Gender and/or Sexuality Socially Constructed?

[seebs]

I did stickers that said "I'm a tentacle monster trapped in a fangirl's body", and then, below that, in smaller print, "Damn you Arnold Kegel!"

That's horrible. But hilarious too. Good job.

Thanks! We have a great deal of fun selling stickers. My other favorite disturbing one is "Some people call me hentai, but your mommy says I'm special." ("hentai" ~= "perverted")

It is depressing, but sales of stickers and other grab-bag items outrun sales of art dramatically at conventions. (I mention this 'cuz I'm at one.)

To put this back on topic: Let me add something to the list of things I've always wondered about. Gender identity. I'm pretty sure, from the descriptions I've heard, that at least some people identify very strongly with a gender, possibly one corresponding to their plumbing, possibly not. I have no idea what this would be like; it just sounds strange to me. I'm not uncomfortable with my body; it just seems so, I dunno... It feels to me like having an eye-color identity, and being really concerned with whether or not people see your eyes as the same color you think of them as.

[Adora]

Except eye-colour is objectively based. Your eyes are green. Your eyes are brown. Etc etc. It's hard to argue with someone over the specifics of it, unless your eyes are an inbetween colour.

Gender is not. Gender is something that is totally and completely socially constructed. There are societies in the world where an individuals gender is based on what work they do in the community, no matter what genitalia they possess, and in some societies there are more than 2 genders. In the sexualised Western world, however, we tend to tie gender to sexual organs, thus resulting in horrible social problems and constructed gender roles which are detremental moreso than they are positive and problems differentiating between someone's biological sex and their gender.

[Cool Hand]

Gender is not. Gender is something that is totally and completely socially constructed. There are societies in the world where an individuals gender is based on what work they do in the community, no matter what genitalia they possess, and in some societies there are more than 2 genders. In the sexualised Western world, however, we tend to tie gender to sexual organs, thus resulting in horrible social problems and constructed gender roles which are detremental moreso than they are positive and problems differentiating between someone's biological sex and their gender.

I'm interested in hearing more about your position that gender is "totally and competely socially constructed."

On what basis do you claim that sexual identity has no relationship to biology? That is a reasonable inference from your claim above. Isn't it more accurate to say that biology in general, one's own physiology, and one's genetic makeup play very substantial roles in determining one's gender? I agree that there is a cultural component to our defining genders, and that there is social pressure to comform to one of the prevailing genders. I simply cannot dismiss altogether the role nature plays, however, in favor of concluding that gender is completely a social construct. Indeed, I believe that nature plays the much greater role than culture does in defining an individual's sexual identity.

I have no doubt that there are many, many persons who do not fit neatly into one of the social norms of "male, heterosexual," or "female, heterosexual," or "male, homosexual," etc. Undoubtedly, both nature and nurture play a role in any sense of not fitting in, of being a sexual outcast.

I understand also your assertion that in some cultures there are more than two gender roles. I am thinking of some ancient cultures in which eunuchs played a substantial role, for instance. I would be interested in hearing what cultures and other gender roles you have in mind.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by your claim that in the West we do more harm than good by identifying gender by sexual organs? I have something in mind, but I would like to hear your take on it first. Also, I don't agree that on balance this is more detrimental than positive. Again, I think for the majority of us, sexual identity is determined much more by nature than nurture. Yes, there are plenty of persons who by cruel accident of nature find themselves not quite fitting in. I have no doubt that culture plays a large part in making such persons feel like outcasts and social misfits. On balance, however, I simply cannot understand why as a society we would want to chuck gender altogether in order to accommodate persons with non-traditional gender roles. Wouldn't doing away with traditional gender roles altogether be even more confusing for society?

How would the traditional straight male go about looking for or finding a suitable mate, for instance? What exactly would he be looking for? Would language have to undergo a revolution to come up with a new set of pronouns to replace "he" and "she," as we toss off those yokes to be free to be who we really are sexually? What would become of the family? Would any of us be reared by mothers and fathers, or would the concept of "father" be regarded as antiquated and obsolete? Wouldn't that do more harm to the fabric of society than the present state of gender confusion for a substantial minority presently does?

Cool Hand

[Adora]

On what basis do you claim that sexual identity has no relationship to biology?

Oh no. I do believe it has a relationship in the societies that make it have a relationship, because that's how we socially construct it. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in the first post. Socially constructed relationships are still relationships.

Isn't it more accurate to say that biology in general, one's own physiology, and one's genetic makeup play very substantial roles in determining one's gender?

Only because we allow them to in the cultures that do. Like I said, there are cultures where ones genitalia and sexuality have absolutely no or very very little effect on how ones gender is defined in the society. One of the most interesting cases I have come across is that of the Gerai in Indonesia (Kalimantan Barat province), documented by Christine Halliwell. There are others though, mostly those I have heard of are around Indonesia and Malaysia.

I understand also your assertion that in some cultures there are more than two gender roles. I am thinking of some ancient cultures in which eunuchs played a substantial role, for instance. I would be interested in hearing what cultures and other gender roles you have in mind.

Well, one of the most well-known cases I know of is that of the La Fafafine in Samoa. Many people have simply dismissed them as homosexual or transexual men, but it's more complex than that. Most Fafafine are straight men who take on roles traditionally considered more "feminine" in the household. They still have children and are regarded as biologically male, but their gender is that of the Fafafine.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by your claim that in the West we do more harm than good by identifying gender by sexual organs?

I actually meant the harm comes from the wider construction of narrow views of gender rather than just the focus on sexual organs. Sorry, I see I didn't make that clear, but the emphasis we place on sexual organs in the gender construction is, however, a large part to blame for this.

How should I put this. By putting such emphasis on physical makeup, we give that physical makeup a power. Which is one of the reasons we live in such a highly sexualised society. Also, basically, if you give something power, it will be abused. Rape is a symptom of this. In the research mentioned above about the Gerai, there is no rape in their society. None at all. They place no power in the penis as a defining tool of manhood, and so there is no point to rape, no power being exterted in the act (which is what rape is all about). If, in the West, we were to take the majority of power away from the penis as the definer of masculinity, I believe we would see the phenomenon of rape shrink as well.

We also end up reducing "gender" to two narrow views of female and male, based on idealised genitalia and biological makeup. Because of gender bias, we also, in Western society, end up in the medical world asking the question "Can this hermaphrodite child be turned into a male? If no, then it will be a female". Because of the power placed in the penis, this bias infiltrates everywhere- that the male is the Default, and that everything else is Other and lacking in comparison.

On balance, however, I simply cannot understand why as a society we would want to chuck gender altogether in order to accommodate persons with non-traditional gender roles. Wouldn't doing away with traditional gender roles altogether be even more confusing for society?

I never said we should "chuck it away altogether". I simply believe that, especially in modern society, traditional gender roles are outdated, confining, and must change to catch up with the changes that are occuring in society. A woman is no longer defined by the husband she is married to, or the children she bears, even though much of the social myth still bandied about seems to still conform to this. And they are changing, and being shaken off, and that is where so much of the panic over gay marriage and females having babies later in life happens. The power of the straight male as the ideal is threatened by this, which yes, is pathetic, which just reveals how fragile the ideal of heteronormative masculinity is.

How would the traditional straight male go about looking for or finding a suitable mate, for instance?

You're assuming the traditional straight male will remain the same whilst everything else changes. Somehow, I doubt this would be so. I mean, we're already seeing as rise in the phenomenon of "Meterosexuality" (caused by both young males catching up to females and the economics of the phenomenon) where guys realise if they don't play into the bullshit macho stereotypes and actually put some time and effort into their appearance, they have a higher chance of getting laid over their regular counterparts.

Would language have to undergo a revolution to come up with a new set of pronouns to replace "he" and "she," as we toss off those yokes to be free to be who we really are sexually?

I never said we should replace. I think we could do a bit work on expanding though.

What would become of the family?

You mean like "Won't someone think of the children!" *snickers*.

Would any of us be reared by mothers and fathers, or would the concept of "father" be regarded as antiquated and obsolete?

For a lot of people, it already is.

Wouldn't that do more harm to the fabric of society than the present state of gender confusion for a substantial minority presently does?

Okay, first of all, you're just proving my point. You're reducing "male" and "female" to biology and then deciding that since only a small minority biologically fall between the two, then the problem isn't that big. But it is, because our gender is more than just our biology, and there is a spectrum of ripple effects and affects that spread in and out from the phenomenon. I menioned the penis, and the way it is the default in medically hermaphroditic children, but how about breasts? Do you know that breasts are the second most painted, photographed and drawn organs in the history of human existence? They are only second to the human face. They are held up as such an important part of femininity, yet all they are are globes of fat, a few veins and milk ducts. There are men with boobs bigger than some women, for many reason (natural bodyshape or overweight issues etc etc) and some of them suffer because of it, because being "female" in any way is (as mentioned above) seen as being Other and lesser than being male. How about females with very small breasts, or practically non-existent? Or the bullshit phrase "Anymore than a handful is a waste", suggesting that a woman's breasts should be judged by how well they please a man?

Or how about simply women who don't ever wear skirts, don't conform to many aspects of Western feminity and don't want to? The non-female female?

Or how about males who don't fit into the idealised image of the male in society? Why do you think Geek Culture is as vibrant as it is these days?

I'm not saying we should live in a genderless society. I'm saying that the way we socially construct gender in the West into two oppositional positions, with an emphasis on the idealised male and penis as the powerful Default, is detremental to society, and way too narrow for the way modern society is changing.

[Cool Hand]

Adora,

I want to address your points in more detail later, but at the moment I'm tired and about to go to bed.

I do have a few preliminary comments and/or questions for now, however.

Please don't take this an an insult or a dismissal of your views. I feel compelled to ask you this, however. You're a student in a women's studies program, aren't you? The reason I ask is that never have I heard most of the viewpoints about gender you espouse expressed outside of academia or outside of newspaper or magazine articles discussing such views from academia. Almost never did anyone outside of academia hear much of this stuff before the era of political correctness began in about 1990. You are aware, I trust, that the political correctness movement, as such, originated on college campuses, mostly from left-leaning academicians pushing their own social agendas of multiculturalism and anti-Westernism.

Essentially, the views you express above can be regarded as anti-male and anti-Western civilization. I regard them as a post-modern backlash against what some perceive as a historical paternalistic and misogynistic society. I will try to get to those issues later, but I do want to address what I believe is one bit of propaganda you have been taught.

You stated more than once that our modern Western culture imposes a default state of maleness to hermaphrodites with ambiguous genitalia. This is precisely the opposite of the actual widespread practice of pediatricians in the U.S. over the last several decades. I understand that in the most recent ten or twenty years the practice has changed somewhat. Today, more doctors attempt to be more sensitive to the very real trauma arbitrarily assigning a gender to a baby or child can impose upon him or her. They make more diligent efforts to determine genetically what a child's sex is, and they have more sophisticated means of examining what sort of sexual organs the child has if they are covered or hidden. They pay more heed to deciding what, if any, surgical or other medical procedures can be undertaken, or whether they should be undertaken at all under the circumstances, to "normalize" any given child with abnormal genitalia. This simply wasn't recognized as a cause for concern widely by the profession before that time. It was taken for granted that all children should be given the opportunity to grow up without gender confusion, as it was accepted that such confusion would only serve to torment a child as he or she grew into adulthood and became increasingly sexual.

My father was a practicing pediatrician for more than 37 years, and I know that he always said that the much more common practice in the U.S. during most of that time was to "assign" a female gender to children born with ambiguous genitalia, as fashioning a convincing and functioning penis surgically was far more difficult than fashioning a makeshift vagina. Thus, most of the hermaphrodite children with no clearly discernible penis "became" females, not males, by default. I don't have any actual statistics to present at the moment, and I'm not sure whether or not I could locate any. I will look into it later, if I can, however.

I believe that your assertion to the contrary is in conflict with the actual facts. It seems to me as if you are repeating anti-male propaganda you are being taught in your university courses. I'm sorry if the truth is inconvenient for the agenda of those courses, but such inconvenience doesn't change the historical facts. You can check with other older pediatricians or medical journals to verify that my claim is accurate. I am reasonably certain that it is.

I'm not trying to pour cold water on your views or to get you to change them, but I don't like that at least this one issue about a supposed tendency to revere the penis seems to be premised on inaccurate facts.

Anyway, I hope we can continue this discussion later.

Cool Hand

[Adora]

You're a student in a women's studies program, aren't you?

*snorts* Hardly. I've always had an interest in gender and sexuality studies though, just as a random hobby I guess. Same as my general interest in theology and such. *shrugs* The only gender subject I've ever taken was this semester, to make up a unit requirement in a Media Studies major. Hasn't really taught me anything new, really. Oh, no, wait, there was that one bit about the genderisation of reproductive science, which was rather interesting. Apart from that... well, I'd read it all before.

You are aware, I trust, that the political correctness movement, as such, originated on college campuses, mostly from left-leaning academicians pushing their own social agendas of multiculturalism and anti-Westernism.

Er, yes. What's your point?

Essentially, the views you express above can be regarded as anti-male and anti-Western civilization.

You're confusing "anti-current-construction-of-modern-masculinity" with misandry. Two very different things. Yes, I am against a form of gender that is policed within and without through misogyny and homophobia. But then again, I guess I am nuts.

As for anti-Western, I was focusing on the social construction in Western societies because I have no read much regarding the construction in Asian, African or other societies outside of anthrolpological comparison pieces, such as the one mentioned by Christine Helliwell. If pointing out the problems with current gender constructing in Western society is "anti-Western", then you can keep telling yourself that.

I do want to address what I believe is one bit of propaganda you have been taught.

Considering I wasn't taught this propaganda, you're gonna have to try a bit harder.

This is precisely the opposite of the actual widespread practice of pediatricians in the U.S. over the last several decades.

Not the facts I know. *shrugs*

This simply wasn't recognized as a cause for concern widely by the profession before that time. It was taken for granted that all children should be given the opportunity to grow up without gender confusion, as it was accepted that such confusion would only serve to torment a child as he or she grew into adulthood and became increasingly sexual.

Except it's extremely difficult to find out how well they're doing, since research on the psychology of grown individuals who were born intersexed is minor or non-existent. Probably because everyone is terrified of finding out John Money wasn't always right. Not to mention the fact that they still serve the parent's interests of that of the child- a fact that's being decryed by many who oppose sex assignment surgery on children.

Thus, most of the hermaphrodite children with no clearly discernible penis "became" females, not males, by default.

Which was my entire point.

I believe that your assertion to the contrary is in conflict with the actual facts.

I never said I was disputing the numbers made female and the numbers made male. I was disputing the so-called "objective" reasons behind this.

It seems to me as if you are repeating anti-male propaganda you are being taught in your university courses.

Then please, guess again.

I'm sorry if the truth is inconvenient for the agenda of those courses, but such inconvenience doesn't change the historical facts.

Can you ever find hats that fit? Like I said, I was never disputing the numbers of children who were assigned male or female. I was disputing the reasons.

[dave_a]

I mean, we're already seeing as rise in the phenomenon of "Meterosexuality" (caused by both young males catching up to females and the economics of the phenomenon) where guys realise if they don't play into the bullshit macho stereotypes and actually put some time and effort into their appearance, they have a higher chance of getting laid over their regular counterparts.

Well shit, it is a damn good thing I am already married cuz if I had to put effort into my appearance in order to attract a spouse I would be single forever.

Now I will say this, although it's almost certainly tangenital to the issue, I think the practice of either gender putting much effort into thier appearance is shallow and a waste of time if one wishes to attract someone who values who they are rather than how they look.

I am not saying one should go out unkempt and expect suitable partners to fawn over them, but this business of women agonizing over what to wear, applying idiotic, primative face paint (make up), spritzing with stinky crap (perfume) and all the rest are not the kind of thing men should seek to emulate, it's the kind of thing women should be abandoning.

In other words I think men have had the right idea all along and women the wrong idea. I would hate to see both genders making a stupid, superficial choice in order to attract mates who are attracted to stupid, superficial traits rather than substance.

[Cool Hand]

Adora,

Frankly, I'm disappointed in your responses. I thought perhaps you might be interested in an actual exchange of ideas. Instead, after reading through your snickers, snorts, and shrugs, and after re-reading your post that I quoted earlier, I must conclude that you are more interested in name calling and sneering than you are in an actual discussion. Further, it appears you wish to express some resentment towards males in general and towards the roles they have usually played in human civilization.

I suspect that our continued discussion of sexuality will only devolve into talking past each other.

I will, however, respond to this one bit that I really should have addressed before, rather than the bits and pieces I did respond to.

You said this:


On what basis do you claim that sexual identity has no relationship to biology?

Oh no. I do believe it has a relationship in the societies that make it have a relationship, because that's how we socially construct it. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in the first post. Socially constructed relationships are still relationships.


It appears to me that you are discounting that biology does in fact play a role in sexuality. Forget human civilization and cultures for a moment. All species of animals and plants which reproduce have some mechanism for accomplishing that reproduction. We label that mechanism "sexuality" so that we have a frame of reference. Sexuality among species of animals and plants varies widely. Nevertheless, it concerns reproduction primarily. That individuals can engage in sexual behavior that does not or cannot lead to reproduction does not nullify the simple fact that sexuality is primarily about reproduction. That is its express purpose from a biological or evolutionary perspective.

Does it follow that sex is only about reproduction? Of course not. On the other hand, it seems that those adhering to the notion that biology has nothing to do with gender roles conveniently ignore reproduction altogether.

In your remarks above, you imply that biology has a relationship to sexual identity only in cultures that artificially relate sexual identity to biology. You state that we construct it socially. In my opinion, that's quite a bit of intellectual contorting.

There is nothing artificial about biology's relationship to sexual identity. Because sex is primarily about reproduction from an evolutionary standpoint, there must be a means of beginning the reproductive process. As far as we know, it is physically impossible to induce successful reproduction in humans without a physically mature female and a physically mature male, at least as sources for the basic materials needed in reproduction. Thus, "male" and "female" are not cultural sexual identities; in mammals they are biological ones. As such, they are entirely useful concepts. Indeed, they are critically necessary ones.

The existence of persons who do not fit within conventional models of "male" and "female" does not render sexuality itself to be non-biological. Such persons are anomalies when viewed against the general population. That doesn't mean they don't belong or have any role in society. It simply means they are abnormal. We don't disregard statistical norms and why they are norms simply because anomalous individuals exist.

Cool Hand

[Adora]

Further, it appears you wish to express some resentment towards males in general and towards the roles they have usually played in human civilization.

What the shit? Please, explain to me, oh-psychic-one, how you work that out? I know this might be a newsflash to one such as yourself, but yes, comments such as these create much snorting and snickering from my end of the line. What's that phrase... "Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups"?

In reply to your later comments, sexual identity and sexuality is something that is not just limited to reproduction, or reproductive organs, or the roles they play. Gender is not just defined by these organs either, as anyone who's done even the tiniest amount of gender studies will tell you. In fact, as there is more to gender that is socially constructed (looks, mannerisms, emotional and physical responses, inequalities and prejudices based on no objective material whatsoever) in many societies (not just the West), it is only a small amount that is linked to actual pre-programmed biological responses.

However, as I said in my original post (read, much?) in many cultures, such as in the West, we simulate that all these socially-constructed gender aspects are somehow tied to the biological aspect of it. There is a difference between sexuality, sexual identity, and gender. They are all not the one thing as you are suggesting, somehow.

The existence of persons who do not fit within conventional models of "male" and "female" does not render sexuality itself to be non-biological. Such persons are anomalies when viewed against the general population. That doesn't mean they don't belong or have any role in society. It simply means they are abnormal. We don't disregard statistical norms and why they are norms simply because anomalous individuals exist.

Once again, you're reducing it to biology, which is the entire problem. So, I'm the one not wanting to be involved in discussion? Puh-lease. I mentioned instances where traditional gender roles (OMG TEH TOPIC!!!1one) do not apply, not matter what the biological sex of that person is, and you completely ignored them. Thank you for being such a patronising hypocrite.

[Cool Hand]

What the shit? Please, explain to me, oh-psychic-one, how you work that out? I know this might be a newsflash to one such as yourself, but yes, comments such as these create much snorting and snickering from my end of the line. What's that phrase... "Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups"?


Adora,

I am not psychic, but I did accurately forecast that we would talk past each other and that further discussion would devolve into name calling. Your latest post indicates that you did not understand what I actually wrote. Rather than respond directly and substantially to what I actually said, you have merely reiterated what you already said earlier. Furthermore, you responded in a belittling tone and with insulting asides, and you did in fact continue to call me names. At the end of your post you called me a patronising hypocrite.

The tenor of your posts in this thread reminds me of Mark Twain's quip about his father. Twain wrote, "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

I'm finished with my attempt to discuss this matter with you. It simply isn't productive for either of us, and I now regret posting in this thread at all. To the extent that any of my earlier remarks here insulted you, I apologize. That was not my intent.

Cool Hand

[beyelzu]

Cool Hand,

Society at large often conflates sex with gender but anthropology doesnt. There are 5 possible sexes not two: male, female, hermaphrodite male, hermaphrodite female and true hermaphrodite. There are as many gender roles as a society allows however. Western culture, really most cultures, has traditionally only had two gender roles, male and female but this doesnt have to be the case. Other cultures sometimes have a third gender role. I would actually argue that america and europe actually have multiple gender roles now with the rise of acceptance for homosexuals being the aditional gender roles. Also, the gender roles in the us are not as well defined as they were in previous eras.

[beyelzu]

Further, it appears you wish to express some resentment towards males in general and towards the roles they have usually played in human civilization.

What the shit? Please, explain to me, oh-psychic-one, how you work that out? I know this might be a newsflash to one such as yourself, but yes, comments such as these create much snorting and snickering from my end of the line. What's that phrase... "Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups"?

In reply to your later comments, sexual identity and sexuality is something that is not just limited to reproduction, or reproductive organs, or the roles they play. Gender is not just defined by these organs either, as anyone who's done even the tiniest amount of gender studies will tell you. In fact, as there is more to gender that is socially constructed (looks, mannerisms, emotional and physical responses, inequalities and prejudices based on no objective material whatsoever) in many societies (not just the West), it is only a small amount that is linked to actual pre-programmed biological responses.

However, as I said in my original post (read, much?) in many cultures, such as in the West, we simulate that all these socially-constructed gender aspects are somehow tied to the biological aspect of it. There is a difference between sexuality, sexual identity, and gender. They are all not the one thing as you are suggesting, somehow.

The existence of persons who do not fit within conventional models of "male" and "female" does not render sexuality itself to be non-biological. Such persons are anomalies when viewed against the general population. That doesn't mean they don't belong or have any role in society. It simply means they are abnormal. We don't disregard statistical norms and why they are norms simply because anomalous individuals exist.

Once again, you're reducing it to biology, which is the entire problem. So, I'm the one not wanting to be involved in discussion? Puh-lease. I mentioned instances where traditional gender roles (OMG TEH TOPIC!!!1one) do not apply, not matter what the biological sex of that person is, and you completely ignored them. Thank you for being such a patronising hypocrite.


are you capable of disagreeing with someone and not acting like a retarded four year old?



just checking.

[Adora]

Your latest post indicates that you did not understand what I actually wrote.

No, I understand. You're saying biological sexuality dictates what gender one is. Which I completely disagree with, for stated issues and reason, which you failed to address. I don't see what's so hard to understand in your post here.

Rather than respond directly and substantially to what I actually said, you have merely reiterated what you already said earlier.

Because that's the only thing that can be said. I'm sorry, what else am I supposed to do when the other person involved in the discussion can't seem to be able to read original posts?

At the end of your post you called me a patronising hypocrite.

Which I think was justified, considering your attitude displayed. Your first reply was a patronising wank trying to save a poor little innocent university student from the perils of feminist propaganda!

Bite me. Gender studies covers both the construction of female and male (and other) genders in society. It points out the benefits, power distribution and negatives in all areas as well, and also is filled with cross-cultural anthropological studies. It is a respected field of academia, though you seem to use the word like a curse in your post.

The tenor of your posts in this thread reminds me of Mark Twain's quip about his father.

That's nice. Would you like some cheese?

and I now regret posting in this thread at all.

*rubs her fingers together* Look! It's the smallest violin in the world, playing just for you!

are you capable of disagreeing with someone and not acting like a retarded four year old?

I promise I will be when you discover the shift key, and stop using unecessary enters so many times, sweetheart.

[Cool Hand]

Cool Hand,

Society at large often conflates sex with gender but anthropology doesnt. There are 5 possible sexes not two: male, female, hermaphrodite male, hermaphrodite female and true hermaphrodite. There are as many gender roles as a society allows however. Western culture, really most cultures, has traditionally only had two gender roles, male and female but this doesnt have to be the case. Other cultures sometimes have a third gender role. I would actually argue that america and europe actually have multiple gender roles now with the rise of acceptance for homosexuals being the aditional gender roles. Also, the gender roles in the us are not as well defined as they were in previous eras.

Thanks beyelzu, I know. I'm at least somewhat familiar with the prevailing modern theories circulating about there being multiple genders. That's not what I've been trying to discuss.

If you read what I wrote, rather than what Adora thinks I wrote, I was responding to her assertion that gender is determined solely by culture. My remarks have been concerned strictly with my critique that such assertion dismisses biology altogether.

I understand what gender means. I get that "male" and "female" do not fully incorporate all the possible permutations. I get that a broad continuum of sexual preferences and tastes and curiosities exists. I get that not everyone marries and has kids. None of that has anything to do with the notion that biology plays no role.

The simple fact is that biology plays a very large role in our historical recognition of their being two sexes and traditionally two genders, other cultures notwithstanding. It continues to play a very large role today, and it will always play a large role, despite Adora's apparent contention that it is outmoded and outdated. We simply cannot get around the fact that we must reproduce in order to survive as a species. Sex, gender, and reproduction are intertwined and interdependent.

Take a look at other mammalian species. How about African lions? It's probably fair to disregard lion "culture" and to examine common behaviors from a biological perspective. I'm not aware of any lion analogue to anthropology, so I'll assume that biology, or more precisely zoology, is the proper discipline for the task. Like humans, lions are social creatures. They organize in prides dominated by matriarchs. The female adult lions do most of the hunting and scavenging for the pride. They also groom each other and rear the young. Adult male lions who join prides perform only two roles within the pride. They mate with the females in season and they act as gatekeepers to the pride. That is to say that they deter and fight wandering males trying to gain access to the pride, and they patrol and defend the perimeters of the pride's territory from threats to the pride's safety and welfare. Even the adult males in the pride usually depend on the adult females to hunt for them.

Now, isn't it fair to count those roles as gender roles? What does culture have to do with determining or assigning them?

Humans are animals too. I get that we live in a more sophisticated social structure than lions do, and that we call that social structure and its trappings "culture." I have no doubt that culture that evolves over time and that varies with geography and is ever changing affects the roles its members must play. I have not advocated in this thread that culture plays no role, or even that it plays little role, or that it isn't profoundly important.

Instead, I have merely been trying to critique Adora's apparent position that culture is the sole determinant of gender roles. I have been trying to put forth the notion that nature is very much a factor in defining and assigning gender roles. That is true whether there are two genders, five genders, or 1,000,000 genders.

Unfortunately, there was little or no exchange of ideas in the discussion. There was apparently no understanding on Adora's part that I was not advocating anything beyond that notion.

Tant pis. Thanks anyway, man.

Cool Hand

[beyelzu]

I promise I will be when you discover the shift key, and stop using unecessary enters so many times, sweetheart.





fuck








off




You mean, like this?

[beyelzu]

Cool Hand,

Society at large often conflates sex with gender but anthropology doesnt. There are 5 possible sexes not two: male, female, hermaphrodite male, hermaphrodite female and true hermaphrodite. There are as many gender roles as a society allows however. Western culture, really most cultures, has traditionally only had two gender roles, male and female but this doesnt have to be the case. Other cultures sometimes have a third gender role. I would actually argue that america and europe actually have multiple gender roles now with the rise of acceptance for homosexuals being the aditional gender roles. Also, the gender roles in the us are not as well defined as they were in previous eras.

Thanks beyelzu, I know. I'm at least somewhat familiar with the prevailing modern theories circulating about there being multiple genders. That's not what I've been trying to discuss.

If you read what I wrote, rather than what Adora thinks I wrote, I was responding to her assertion that gender is determined solely by culture. My remarks have been concerned strictly with my critique that such assertion dismisses biology altogether.

I understand what gender means. I get that "male" and "female" do not fully incorporate all the possible permutations. I get that a broad continuum of sexual preferences and tastes and curiosities exists. I get that not everyone marries and has kids. None of that has anything to do with the notion that biology plays no role.

The simple fact is that biology plays a very large role in our historical recognition of their being two sexes and traditionally two genders, other cultures notwithstanding. It continues to play a very large role today, and it will always play a large role, despite Adora's apparent contention that it is outmoded and outdated. We simply cannot get around the fact that we must reproduce in order to survive as a species. Sex, gender, and reproduction are intertwined and interdependent.

Take a look at other mammalian species. How about African lions? It's probably fair to disregard lion "culture" and to examine common behaviors from a biological perspective. I'm not aware of any lion analogue to anthropology, so I'll assume that biology, or more precisely zoology, is the proper discipline for the task. Like humans, lions are social creatures. They organize in prides dominated by matriarchs. The female adult lions do most of the hunting and scavenging for the pride. They also groom each other and rear the young. Adult male lions who join prides perform only two roles within the pride. They mate with the females in season and they act as gatekeepers to the pride. That is to say that they deter and fight wandering males trying to gain access to the pride, and they patrol and defend the perimeters of the pride's territory from threats to the pride's safety and welfare. Even the adult males in the pride usually depend on the adult females to hunt for them.

Now, isn't it fair to count those roles as gender roles? What does culture have to do with determining or assigning them?

Humans are animals too. I get that we live in a more sophisticated social structure than lions do, and that we call that social structure and its trappings "culture." I have no doubt that culture that evolves over time and that varies with geography and is ever changing affects the roles its members must play. I have not advocated in this thread that culture plays no role, or even that it plays little role, or that it isn't profoundly important.

Instead, I have merely been trying to critique Adora's apparent position that culture is the sole determinant of gender roles. I have been trying to put forth the notion that nature is very much a factor in defining and assigning gender roles. That is true whether there are two genders, five genders, or 1,000,000 genders.

Unfortunately, there was little or no exchange of ideas in the discussion. There was apparently no understanding on Adora's part that I was not advocating anything beyond that notion.

Tant pis. Thanks anyway, man.

Cool Hand


I dont have the time or the faculties for this right now, but I would like to engage in this conversation at a later point. I will start a thread on wednseday or thursday probably.

I would really like to engage in this conversation.

[Adora]

It continues to play a very large role today, and it will always play a large role, despite Adora's apparent contention that it is outmoded and outdated.

No, I said the current models were outdated and outmoded. I never said the actual reliance on biology was- simply the current versions of it.

It's probably fair to disregard lion "culture" and to examine common behaviors from a biological perspective.

Why? Just because you want to, and any evidence presented on the side of animal culture would fuck-up your argument?

Instead, I have merely been trying to critique Adora's apparent position that culture is the sole determinant of gender roles.

So you go to an example that you claim, has no culture whatsoever. You cannot, as you wish, simply "forget human cultures" because this is the issue at hand. Being masculine or feminine (the defining aspects of the genders of "male" and "female) are activities and trained responses dictated by, and continued by culture, and connected to biological factors only as much as we want them to be. We are animals insofar as we eat, shit, fuck and piss the same as the next closest mammalian cousin. We are not animals, on the other hand, because we have circumvented the old theories of "survival of the fittest" through our ability to harness tools and technology and create more complex cultural and social matrixes to sustain the passion for that harnessing. Gender is one of those matrixes.

[Cool Hand]

We are animals insofar as we eat, shit, fuck and piss the same as the next closest mammalian cousin. We are not animals, on the other hand, because we have circumvented the old theories of "survival of the fittest" through our ability to harness tools and technology and create more complex cultural and social matrixes to sustain the passion for that harnessing. Gender is one of those matrixes.

Adora,

I told you that I'm finished trying to discuss this with you in this thread, yet you continue to try to engage me. I will indulge this much. You have made it abundantly clear that you aren't interested in an exchange of ideas or in making much effort to respect that others can hold ideas which differ from yours without being idiots.

Your claim that "we are not animals" is enough for me to end my part of the discussion right there. That claim is so fundamentally at odds with my worldview that your rejection of the fact that homo sapiens is an animal species renders you incapable of engaging in any rational, reasoned debate or discussion about biology and its role in examining human behavior. It is little different in principle from claiming that the sun is not a star and then wanting to discuss astrophysics.

Finally, I have bitten my lip repeatedly in this thread in my effort to avoid engaging in intentional ad hominem attacks or insults. You have not shown the same lack of restraint or exhibited the same measure of courtesy. Indeed, I even apologized to you explicitly, but you were not gracious enough to acknowledge it. I doubt you considered that perhaps you might owe me one as well.

It is thus that I will now attempt to reveal my earlier admonishment to you as the polite, but firm rebuke I intended it to be. Your response to it indicates either that its meaning and purpose missed you altogether, or that you are behaving so impertinently that it would not have mattered even if you did get it.

I will repeat my gentle admonishment. Twain wrote, "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

From your response I infer that either you are not familiar with that Twain quote, or that you did not read it closely enough to appreciate the profound wit and insight Twain exhibits in it. To be clear, I was not implying that you are a 14-year-old boy, but the intellectual hubris you display in this thread is no less deserving of Twain's reproof of his own boyhood arrogance.

Universities are wonderful places. I attended them myself. I heartily approve of and encourage university study and debating and discussing all matters of teaching and learning that goes on in them. What a diligent student learns in university often remains with her in some form or fashion and informs the rest of her life. That, in my opinion, is a very good thing.

It is quite common to become intoxicated with the headiness of university learning, however. I submit that many students become so intoxicated with it that they sometimes regard the insights of others who do not conform to the prevailing doctrine being taught at their university as subpar, or even ignorant and unworthy of due consideration. Alas, I speak from experience.

Although I am not in fact a seer, I suspect that at some time after you have left the hallowed halls of your institution of formal learning and re-entered the everyday world that most of us inhabit, you might revisit Twain's quote and understand its import a little better. In case you still have not grasped my intent, I am trying to express to you that a little humility can go a long way towards bridging the gap between what you think you know and understand and what there is to know.

That gap is vast and wide for each of us. As A.A. Milne might say, for Some more than Others.

Cool Hand

[wade-w]

We are not animals, on the other hand, because we have circumvented the old theories of "survival of the fittest" through our ability to harness tools and technology and create more complex cultural and social matrixes to sustain the passion for that harnessing.

Your ignorance of basic science is showing again. Do you really think that we are now somehow exempt from evolution? What exactly do you mean by "old theories?" And I'd really like to know what you think "survival of the fittest" means; if you can make the above claim with a straight face, you obviously have no clue.

[seebs]

It is clear that our primate nature affects our lives; to reject this is to be a slave to it.

No, I'm not kidding. If you don't know what the primate parts of your brain are doing, you can't filter out the impulses and figure out which ones are important and which ones are stupid.

One of the stickers we sell at con says "simple monkey me". It's the explanation I give when people ask me to justify things that are simply primate nature coming through. (e.g., "Why does seebs like boobs so much?" or "Why are you humming contentedly while detangling my hair?")

[viscousmemories]

Hey Cool Hand,

I apologize for butting in, but while it's obvious that you and Adora are talking past each other I have to disagree that the reason for that failure to communicate is that she is unwilling or unable to understand what you're saying and respond to it. While I believe it wasn't your intention, in my opinion your very first response to her was extremely condescending. For example, you start by saying you don't mean to insult her or dismiss her views, but then proceed to do so at length:

Please don't take this an an insult or a dismissal of your views.

<snip>

Essentially, the views you express above can be regarded as anti-male and anti-Western civilization. I regard them as a post-modern backlash against what some perceive as a historical paternalistic and misogynistic society. I will try to get to those issues later, but I do want to address what I believe is one bit of propaganda you have been taught.

Naturally (IMHO), her response to being patronized thusly was less than warm. Full of snorts and shrugs, etc. Even so, I do think she addressed your points and made a concerted effort to continue the discussion with you. However in your posts since you seem to have focused primarily on the tone and tenor of her responses, mostly ignoring the content. I don't think Adora is always the clearest communicator, but she's not a moron. In this interaction, for example, I think you were misinterpreting her statements. Perhaps because she wasn't clear, but a misinterpetation still:

Can you elaborate on what you mean by your claim that in the West we do more harm than good by identifying gender by sexual organs?

I actually meant the harm comes from the wider construction of narrow views of gender rather than just the focus on sexual organs. Sorry, I see I didn't make that clear, but the emphasis we place on sexual organs in the gender construction is, however, a large part to blame for this.

It appears to me that you are discounting that biology does in fact play a role in sexuality.

I didn't get the impression that she was discounting the role of biology, only that she believes it isn't the only factor and shouldn't be treated as if it is. On that point I honestly don't think you two disagree, I just think you're not understanding each other.

Here too is another example of what is to me a fairly obvious misunderstanding:

We are animals insofar as we eat, shit, fuck and piss the same as the next closest mammalian cousin. We are not animals, on the other hand, because we have circumvented the old theories of "survival of the fittest" through our ability to harness tools and technology and create more complex cultural and social matrixes to sustain the passion for that harnessing.
Your claim that "we are not animals" is enough for me to end my part of the discussion right there.

Clearly she never meant to assert that humans are not animals. I believe she meant "what separates us from other animal species" but she did so sloppily. I think if you are interested in discussing this issue with her she's quite capable of it, but a more charitable interpretation of her comments and fewer assumptions about her character and the quality of her education peppering your posts would go a long way toward accomplishing that.

[Cool Hand]

Hey Cool Hand,

I apologize for butting in, but while it's obvious that you and Adora are talking past each other I have to disagree that the reason for that failure to communicate is that she is unwilling or unable to understand what you're saying and respond to it. While I believe it wasn't your intention, in my opinion your very first response to her was extremely condescending.



No need to apologize, VM. Butt in freely at any time. Hell, this side discussion with and about Adora is quite the hijack of the thread already, so I certainly don't mind. I hope Seebs doesn't.

Thanks for giving me your honest opinion. I've thought about it, re-read my first post to Adora in this thread, and concluded that I have nothing to apologize for, even though I already did. My post that you quote below is not my first response to Adora. It is my second. Here is what I said at the very beginning of my first post in this thread, directed at Adora:

I'm interested in hearing more about your position that gender is "totally and competely socially constructed."

On what basis do you claim that sexual identity has no relationship to biology? That is a reasonable inference from your claim above. Isn't it more accurate to say that biology in general, one's own physiology, and one's genetic makeup play very substantial roles in determining one's gender? I agree that there is a cultural component to our defining genders, and that there is social pressure to comform to one of the prevailing genders. I simply cannot dismiss altogether the role nature plays, however, in favor of concluding that gender is completely a social construct. Indeed, I believe that nature plays the much greater role than culture does in defining an individual's sexual identity.

In the rest of that post, I mostly posed sincere questions about Adora's position and told her I was interested in hearing more about her apparent position. I ask you honestly, do you find anything in that first post that is remotely condescending, insulting, or dismissive? Mostly I was posing questions. They weren't insulting or belittling at all. They were intended to elicit direct responses so that I could understand her position better and discuss it with her.


For example, you start by saying you don't mean to insult her or dismiss her views, but then proceed to do so at length:

Please don't take this an an insult or a dismissal of your views.

<snip>

Essentially, the views you express above can be regarded as anti-male and anti-Western civilization. I regard them as a post-modern backlash against what some perceive as a historical paternalistic and misogynistic society. I will try to get to those issues later, but I do want to address what I believe is one bit of propaganda you have been taught.


I don't see the insult or the dismissal of her views that you do. There isn't any insult to her person in that paragraph or anywhere in that post. At most, any reader would reasonably conclude that I disagree with her views, and that I believe one of her beliefs is based on a false premise. I went on to explain which belief that was, and why its apparent premise is false.

Do you find an insult or condescension simply because I used the word "propaganda?" Although it's probably not the best definition or the best source for one, My American Heritage Dictionary defines propaganda as "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause." That's dismissive?

I do in fact regard the views Adora expressed regarding "the power of the penis," her explanation of what rape is all about, and her assertion that doctors in the West try to determine first if hermaphrodite babies can be made male because of bias that says maleness is preferable to femaleness to be premised on anti-male, feminist propaganda. They come mostly from the Andrea Dworkin/Catherine MacKinnon school of feminism. I fail to understand how my opinion that one of the alleged truths that such school embraces is propaganda is insulting to Adora or dismissive of her views. Also, I fail to understand how opining that her views are post-modern backlash to paternalism and misogyny is dismissive. I implied that she formed her views in the university environment. So? Many of the older Baby Boomers picked up their anti-Vietnam war counterculture views from universities. Placing labels on them isn't necessarily dismissive. Stating an opinion as to where they came from isn't dismissive either.

As far as being condescending and insulting goes, this is in Adora's first response to me, responding merely to my questions, as I had made no substantive comments yet.

Or the bullshit phrase "Anymore than a handful is a waste", suggesting that a woman's breasts should be judged by how well they please a man?

VM, do you actually think I came into this swinging? Upon second glance, might it appear to be the other way around?


Naturally (IMHO), her response to being patronized thusly was less than warm. Full of snorts and shrugs, etc.


Well, as I mention above, I didn't insult her or patronize her at all in my first post. I think you might be getting the cause and effect mixed up here. That's certainly understandable in a long thread, especially one in which two posters make several posts directed to each other. Adora's first response to me contained the following, which I will leave to you to decide whether it might be patronizing or condescending.

Adora wrote:


Okay, first of all, you're just proving my point. You're reducing "male" and "female" to biology and then deciding that since only a small minority biologically fall between the two, then the problem isn't that big. But it is, because our gender is more than just our biology, and there is a spectrum of ripple effects and affects that spread in and out from the phenomenon. I menioned the penis, and the way it is the default in medically hermaphroditic children, but how about breasts? Do you know that breasts are the second most painted, photographed and drawn organs in the history of human existence?


I asked questions first. Adora rushed to conclusions about my views in her very first post to me.


Even so, I do think she addressed your points and made a concerted effort to continue the discussion with you. However in your posts since you seem to have focused primarily on the tone and tenor of her responses, mostly ignoring the content.


There wasn't much discussion. Adora set the tone for the discussion, and her later posts grew more insulting and belittling. I didn't invite any of that.

I focused on the tone and tenor of her responses only after she repeated herself substantively and figuratively laughed at and flipped me off several times. I didn't ignore the content. I focused my discussion on parts of it. Had I responded to everything she wrote, my posts would have been unduly lengthy. I'm not obligated to respond to everything.


I don't think Adora is always the clearest communicator, but she's not a moron.


I never said or implied that she is. The only thing I implied was that she had accepted as truth something that I believe is not. Specifically, I was referring to the business of hermaphrodites being defaulted as males by doctors, and I explained why I believed her to be incorrect. If telling someone they are mistaken and demonstrating how they are is equivalent to calling them a moron, then debate must be a much uglier business than I ever thought. I'm confident that you do not mean that they are equivalent, of course.


I didn't get the impression that she was discounting the role of biology, only that she believes it isn't the only factor and shouldn't be treated as if it is. On that point I honestly don't think you two disagree, I just think you're not understanding each other.


I think we do disagree, VM. Adora said right up front that gender is completely culturally constructed. That leaves no room for biology in the equation. She reiterated that considering biology is "the problem." That was and continues to be my main objection to that particular assertion. Reasonable persons can disagree on the degree of influence nature has versus nurture. Nature vs. nurture is one of the oldest and most common topics of debate. Holding that nature is not a factor in human behavior, however, is not reasonable.


Clearly she never meant to assert that humans are not animals. I believe she meant "what separates us from other animal species" but she did so sloppily. I think if you are interested in discussing this issue with her she's quite capable of it, but a more charitable interpretation of her comments and fewer assumptions about her character and the quality of her education peppering your posts would go a long way toward accomplishing that.

Perhaps Adora does regard humans to be animals, but that's not the impression I got from her remarks.

I have to ask who is really being charitable regarding the other's view, however, and who is making assumptions about one's character? If you care to review Adora's posts again (which I fully understand you may not if you wish to drop this), I submit that you might see insults to me or assumptions about my views in them. You might see little willingness to grant me the benefit of the doubt before laying into me. Of course, you might not.

As for the quality of Adora's education, I made no comments one way or the other. I mentioned what she was apparently being taught and asked her about it. That she might be taught propaganda in university is hardly an indictment of the quality of her education. I have little doubt that there is a lot of post-modern, politically correct social agenda being taught as unassailable fact in some of the finest schools in the world, and in some poor ones, and in nearly all of the ones in between. I harbor no delusions that I wasn't taught some professors' political and social agendas as well. That says nothing about the quality of my education as a whole.

I tried my best to refrain from insulting Adora. I don't think I've insulted her yet. I began by asking her questions. After she behaved rudely towards me, I chided her, admonished her, and then rebuked her for her behavior and for her hubris in this thread. I stand by all of it.

I tried to apologize to Adora, but she declined to accept it or even to acknowledge it. I don't get how you think she is honestly trying to engage me in a substantive discussion here and that I'm the one being belittling and narrow minded.

Although you might disagree, I simply don't see how I should feel any need to apologize at this point. If anyone owes someone an apology over this mess, it is Adora who owes me an apology. I'm not demanding one, but I am expressing my opinion that it is warranted. Instead, if Adora responds at all, it seems likely to me, based on what I have seen in this thread, that she will give me another tiny violin. So be it.

VM, please accept that I mean you no insult or offense in this post. I'm trying to respond to your comments honestly and fairly. Even if we disagree about certain things you have said above and certain things I have responded with, that doesn't mean I think you are an idiot or that I dismiss your opinions. It simply means we disagree. Fair?

Cool Hand

[viscousmemories]

Thanks for giving me your honest opinion. I've thought about it, re-read my first post to Adora in this thread, and concluded that I have nothing to apologize for, even though I already did. My post that you quote below is not my first response to Adora. It is my second. <snip>

In the rest of that post, I mostly posed sincere questions about Adora's position and told her I was interested in hearing more about her apparent position. I ask you honestly, do you find anything in that first post that is remotely condescending, insulting, or dismissive?
Ah, yes. The fact that the comments I was referring to were in your second post does make a substantial difference in my interpretation of your interaction. I apologize for making that mistake. I read the whole thread up to when I posted in one sitting, but I forgot about your actual first post. No, I don't think there was anything remotely condescending, insulting or dismissive in your first post. I think it was perfectly reasonable and respectful.

I don't see the insult or the dismissal of her views that you do. There isn't any insult to her person in that paragraph or anywhere in that post. At most, any reader would reasonably conclude that I disagree with her views, and that I believe one of her beliefs is based on a false premise. I went on to explain which belief that was, and why its apparent premise is false.

Do you find an insult or condescension simply because I used the word "propaganda?" Although it's probably not the best definition or the best source for one, My American Heritage Dictionary defines propaganda as "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause." That's dismissive?
I didn't find it insulting at all, actually. I'm sorry I was sloppy in my post and left in "insulting and dismissive", when I really only meant that your whole post seemed to dismiss her views as feminist propaganda. That's just a general statement of my thought when I read the post, though, probably not an accurate assessment of the content of your response as a whole.

I do in fact regard the views Adora expressed regarding "the power of the penis," her explanation of what rape is all about, and her assertion that doctors in the West try to determine first if hermaphrodite babies can be made male because of bias that says maleness is preferable to femaleness to be premised on anti-male, feminist propaganda. They come mostly from the Andrea Dworkin/Catherine MacKinnon school of feminism. I fail to understand how my opinion that one of the alleged truths that such school embraces is propaganda is insulting to Adora or dismissive of her views.
I'm with you on that, actually. I am not a fan of the penis as evil weapon of world domination theory either. I went through a brief phase of anti-male feminism myself, oddly enough, and reformed my views when I came to realize that having been born with a penis didn't make me an evil person. If I recall correctly, Catherine MacKinnon taught law at the University of Michigan, and I grew up in Ann Arbor. As such I'm somewhat familiar with her extremist stance, and all too familiar with Andrea Dworkin's.

Again, though, it was probably inaccurate for me to characterize your response there as "insulting and dismissive", when really I just meant dismissive. And I probably should've avoided the word dismissive altogether, because I don't mean to imply that you didn't give her views due consideration, you just didn't seem to give her much credit for any independent thought on the matter.
As far as being condescending and insulting goes, this is in Adora's first response to me, responding merely to my questions, as I had made no substantive comments yet.

Or the bullshit phrase "Anymore than a handful is a waste", suggesting that a woman's breasts should be judged by how well they please a man?

VM, do you actually think I came into this swinging? Upon second glance, might it appear to be the other way around?
Again I apologize for missing your first post and Adora's response. No, I don't think you came into this swinging at all. Then again, I don't really think Adora did either. I've come to realize she is frequently fairly brash and flippant regardless of whom she's interacting with and on what subject, so I don't take it personally. I'm certainly not going to criticize you for responding to that in whatever fashion you choose, though.

There wasn't much discussion. Adora set the tone for the discussion, and her later posts grew more insulting and belittling. I didn't invite any of that.

I focused on the tone and tenor of her responses only after she repeated herself substantively and figuratively laughed at and flipped me off several times. I didn't ignore the content. I focused my discussion on parts of it. Had I responded to everything she wrote, my posts would have been unduly lengthy. I'm not obligated to respond to everything.
Again, I can see how you might interpret her responses that way and I don't fault you for responding however you see fit.

If telling someone they are mistaken and demonstrating how they are is equivalent to calling them a moron, then debate must be a much uglier business than I ever thought. I'm confident that you do not mean that they are equivalent, of course.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you called her a moron. I just meant that since I know she isn't so stupid as to think humans aren't animals, I went with a more charitable interpretation of her statement that "humans aren't animals" and concluded that she must have meant "humans are unlike other animals in that…".

I think we do disagree, VM. Adora said right up front that gender is completely culturally constructed. That leaves no room for biology in the equation. She reiterated that considering biology is "the problem." That was and continues to be my main objection to that particular assertion. Reasonable persons can disagree on the degree of influence nature has versus nurture. Nature vs. nurture is one of the oldest and most common topics of debate. Holding that nature is not a factor in human behavior, however, is not reasonable.
Again I think you overestimate the level of precision with which she chooses her words at times. I think her first comment (that gender is completely culturally constructed) was hyperbolic, and that she eventually restated her position to say largely culturally constructed. I don't think she ever said biology is the problem, but putting it above all the other considerations is the problem. That's what I took her point to be when she said:

I actually meant the harm comes from the wider construction of narrow views of gender rather than just the focus on sexual organs. Sorry, I see I didn't make that clear, but the emphasis we place on sexual organs in the gender construction is, however, a large part to blame for this.

I have to ask who is really being charitable regarding the other's view, however, and who is making assumptions about one's character? If you care to review Adora's posts again (which I fully understand you may not if you wish to drop this), I submit that you might see insults to me or assumptions about my views in them. You might see little willingness to grant me the benefit of the doubt before laying into me. Of course, you might not.
Again I apologize if I gave the impression that you were entirely to blame for your difficulty in communicating with Adora. I only addressed you because I thought you might not realize just how patronizing some of your comments were coming across. In retrospect I think the degree of condescension increased proportional to the negative response you felt you were getting from her, so again I don't fault you for reacting however you see fit.

As for the quality of Adora's education, I made no comments one way or the other. I mentioned what she was apparently being taught and asked her about it. That she might be taught propaganda in university is hardly an indictment of the quality of her education. I have little doubt that there is a lot of post-modern, politically correct social agenda being taught as unassailable fact in some of the finest schools in the world, and in some poor ones, and in nearly all of the ones in between. I harbor no delusions that I wasn't taught some professors' political and social agendas as well. That says nothing about the quality of my education as a whole.
Perhaps it's a reasonable assumption on your part in this day and age, but as a mostly self-taught person I consider the default assumption that her education on this subject came as the result of being school-taught at all (as opposed to being something she researched extensively on her own) an opinion on the quality of her education.

I tried my best to refrain from insulting Adora. I don't think I've insulted her yet. I began by asking her questions. After she behaved rudely towards me, I chided her, admonished her, and then rebuked her for her behavior and for her hubris in this thread. I stand by all of it.
I have no doubt about any of that.

I tried to apologize to Adora, but she declined to accept it or even to acknowledge it. I don't get how you think she is honestly trying to engage me in a substantive discussion here and that I'm the one being belittling and narrow minded.
I really don't think it was one-sided at all. I just thought you might be missing the forest for the trees by focusing on her attitude instead of the substance of her posts. At this point I'm perfectly willing to accept that I'm giving the benefit of doubt where there is none. I honestly don't know.

Although you might disagree, I simply don't see how I should feel any need to apologize at this point. If anyone owes someone an apology over this mess, it is Adora who owes me an apology. I'm not demanding one, but I am expressing my opinion that it is warranted. Instead, if Adora responds at all, it seems likely to me, based on what I have seen in this thread, that she will give me another tiny violin. So be it.
I definitely never meant to imply, nor did I suggest, that you owe Adora an apology.

VM, please accept that I mean you no insult or offense in this post. I'm trying to respond to your comments honestly and fairly. Even if we disagree about certain things you have said above and certain things I have responded with, that doesn't mean I think you are an idiot or that I dismiss your opinions. It simply means we disagree. Fair?
I genuinely appreciate your response, Cool Hand. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I think you have acted inappropriately in this thread. I don't. I just thought another perspective might help prevent a flamewar and encourage what I think could be an interesting discussion. In retrospect I realize I did so poorly.

Thanks for the assurance that you don't think I'm an idiot, though. :D

[Adora]

They come mostly from the Andrea Dworkin/Catherine MacKinnon school of feminism.

Actually, they don't. The Christine Helliwell text I mentioned criticises such schools, for the simple fact they say such power is inherent, not socially constructed. These, and other schools of gender studies I strongly agree with, tend to be more comparable to Foucault, than any insane anti-porn campaigners from the US. But ohnos, he is teh post-modern, so he's already been dismissed. Woe.

[Cool Hand]

VM,

Thanks for responding so kindly and thoroughly. I appreciate the thoughtfulness that you put into responding. You don't owe me any apologies, but I appreciate your offers nonetheless.

You said this:

If I recall correctly, Catherine MacKinnon taught law at the University of Michigan, and I grew up in Ann Arbor. As such I'm somewhat familiar with her extremist stance, and all too familiar with Andrea Dworkin's. Again, though, it was probably inaccurate for me to characterize your response there as "insulting and dismissive", when really I just meant dismissive. And I probably should've avoided the word dismissive altogether, because I don't mean to imply that you didn't give her views due consideration, you just didn't seem to give her much credit for any independent thought on the matter.


(emphasis in bold added)

You are probably right. I probably didn't give Adora much credit for independent thought on the matter.

Actually, I have to admit that I give few persons much credit for independent thought about the whole "penis as evil" and "testosterone poisoning" business. What follows is my opinion, so please take it with a grain of salt.

The reason I don't is that those viewpoints are almost surely gotten by indoctrination rather than independent thought. They are so out there, so far afield from any previously held beliefs, and so unreasonable in my opinion that few persons could or would come up with them independently. Except for some twisted persons who originated them (such as Dworkin and MacKinnon), most others holding such unreasonable (IMO) beliefs must have gotten them by being indoctrinated in a set of beliefs and values in an environment where those beliefs and values were normalized. In the case of the evil penis school of thought, it is likely that most persons who become indoctrinated in it do so at universities, or by having peer groups who got it in university, or by studying materials published by universities or their scholar-writers. As I said earlier, those views originated in the halls of universities.

(Yes, I called it academia. I don't mean that term to be derisive, as Adora seemed to take it. I mean that it is often set apart from the larger world most of the rest of us live and work in. That's why we often hear critics of scholarly theory that isn't based on much real world empirical data refer to proponents of such theories as living or working in an "ivory tower.")

It's about indoctrination and normalization, not about intelligence.

I submit that holding such beliefs gotten through indoctrination, if that is in fact how they are gotten, is little different in principle from holding deep religious beliefs, despite the unreasonableness of so many of them. Most persons reared in Christian households will become and remain Christians. Certainly not all do. I suspect that most of us on this board are not Christians, for instance, despite probably many or most of us having been reared in predominantly Christian households.

Now perhaps that sounds dismissive of independent thought. It's not. It's explanatory. Indoctrination is one explanation for why people believe weird things, as Michael Shermer puts it. Another way of stating this is that I believe perfectly intelligent, otherwise rational persons can believe things which are unreasonable, sometimes because they have been indoctrinated so as to believe them. There are other explanations, but indoctrination is one of them.

All of us have some unreasonable beliefs. I expect persons to call me on mine, just as I eventually tried to call Adora on what I believe, in my opinion, to be one of hers once she expressed it. Obviously, I didn't get very far, and I didn't ever explain why I disagreed until now.

I also give some weight to Adora's age. Young college students, although usually sufficiently mature to think sharply, deeply, and creatively, often lack a degree of judgment and wisdom that usually requires more life experience to acquire. Also, there is plenty of emerging evidence in neuroscience which suggests that the brains of most late teens and early 20-somethings are still developing with regard to judgment and impulse control. This is not true of all college-aged persons, of course, but if true, it would possibly help explain a lot about why foolish behaviors like excessive drinking, smoking, and engaging in promiscuous sex are common behaviors among this age cohort, and found with less frequency in other age cohorts.

In deference to her intelligence and age, I suspect, without being condescending, that it is likely with more life experience under her belt, say in 10 to 20 years, or possibly much sooner, Adora might temper her current views about the penis and its alleged power, and the strong cultural biases allegedly supporting it in Western culture that she sees now.

That is precisely why I told her that her hubris reminded me of Mark Twain's quip. By and large, young adults about Adora's age or younger commonly overestimate their own grasp of the world. Hell, most of us do, but many of us eventually learn that not all persons of earlier generations are as clueless as we tend to think.

On the other hand, maybe Adora will emerge as a leading proponent of a school of thought which embraces disempowering the penis and emasculating those who were born with them. Maybe she will lead such a movement throughout her life.

In case she reads any of this, I hope she realizes that misogyny on my part does not follow from my rejection of misandry or attempts to make men feel ashamed or guilty for having penises, or for being natural creatures with healthy sexual urges, or for engaging in natural male competition like competing for mates or for participating in competitive sports. Most men who engage in such activities are not rapists and do not secretly harbor a desire to subjugate women. I don't hate or denigrate women in general, nor do I place them on a pedestal. I prefer my friendships with women to be as peers, and for my romantic relationships with them to be as equal partners and trusted friends.

I hope this provocative post, which is now a serious derailment of the thread, does not incite a flame war. I'm not trying to tweak anyone's nose or to piss in anyone's cornflakes. I'm just one guy with opinions, right, wrong, and all places in between.

Cool Hand

[wade-w]

We are not animals, on the other hand, because we have circumvented the old theories of "survival of the fittest" through our ability to harness tools and technology and create more complex cultural and social matrixes to sustain the passion for that harnessing.

Your ignorance of basic science is showing again. Do you really think that we are now somehow exempt from evolution? What exactly do you mean by "old theories?" And I'd really like to know what you think "survival of the fittest" means; if you can make the above claim with a straight face, you obviously have no clue.

Well, Adora? Are you going to explain this?

[Adora]

This conversation is over. No need for thread-splitting, because I'm going to end my contribution here. I shall post no-more in this thread after this post.

Cool Hand, your last post is just a continuation of the disgusting tone you've taken with this entire discussion, and the belittling and devaluing position you have created with your high-and-mighty attitude. I do not take lightly to being assumed to be an idiot, simply because I express ideas you fail to be able to grapple with, nor do I enjoy having excuses made for expressing such ideas such as my age or the fact I am a student. I do not take lightly to being assumed to be some poor pathetic university student under the evil grip of academia*, especially considering I've made it clear in posts that I was investigating gender studies outside of university. In fact, I started when I was in grade 10, and looking for some answers to my horrid teenage years. I never found the answers I was looking for in science, funnily enough, since proven through your posts, science tends to ignore culture and the power of it, which as any teenager will tell you, is one of the greatest influences in their lives, both consciously and unconsciously.

You make disclaimers in your posts that you don't want to come across as "condescending" or "patronising". Frankly, those words were as empty and pathetic as the age-old phrase "I'm not a racist, but...". The entire attitude you took to discussion with me was condescending, patronising and the fact you brought up my age in the last post just cements this in my mind. Your claims that you wanted to have some nice, respectful discussion were hollow from the beginning, and frankly, I'm glad I realised this straight off the bat and saved myself the trouble of pretending you really wanted a decent discussion.

As a last note, I finally see now where your crazy ideas about mis-anything come from. Unfortunately, they simply display your ignorance about what I was discussing. Perhaps if you actually went out and acquainted yourself with that 'academia' which you're claiming to reject, you wouldn't sound like such an idiot.

Fuck you, and goodnight.

* The terrifying correlation between this discussion and my current reality is that I'm reading Mark Davis's Gangland. Thank you Cool Hand, for perfectly illustrating the examples he gives in that book. It's always nice to witness academic theories played out first-hand in your life. :)

[wade-w]

Cool Hand, your last post is just a continuation of the disgusting tone you've taken with this entire discussion, and the belittling and devaluing position you have created with your high-and-mighty attitude.

I suggest you look in a mirror sometime. A 'disgusting tone" and "belittling and devaluing position" characterizes a large portion of the posts you have made throughout this board, not just this thread. In short, the above describes your own high-and-mighty attitude perfectly. It's hypocritical in the extreme for you to cry foul when someone else does the same to you.

Oh, and as far as I can see, given the general tenor of your posts in this discussion, Cool hand was far more restrained than you have any right to expect.

[Socratoad]

Toad the peacekeeper :toad: hops in and looks around oh so sadly :( . Mehaps he thinks there may be a low pressure front approaching, or is it because the election is nigh. :worry: :worry: :worry:

[Cool Hand]

One certainly doesn't have to be an idiot to be vulnerable to indoctrination. Everyone who isn't a lifelong hermit has been indoctrinated in something.

Age does often have something to do with judgment. If not, then what do we mean by "maturity?" Is a 30-year-old Jane Smith likely to be more mature than the same Jane Smith at age 20? When we say she is more mature, don't we mean in this context that her judgment has improved?

I submit that one's judgment is involved when one accepts or rejects theories about sociology or anthropology, or any other kind of theory or belief.

What does intelligence have to do with maturity or judgment? By all acounts, former President Clinton is brilliant, but his sexual escapades with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office demonstrated poor judgment on his part.

Isn't it possible for intelligent persons to accept or embrace untenable sociological or anthropological theories, or any kind of untenable theories?

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

I beg everyone's pardon, but I'm going to lock this thread briefly so I can split off the gender discussion without fear of crossposting. Please stand by.

And done. This thread was split from here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=766).

[Cool Hand]

Sorry for the derailment, Liv.

Heh. Sorry for continuing the trainwreck too. I perpetuated it as much as anyone by continuing to post. I should have just shut the fuck up.

Cool Hand

[Bella]

Heh. Sorry for continuing the trainwreck too. I perpetuated it as much as anyone by continuing to post. I should have just shut the fuck up.

No, please keep contributing! I for one find your posts very interesting and thought-provoking.

[Cool Hand]

Heh. Sorry for continuing the trainwreck too. I perpetuated it as much as anyone by continuing to post. I should have just shut the fuck up.

No, please keep contributing! I for one find your posts very interesting and thought-provoking.

Thanks, Bree. That's very nice of you to say.

I was under the impression that people were sick of the sniping in this thread and that they thought it deserved to die. If you or anyone else wishes to continue it, please feel free to add anything at all.

If you want to discuss any of the things I've written in it, please feel free to comment and/or ask about them. I'll try to respond if you want me to.

Cool Hand

[seebs]

It's a very interesting topic. Being sick of the sniping is an indicator that we like the topic; otherwise, we'd just be enjoying the delightful excuse to take pot shots at one another. :)

[Cool Hand]

It's a very interesting topic. Being sick of the sniping is an indicator that we like the topic; otherwise, we'd just be enjoying the delightful excuse to take pot shots at one another. :)

Oh, fuck off, prick.

:D

(gratuitous pot shot)

Cool Hand