neutral, and what society would be doing instead if women were in charge remains to be fully determined. Certainly a woman as US president, however important as a milestone, would not change much in US politics, since she would still operate within the existing political framework.
Defining what is masculine and feminine is political, in that it is a group determination, which is then applied to everyone, regardless of their status relative to the general consensus. No law can change this, but it is still valid to ask why such determinations are necessary for lawmaking and policy-making. Is a parent more or less of a parent depending on how masculine or feminine she is? Certainly, any parent who is abusing her children should be subject to the law, but that is a response to an act of violence, not to a state of being.
What is concerning to me about modern masculinity, moreso than femininity, is that the masculine is still largely defined in the negative, as being what feminine is not. A man's physical strength is a partial exception to this, but a strong man is still liable to be considered feminine if he acts in ways considered too soft and feminine for a man. Women have this too, to some extent, but feminist movements exist to back up women who want to act themselves in spite of too narrow definitions. Men all too often lack these sorts of resources.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Ode to the Internet
After reading a bunch of classic fiction and nonfiction, it is once again an amazing thought that one could access so much information instantly on one's laptop computer. The boys in the Altsheler novel I am currently finishing (Rock of Chickamauga)are impressed by algebra, which really was a greater educational achievement in the 1860's. In my school district it was a graduation requirement for everyone to finish algebra, and most of my friends and I tackled algebra in middle school. The boys in the novel do know woodscraft skills far beyond what I have even begun to learn, so there is some trade-off in going forward. Still, as I am reading about the campaigns in this last leg of the Civil War, I can google the names of the places where they stopped, and look at photographs and maps of those places. If I wanted to I could bring up satellite imagery and look at almost real-time views of those places from above. As an educational tool, the Internet is unparalleled, especially as an aide to other reading and study. I was unfortunately unable as of yet to find key words that would bring up more detailed studies of Civil War weather, to answer my late-night musings (Whether the nasty storm that came up around the time of the attack on Jackson was in fact a low-grade hurricane weakening as it made landfall) but even so, I found plenty on weather during that war in general. Surely someone else has tried to develop a good picture of hurricane seasons during the 1860's and could answer which of the nasty wartime storms were the remains of hurricanes. Anyway, between that and looking at the streaks of sand blowing across the Sahara, I am once again impressed with what it is possible for ordinary people to know now because of technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)