Genderization
>>> Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/16/00 04:51PM >>> Jim Devine wrote: >One important part of this discussion is the distinction between >"gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see >"sex" in biological terms You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But she has a point. _ CB: Yes, whatever happened to reading Butler ? I'm willing to do a list Zizek reading, but I was reading Butler , and puff , the group dropped it.
Genderization
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/16/00 05:42PM >>> More importantly, I really don't like the kind of argument in which someone says "But Authority X says you're wrong," where here X is Butler. I think that the old bumper-sticker slogan "Question Authority" was quite valid -clip- __ CB: Beyond "Question Authority" is "Take Authority". From Critical to Practical-Critical. Then comes the revolution, when people like Jim D. _take_ authority. ( I know you are modest). And then continue to question yourself after you take it. Revolution ain't easy. CB
Genderization
>>> Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/16/00 06:45PM >>> Jim Devine wrote: >I don't know anything about Butler, so I can't comment on her views. >If she's indeed one of the "language is the only reality" types, >then forget her. Doug, aren't all of the statistics you wield so >well in LBO "discursively constructed"? Does that mean that they >should be flushed down the toilet? Why do people think that calling something "discursively constructed" means it's trivial? GDP is a discursive construction - it has no existence apart from the system of monetary representation that it emerged from. It doesn't feed people or make them happy, but important folks pay lots of attention to it and it guides their actions. ))) CB: Wasn't GDP socio-politically constructed in order to hoodwink the people ? Even if you don't take the whole Butler dose, I think it's always important to ask what is happening ideologically when biology - or "nature" - is invoked. __ CB: Ideologically what is happening is an aspect of a materialist analysis. The distinction between materialism and idealism is important in ideology> When people start talking about hormones, there's some invocation of physical necessity against whose judgment there's no appeal. _ CB: This should be "when some people start talking about hormones". Talking about hormones does not at all necessarily imply invocation of physical necessity against whose judgment there is no appeal. It can be discussion of a tendency which exists amidst other tendencies and influences, including cultural influences. Attributing absolute biologism to ANY reference to biology is not too difficult to see around. People are cultural and natural beings, both. Distain of our biology is as foolish as disdain of our culture. We have not transcended our biological natures utterly. So, discussion of hormones, and the biology of hormones is sensible, though it doesn't mean culture cannot also be discussed. It doesn't at all mean we must discuss hormones as if they are a physical necessity against whose judgment there is no appeal, rather as an factor intertwined with cultural factors. ___ Or in the dismal science, "natural" rates of interest or unemployment. As Keynes said of the "natural" rate of interest, it's the one that is most likely to preserve the status quo; I think you'll find the same when "natural" differences between the sexes (not genders) are invoked. ___ CB: Isn't it clear that biology impinges more directly on sex than on the rate of unemployment or interest ? Does the difference really have to be explained ? Do you really think there are no natural differences between the sexes ? Do you really think there is no natural such that you write "natural" in quotes ? CB
Genderization
Doug Henwood wrote: > > Even if you don't take the whole Butler dose, I think it's always > important to ask what is happening ideologically when biology - or > "nature" - is invoked. Yes. >When people start talking about hormones, > there's some invocation of physical necessity against whose judgment > there's no appeal. Well, it is necessary that the male penetrate the female or the species will fail to reproduce itself. This is a physical necessity given that humans reproduce sexually -with all its evolutionary benefits e.g. against disease-- rather than asexually. It is possible now for the species to reproduce through artificial insemination and even it were desirable I don't see it making much of a difference in the socialization/genderization process. As for 'gender' there are enormous cross-cultural differences in how children are reared and the sexual division of labor they are placed in. There are (were?) matrilineal(sp) societies, all suggesting that most if not all differences in gender are socially constructed. Of course sociobiologists try to explain (away)these cross cultural differences (as well as everything else) through adaptationism but the sob's aren't convincing. I still don't understand the hostility towards essentialism. Essentialism is just the idea that an object has a property that it cannot do without and still be the same object. You might say that an essential property of a car is that it have wheels; if doesn't have wheels then it is something else. Anti-essentialism comes from Wittgenstein who argued (his example was 'games') that no class of objects or concepts have a common property essential to each. Here's how sociobiologists talk: "The human mating system is not like any other's. BUt that does not mean it escapes the laws governing mating systems, which have been documented in hundreds of species. Any gene predisposing a male to be cuckolded or a female to receive less paternal help than her neighbors, would quickly be tossed from the gene pool. Any gene that allowed a male to impregnate all the females, or a female to bear the most indulged offspring of the best male, would quickly take over. These selection pressures are not small. For human sexuality to be "socially constructed" and independent of biology, as the popular academic view has it, not only must have miraculously escaped these powerful pressures of a different kind. If a person played out a socially constructed role, other people could shape the role to prosper at his or her expense. Powerful men could brainwash the others to enjoy being celibate or cuckolded, leaving the women for them. Any willingness to accept socially constructed gender roles would be selected out and genes for resisting the roles would take over." Steven Pinker *How the Mind Works* p467. Sam P
genderization
Saturday May 13 1:02 AM ET Study Questions 'Sex Reassignment' By SETH HETTENA, Associated Press Writer BALTIMORE (AP) - The practice of surgically ``reassigning'' boys born without penises is being called into question by a new study that suggests gender identity is determined in the womb. Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Hospital on Friday said the study found that such boys, raised as girls, had masculine behavior and most declared themselves to be boys. In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, researchers tracked the development of 27 children born without a penis, a rare defect known as a cloacal exstrophy. The infants were otherwise male with normal testicles, male genes and hormones. Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to be boys, in one case as early as age 5, said Dr. William G. Reiner, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and urologist at the Hopkins Children's Center. ``These studies indicate that with time and age, children may well know what their gender is, regardless of any and all information and child-rearing to the contrary,'' he said. ``They seem to be quite capable of telling us who they are.'' The two children who were not reassigned and were raised as boys fit in well with their normal male peers and were better adjusted psychologically than the reassigned children, Reiner said. He called for a thorough review of the practice of sex reassignment of children. The study was presented Friday at the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society Meeting in Boston. The results contradicted a Canadian study published in the journal Pediatrics in 1998 that suggested gender identity develops after birth. In that study, researchers found that a boy who was raised as a girl after his penis was mutilated during circumcision continued to live as a woman. ``This has very profound implications for the development of gender identity,'' said Michael Bailey, an associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University who studies gender identity and sexual orientation. ``This suggests that hormones' effect on the brain has a major impact on gender identity.'' Dr. Marianne J. Legato, a Columbia University professor of clinical medicine who studies the differences between men and women, said sexual differentiation occurs in the first trimester of pregnancy. ``When the brain has been masculinized by exposure to testosterone, it is kind of useless to say to this individual, 'You're a girl,''' she said. ``It is this impact of testosterone that gives males the feelings that they are men.' -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: genderization
Rod cites > >BALTIMORE (AP) - The practice of surgically ``reassigning'' boys born > >without penises is > >being called into question by a new study that suggests gender identity > >is determined in the > >womb. > > >Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Hospital on Friday said the study > >found that such boys, > >raised as girls, had masculine behavior and most declared themselves to > >be boys. > Mine responds, > actually, this is falsified by other studies. Few will deny the role socialization plays in many aspects of our lives, but tell us what studies have come forward challenging the specific point made above, that surgically removing the penis and raising the boy as a girl will NOT alter the fact that the boy still feels like a boy. Mine goes one, without citing any sources: Many studies prove that > there is no necessary relationship between your biological identity and > gender identity. If you are born with a penis, you may develop a different > identity through time, so you don't need to be born without a penis to > see how you develop a masculine identity. This is a play on the words "necessary" and "different identity". Obviously what we understand by "masculine" identity has changed over time, particularly in the last few decades due, in part, to the enormous achievements of the feminist movement. But the issue here is whether males and females can be 1) distinguished in terms of their sex characteristics and 2) whether such characteristics have an effect on their behavior.
RE: Genderization
RE >Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. >But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to be boys... Genderization is a subtle process. The weakness of the study cited a few days ago is that is was not a "double-blind" study. That is, the parents knew their children were sex reassigned and so did the doctors. Knowing this, the parents possibly treated these "ex-boys" as if they were boys in very subtle-and not so subtle-ways. The study was just as much a test that parents have beliefs about gender being built into the genes (and treat boys - sex reassigned or not - as boys) then it was about what was really in the genes. I was astounded that when my daughter was born about two years ago, that within minutes after she was born a genderization process was being applied to her. The attending nurse almost instantly noted that we should have great fun dressing Emily up in nice clothes and noted how dainty she was. Afterwards, when I persisted in dressing Emily in gender neutral-clothes, strangers who interacted with Emily became very uncomfortable until they found out what sex she was. I was, meanly perhaps, very vague in my response, saying something like, "I love taking my baby out." These strangers often refused to interact further with Emily until they found out her sex. Once learning her sex, they then returned to interacting with her - "she's so beautiful," etc because they then knew what script (for boy or for girl) to use in interacting with her. My two cents. Eric Nilsson Economics California State University, San Bernardino San Bernardino, CA 91711 [EMAIL PROTECTED] winmail.dat
RE: Genderization
Would we conclude that hormones have no impact on behavior ? CB >>> "Eric Nilsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/16/00 12:52PM >>> RE >Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. >But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to be boys... Genderization is a subtle process. The weakness of the study cited a few days ago is that is was not a "double-blind" study. That is, the parents knew their children were sex reassigned and so did the doctors. Knowing this, the parents possibly treated these "ex-boys" as if they were boys in very subtle-and not so subtle-ways. The study was just as much a test that parents have beliefs about gender being built into the genes (and treat boys - sex reassigned or not - as boys) then it was about what was really in the genes. I was astounded that when my daughter was born about two years ago, that within minutes after she was born a genderization process was being applied to her. The attending nurse almost instantly noted that we should have great fun dressing Emily up in nice clothes and noted how dainty she was. Afterwards, when I persisted in dressing Emily in gender neutral-clothes, strangers who interacted with Emily became very uncomfortable until they found out what sex she was. I was, meanly perhaps, very vague in my response, saying something like, "I love taking my baby out." These strangers often refused to interact further with Emily until they found out her sex. Once learning her sex, they then returned to interacting with her - "she's so beautiful," etc because they then knew what script (for boy or for girl) to use in interacting with her. My two cents.
Re: Genderization
RE > Would we conclude that hormones have no impact on behavior ? I don't know. Very possibly hormones might have some impact on behavior. But the issue is: what percent of behavior is explained by hormones? My opinion, worth the electronic paper I write on, is about 2 percent. The other 98 percent is explained by social forces. In addition, while it might be claimed that certain hormones might make some group of individuals, say, "feel aggressive," how this aggression is manifested (which particular aggressive behavior is displayed or whether aggressive feelings even lead to aggressive behavior) is mostly likely determined by socialization. Eric Eric Nilsson Economics California State University, San Bernardino San Bernardino, CA 91711 [EMAIL PROTECTED] winmail.dat
Genderization (fwd)
>Jim, from what I see, Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is >difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because >she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge >Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big >problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems >from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit >Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the >problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers >"biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality >problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with >(men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she >effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also >naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into >feminine practices. > >We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should >be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the >biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering >equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's >biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist >discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new >intimacy!! > > >Mine Much more of this and I'll start thinking about all of modern sociobiology's good points... Brad DeLong
Re: Genderization
On 16 May 00, at 17:30, Ted Winslow wrote: > How about including as categories to be used in understanding these aspects > of ourselves the categories of self-determination and of a capacity for full > self-determination of thought, desire and action as the "idea" of humanity? Marx seems a lot closer to the social constructivism that dominates much of undergraduate sociology today than Hegel. The Kantian/Hegelian concept of self-determination was transformed in his hands into a practical-laboring actitivity. He also thought that humans are constructed by a determinate set of social relations, and that humans can be re-constructed, which was taken to mean by many followers that those who know what is good for everyone else have the right to reconstruct the deceived "masses". Che called this reconstructed self the "new man". But if Hegel was right, modern humans will never tolerate any such constructions except under terms which they have set for themselves (in a democratic setting).
Re: Genderization
Charles Brown wrote: >CB: Wasn't GDP socio-politically constructed in order to hoodwink the people ? You channeling Chang? No it wasn't constructed to hoodwink the people. It was constructed to get a picture of the macroeconomy. Planning for WW II accelerated the process in the U.S., but national income accounting in general has a long history that has little to do with hoodwinking the people. Doug
Re: Genderization
On 17 May 00, at 14:05, Ted Winslow wrote: > Marx has appropriated idea of "practical-laboring activity" as > self-determination from Kant and Hegel. in the process transforming its meaning and, as Habermas would say, reducing it to "techne", and though there is a critical reflective aspect to Marx, it is still strictly in terms of class consciousness. Kant: > "By right we ought only to describe as art, production through freedom, i.e. > through a will that places reason at the basis of its actions. For although > we like to call the product of bees (regularly built cells of wax) a work of > art, this is only by way of analogy; as soon as we feel that this work of > theirs is based on no proper rational deliberation, we say that it is a > product of nature (of instinct). > "If, as sometimes happens, in searching through a bog we come upon a bit > of shaped wood, we do not say, this is a product of nature, but of art. Its > producing cause has conceived a purpose to which the plank owes its form. > Elsewhere too we should see art in everything which is made, so that a > representative of it in its cause must have preceded its actual existence > (as even in the case of bees), though without the effect of it even being > capable of being thought. But if we call anything absolutely a work of art, > in order to distinguish it from a natural effect, we always understand by > that a work of man." Kant, Critique of Judgement (Bernard translation), > p.145-6 This is one cognitive faculty among two others; Marx goes too far in his reduction of Kant's practical (ethical) judgement to bourgeois consciousness; it is true that this is a form of judgement *that has developed* and is not the self-expression of an abstract ego, but I think it is important that we understand that the French revolutionaries were actually realizing this rational moral agent. Hegel: > "Man is not only immediate and single, like all other natural things; as > mind, he also reduplicates himself, existing for himself because he thinks > himself. He does this, in the first place, theoretically, by bringing > himself into his own consciousness, so as to form an idea of himself. But > he also realizes himself for himself through practical activity. This he > does by reshaping external things, by setting the seal of his inner being > upon them, thereby endowing them with his own characteristics. Man's > spiritual freedom consists in this reduplicating process of human > consciousness, whereby all that exists is made explicit within him and all > that is in him is realized without. Here not only artistic making but all > human behaving and explaining whether in the forms of political and moral > action, religious imaginative awareness, or scientific knowledge--has its > ground and necessary origin." (Hegel, Aesthetics, pp. 3-4) Hegel thought that Kant's three forms of judgement could be reconstituted under Reason...runnning out of time, see below for a bit more. > In the third thesis on Feuerbach, Marx explicitly rejects the "materialism" > which excludes any role for self-determination and which implicitly > underpins the idea that "good" people can be "constructed" through > coercive imposition. That's just one sentence about which too much fuss has been made due to a religious reading of Marx. But I think Lenin was right that the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is already there in Marx: you have to be naive politically to think that the radical policies which Marx is calling for - as in the Manifesto - can be accomplished without coercion. The concept of self-determination in Faust has to be sublated, and it in fact was sublated later in European thinking, as Hegel showed in the Phen. > > The nature of "autonomy" is such that individuals can only attain it through > their own efforts. This is, by the way, also the ultimate insight to which > Goethe's Faust is brought by his own process of "bildung". > > I work that millions may possess this space, > If not secure, a free and active race. > Here man and beast, in green and fertile fields, > Will know the joys that new-won region yields, > Will settle on the firm slopes of a hill > Raised by a bold and zealous people's skill. > A paradise our closed-in land provides, > Though to its margin rage the blustering tides; > When they eat through, in fierce devouring flood, > All swiftly join to make the damage good. > Ay, in this thought I pledge my faith unswerving, > Here wisdom speaks its final word and true, > None is of freedom or of life deserving > unless he daily conquers it anew. > With dangers thus begirt, defying fears, > Childhood, youth, age shall strive through strenuous > years > Such busy, teeming throngs I long to see, > Standing on freedom's soil, a people free. > Then to the moment could I say: > Linger you now, you are so fair! > N
Re: Genderization
>>> Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/17/00 03:43PM >>> Charles Brown wrote: >CB: Wasn't GDP socio-politically constructed in order to hoodwink the people ? You channeling Chang? No it wasn't constructed to hoodwink the people. It was constructed to get a picture of the macroeconomy. ___ CB: The economists who wanted to get a picture of the macroeconomy wanted the picture to help the overwhelming majority of the people or to help the small minority make profits ? I don't trust those economists' motives in getting this overall picture of the economy. _ Planning for WW II accelerated the process in the U.S., but national income accounting in general has a long history that has little to do with hoodwinking the people. __
Re: Genderization
Title: Re: [PEN-L:19164] Genderization Greetings Economists, Sam Pawlett observes, Sam, I still don't understand the hostility towards essentialism. Essentialism is just the idea that an object has a property that it cannot do without and still be the same object. You might say that an essential property of a car is that it have wheels; if doesn't have wheels then it is something else. Anti-essentialism comes from Wittgenstein who argued (his example was 'games') that no class of objects or concepts have a common property essential to each. Doyle One point against essentialism that makes some sense to me, is that it does not reflect how we really think. Wittgenstein used games to explore what not work within the concept of essentials, but what is interesting is the movement Wittgenstein was making away from logical positivism. In other words Wittgenstein found logic wanting in giving insight into how the mind works. I also think it interesting that Sam uses an emotion about questioning essentialism. How does one account for emotion in a rationalistic debate about the physical nature of thinking, or essences? Of course it is my view that emotion is part of the process of thinking, but oddly, Sam uses hostility as the chief descriptive of why some might not hold or believe, or credit, or posit essentials as really central to meaning of thinking. Here is some brief quotes from "Social Cognition, Making Sense of People", Ziva Kunda, Bradford Book, Mit Press 2000, page 28, "Wittgenstein, who launched the initial attack on the classical view also laid down the foundations for the probabilistic view that psychologiest turned to nest (Wittgenstein1953). According to the probabilistic view, a category can be described by a list of features that are typical of it, yet do not define it" page 47, "Associative Network Models, These models view mental representations as networks of nodes that are connected to each other by way of links" page 49, "Parallel-Constraint-Satisfaction Models These Models, which are often referred to as connectionist models, also view representations as networks of interconnected nodes, and assume that activation spreads along these connections. But they add an important assumption: Activated nodes not only can activate their neighbors, they also can deactivate them (Rumelhart and McClelland 1986). There are two basic kinds of links between modes: If two nodes have a positive excitatory link, then activating one will increase the activation of the other. ..." Doyle The point of the brief quotes is the view emerging in the combined fields of research in to the brain are going toward dropping away from classical views as explaining how the mind works until the evidence supports the theory (or at least putting one theory on the same ground as others). This sort of approach I think also has called into account philosophy by demanding that philosophy be grounded by how the brain really works, which takes philosophy off a pedestal of authority. The classical view emerges from a long history of speculation arose without direct knowledge of the brain (one may argue as Chomsky does language is direct knowledge of the brain). Like similar views of the stars the ancients created an essential that might disappear into a grander synthesis with ways of accounting for conceptual processes that indicate non essential workings to mind understanding. Essentials do seem to have a quality about them like a model. We might be able to point neural networks at something and think another way. Which suggests to me at least there is no essential to essentials, except as artifacts of a particular mode of brain. Do other animals know what an essential is? I ask that question as a way to test the truly essential of essence. If other animals can't think of an essential but we can, what does that mean? And if our minds are enhanced and we move away from an essential way of thinking, did essentials exist? thanks, Doyle
Re: Genderization
Sam Pawlett wrote: >Well, it is necessary that the male penetrate the female or the species >will fail to reproduce itself. ...except for the occasional turkey-baster. Doug
RE: Genderization
RE: >Well, it is necessary that the male penetrate the female or the species >will fail to reproduce itself. This "biological fact" might lead to a different understanding of society than the following "biological fact": Well, it is necessary that the female envelop the male or the species will fail to reproduce itself. "Biological facts" themselves might embody presumptions about gender. Eric Eric Nilsson Economics California State University, San Bernardino San Bernardino, CA 91711 [EMAIL PROTECTED] winmail.dat
Re: Genderization
Ted: > Marx does not reduce Kant's "production through freedom" to "techne". > > For instance, like Kant (for whom "production through freedom" can "only > prove purposive as play, i.e. as occupation which is pleasant in itself" > Critique of Judgment p. 146) he conceives production through freedom as an > end-in-itself, an activity whose subject is the "universally developed > individual". (As I pointed out earlier, the role Marx assigns to "class" > can be made consistent with this by interpreting it in terms of Hegel's > account of the role of the master/slave relation in the development of > rational self-consciousness.) A few points: Kant is writing about artistic production, the act of producing a work of art, so I have trouble with your argument that Kant is anticipating what Marx later says about work. The master/slave dialectic comes early in the Phen. and is eventually sublated by stoicism > Kant, Goethe and Hegel are sublated by Marx. My interpretive thesis is that > the ideas set out in the passages I quoted are positively preserved in this > sublation. I would say Marx is influenced by them. But we now know there is a lot more in Hegel than he thought, plenty more than the extra he saw after he went back to Hegel. > Ted > -- > Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054 > York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615 > 4700 Keele St. > Toronto, Ontario > CANADA M3J 1P3 >
Genderization (fwd)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Sorry! Sam Pawlett's definition of sex is sexist. I think I would say this thread is dead here, but I have to reply to false accusations. Mention the word "penetrate" and you get labelled an August Strindberg! Please. I wasn't putting forward a complete definition of sex but just noting that there is a biological aspect to it. Maybe a distinction between sex and reproduction is in order. It is not simply sexist > because of the "penetration" thing (since intercourse is necessary). > so why is it sexist then? > > first, sexual activity is constructed in his language as an activity > "initiated" by men, so women are presented as powerless and relegated to > the level of sexual insignifigance. I didn't say this, please. Sexual activity doesn't have to be initiated by men (and it often isn't) in order for penetration to occur. If you don't like the word "penetration" use another expression as Carroll and Eric have suggested. You should also be careful of the naturalistic fallacy: because reproduction occurs in such and such a fashion does not mean it _ought_ to occur that way. Just because you acknowledge that sexual activity has a biological aspect doesn't mean you support patriarchy or trad. gender roles. > > second, the sole purpose of sexual activity is reduced to getting women > pregnant and injecting male sperm into women's bodies. I didn't say this either but that is -like it or not- how our species reproduces itself. This is not to say that reproduction should or necessarily take place this way, but it will take a long time to undo thousands of years of evolution. Unless you think Darwin was wrong? as i said before, > there is no reason to assume biological motherhood. There is no reason to assume it, it is possible through sophisticated surgery for men to give birth but our organs have not evolved that function. Men giving birth is risky and is it fair to the child to make him/her a guinea pig? We are not living > hunting gathering societies where reproduction was somewhat necessary for > small bands to maintain their species. So you are arguing that reproduction is not necessary to maintain the species at all in any social system? Can you explain this contradiction? Time has changed; sexual roles have > changed. We are not living in stone ages. I reject to see the sole purpose > of sex as reproduction. I agree with this statement but I didn't say that the sole role of sex is reproduction but it is an important role. Any number of gender roles are consistent with women giving birth. Many women prefer not to have children, and I > don't see the reason why they should!!! > Many women prefer not to have children and have excellent reasons for their choice. That's fine but some will have to to keep the human race from going extinct. What would happen if all women stopped giving birth? THE SPECIES WOULD DIE OUT. Are you arguing that the human race should become extinct? Malthusianism maybe? Most women who choose not to have children are often upper class. So, as you _seem_ to think, that having children is a bad thing for most women, then who has to bear the burden of reproducing the species? The poor? Those not talented enough to pursue Phd studies? Further, maybe it is better for the children if they are raised by women? I don't know. > Mine > > >> Sam Pawlett wrote: > >> >Well, it is necessary that the male penetrate > the female or the species >> >will fail to reproduce itself. > > > > ...except for the occasional turkey-baster. > or canoe paddler. > >Why not say "it is necessary for the female to engulf the male sperm . . > ."? > Sure, why not?
Genderization (fwd)
>Many women prefer not to have children and have excellent reasons for >their choice. That's fine but some >will have to to keep the human race from going extinct. What would >happen if all women stopped giving birth? THE SPECIES WOULD DIE OUT. Are Sam, I did not say that we should not reproduce our species. I said that motherhood as an institution should be abolished, because i don't see it a biological thing. since child caring is a social invention (as part of women's domestic duties) it is reasonable in principle to argue that we should reconstitute society in way to equalize men's and women's child rearing functions. women should not be solely responsible for mothering. >So, as you _seem_ to think, that having children is a bad thing for most >women, then who has to bear the burden of reproducing the species? The >poor? Those not talented enough to pursue Phd studies? Further, maybe it >is better for the children if they are raised by women? I don't know. are you telling this to me? I have been preaching for months that the realities facing third world women are worse than the realities facing first world women. class cuts across gender, and divides women.. while the first world exported its wage labor to periphery, it also exported its own patriachy to reinforce local patriarchal practices (my mom was taught home economics in american high school in Turkey, in the 50s, that was a mandatory requirement). however, women should not be blamed for this; capitalism should be blamed.. merci, Mine > Mine > > >> Sam Pawlett wrote: > >> >Well, it is necessary that the male penetrate > the female or the species >> >will fail to reproduce itself. > > > > ...except for the occasional turkey-baster. > or canoe paddler. > >Why not say "it is necessary for the female to engulf the male sperm . . > ."? > Sure, why not?
genderization (fwd)
Rod posted: >Saturday May 13 1:02 AM ET >Study Questions 'Sex Reassignment' >By SETH HETTENA, Associated Press Writer >BALTIMORE (AP) - The practice of surgically ``reassigning'' boys born >without penises is >being called into question by a new study that suggests gender identity >is determined in the >womb. >Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Hospital on Friday said the study >found that such boys, >raised as girls, had masculine behavior and most declared themselves to >be boys. actually, this is falsified by other studies. Many studies prove that there is no necessary relationship between your biological identity and gender identity. If you are born with a penis, you may develop a different identity through time, so you don't need to be born without a penis to see how you develop a masculine identity. In so far as the above study is concerned,I would still look at the social environment of male participants. boys may be raised as girls, but do the researchers look at the non-familial enviromental factors such as schooling, friends, media,etc.? The boys may have learnt masculine behaviour from other external sources, which could have become dominant through time, as to contradict family socialization. this has nothing to do with their hormones, but something to do with the contradictions between two forms of socialization (family versus outside family)..we should not underestimate the external factors. Many children, grown with, let's say, egalitarian values at home and see parents sharing household responsibilities equally, may become patriarchal later due to their socialization into external forms of masculinist social practices.. It is also true the reverse case. Many women are grown up with social values that contradict the conventional female wisdom. Some parents, but still few, choose not to give their daughters dolls or son gun toys, or even not vice versa (which . Another big example is mothering. Vulgar biological determinists relate mothering to women's biological and emotional predisposition. It has been found out that men can mother as adequately as women since mothering is a social function, not a biological one. There are many men around who raise children. There are also many women around who don't prefer mothering... Acting "like a man or a woman" is a socially learnt behavior designed to fit the ideological constructions of gender. Mine
Re: genderization
Rod Hay wrote: > Saturday May 13 1:02 AM ET > > Study Questions 'Sex Reassignment' > > By SETH HETTENA, Associated Press Writer > > BALTIMORE (AP) - The practice of surgically ``reassigning'' boys born > without penises is > being called into question by a new study that suggests gender identity > is determined in the > womb. The debate that has developed over this is probably askew. From many years of eagerly reading every report on research on mental illness that comes my way in the popular press I have learned that the early reports on some particular piece of research are almost *always* (not just usually, but always) contradicted by other reports within six months to a year. Science writers just can't get it straight. And when they do get the bare details more or less accurate, they tend both to make wild extrapolations from the research and to leave out the kind of warnings that serious scientists always make concerning the finality and/or implications of their research. So on the basis of an AP report we can assume nothing whatever about this research, its validity, or its implications. This does not mean that the conclusions asserted may not turn out to be accurate, but it does mean that we don't really *know*, now, any more than we know before the article was published. So, really, debates over its implications ought to be postponed for a year or so. One caution: I doubt very strongly that careful researchers would have been so confident as the report seems to indicate as to what constitutes "boyish" behavior. That too is contested ground. Carrol P.S. Just one example. *Science News* is remarkably accurate in its reports on research. And it is fairly careful to indicate whenever research is not fully confirmed. Yet if one were to read through it for the last 10 years (and I've been subscribing for nearly 15 years), one would discover that bipolar affective disorder was genetic, that it was not genetic, that new research established quite decisively that it was genetic, that further new research suggested strongly that genetic factors only indicated a tendency, that might or might not be realized, to develop bipolar disorder, that psychotherapy was more or less useless, that medication without psychotherapy had and so forth.
RE: Genderization (fwd)
EXACTLY, Eric! very true points.. Mine ps: continue dressing your baby in gender-neutral clothes!! RE >Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. >But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to be boys... Genderization is a subtle process. The weakness of the study cited a few days ago is that is was not a "double-blind" study. That is, the parents knew their children were sex reassigned and so did the doctors. Knowing this, the parents possibly treated these "ex-boys" as if they were boys in very subtle-and not so subtle-ways. The study was just as much a test that parents have beliefs about gender being built into the genes (and treat boys - sex reassigned or not - as boys) then it was about what was really in the genes. I was astounded that when my daughter was born about two years ago, that within minutes after she was born a genderization process was being applied to her. The attending nurse almost instantly noted that we should have great fun dressing Emily up in nice clothes and noted how dainty she was. Afterwards, when I persisted in dressing Emily in gender neutral-clothes, strangers who interacted with Emily became very uncomfortable until they found out what sex she was. I was, meanly perhaps, very vague in my response, saying something like, "I love taking my baby out." These strangers often refused to interact further with Emily until they found out her sex. Once learning her sex, they then returned to interacting with her - "she's so beautiful," etc because they then knew what script (for boy or for girl) to use in interacting with her. My two cents. Eric Nilsson Economics California State University, San Bernardino San Bernardino, CA 91711 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Genderization (fwd)
yes, because many males that have male hormones are not necessarily males in the conventional sense.I don't think that they are "abnormal" because they have "different" hormones. Sociobiologists would make such essentialist arguments, relating different sexualities to hormonal abnormalities or deviations (so hetero is seen as the norm). Gay people would refuse to put themselves in this definition. They are still males by virtue of their biological identity (let's says organs), but they prefer not to engage in a sexual intercourse with women. I don't know the reason why though, but it does not seem to me terribly clear that there is a necessary relation between biology and gender. Mine >Would we conclude that hormones have no impact on behavior ? >CB >>> "Eric Nilsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/16/00 12:52PM >>> RE >Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. >But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to be boys... Genderization is a subtle process. The weakness of the study cited a few days ago is that is was not a "double-blind" study. That is, the parents knew their children were sex reassigned and so did the doctors. Knowing this, the parents possibly treated these "ex-boys" as if they were boys in very subtle-and not so subtle-ways. The study was just as much a test that parents have beliefs about gender being built into the genes (and treat boys - sex reassigned or not - as boys) then it was about what was really in the genes. I was astounded that when my daughter was born about two years ago, that within minutes after she was born a genderization process was being applied to her. The attending nurse almost instantly noted that we should have great fun dressing Emily up in nice clothes and noted how dainty she was. Afterwards, when I persisted in dressing Emily in gender neutral-clothes, strangers who interacted with Emily became very uncomfortable until they found out what sex she was. I was, meanly perhaps, very vague in my response, saying something like, "I love taking my baby out." These strangers often refused to interact further with Emily until they found out her sex. Once learning her sex, they then returned to interacting with her - "she's so beautiful," etc because they then knew what script (for boy or for girl) to use in interacting with her. My two cents.
RE: Genderization (fwd)
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/16/00 01:55PM >>> yes, because many males that have male hormones are not necessarily males in the conventional sense.I don't think that they are "abnormal" because they have "different" hormones. _ CB: What do hormones do ? Anything ? Even if some males' behavior is not affected by their hormones, what about the others ? Are their behaviors affected by their hormones ? __ Sociobiologists would make such essentialist arguments, relating different sexualities to hormonal abnormalities or deviations (so hetero is seen as the norm). Gay people would refuse to put themselves in this definition. They are still males by virtue of their biological identity (let's says organs), but they prefer not to engage in a sexual intercourse with women. I don't know the reason why though, but it does not seem to me terribly clear that there is a necessary relation between biology and gender. __ CB: Lets leave out "normal" and "abnormal". Lets use "some" and "some". Do hormones have some impact on some males' and some females' behavior ? CB >Would we conclude that hormones have no impact on behavior ? >CB >>> "Eric Nilsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/16/00 12:52PM >>> RE >Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. >But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to be boys... Genderization is a subtle process. The weakness of the study cited a few days ago is that is was not a "double-blind" study. That is, the parents knew their children were sex reassigned and so did the doctors. Knowing this, the parents possibly treated these "ex-boys" as if they were boys in very subtle-and not so subtle-ways. The study was just as much a test that parents have beliefs about gender being built into the genes (and treat boys - sex reassigned or not - as boys) then it was about what was really in the genes. I was astounded that when my daughter was born about two years ago, that within minutes after she was born a genderization process was being applied to her. The attending nurse almost instantly noted that we should have great fun dressing Emily up in nice clothes and noted how dainty she was. Afterwards, when I persisted in dressing Emily in gender neutral-clothes, strangers who interacted with Emily became very uncomfortable until they found out what sex she was. I was, meanly perhaps, very vague in my response, saying something like, "I love taking my baby out." These strangers often refused to interact further with Emily until they found out her sex. Once learning her sex, they then returned to interacting with her - "she's so beautiful," etc because they then knew what script (for boy or for girl) to use in interacting with her. My two cents.
Re: RE: Genderization
Yes, Eric. It is a difficult question. How much is behaviour controlled by chemicals, genes, etc. and how much is it learned behaviour? I don't know the answer. But there are many who do claim to know. The biological determinist are one group and the cultural determinists are another. I am fairly sure that both of them are wrong. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. As Carroll pointed out--it is imprudent to place too much weight on one study. The process of getting at the truth is a long and painful one with many set backs. But there have been a number of studies recently that suggest that exposure to elevated hormone levels in the womb can influence (not determine) a person's sexuality. Rod Eric Nilsson wrote: > RE > >Twenty-five of the children were sex reassigned, meaning doctors > castrated them at birth and their parents raised them as girls. > > >But over the years, all of the children, currently aged 5-16, > exhibited the rough-and-tumble play of boys. Fourteen declared themselves to > be boys... > > Genderization is a subtle process. The weakness of the study cited a few > days ago is that is was not a "double-blind" study. That is, the parents > knew their children were sex reassigned and so did the doctors. Knowing > this, the parents possibly treated these "ex-boys" as if they were boys in > very subtle-and not so subtle-ways. The study was just as much a test that > parents have beliefs about gender being built into the genes (and treat boys > - sex reassigned or not - as boys) then it was about what was really in the > genes. > > I was astounded that when my daughter was born about two years ago, that > within minutes after she was born a genderization process was being applied > to her. The attending nurse almost instantly noted that we should have great > fun dressing Emily up in nice clothes and noted how dainty she was. > Afterwards, when I persisted in dressing Emily in gender neutral-clothes, > strangers who interacted with Emily became very uncomfortable until they > found out what sex she was. I was, meanly perhaps, very vague in my > response, saying something like, "I love taking my baby out." These > strangers often refused to interact further with Emily until they found out > her sex. Once learning her sex, they then returned to interacting with her - > "she's so beautiful," etc because they then knew what script (for boy or for > girl) to use in interacting with her. > > My two cents. > > Eric Nilsson > Economics > California State University, San Bernardino > San Bernardino, CA 91711 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Name: winmail.dat >winmail.datType: DAT File (application/x-unknown-content-type-DAT_auto_file) > Encoding: base64 -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
RE: Genderization (fwd)
NO. or which behavior do you have in mind? agressiveness? it has nothing to do with male hormones per se. it is because males are socialized in that way. that is why it becomes a manly charecteristic..there are agressive women too, and the reason why they do so is because 1) they either internalize the dominant cultural practices by normalizing male violence (for example think about "son obbsessed" mothers who think it is their son's right to mistreat his wife) or 2) agresssion is one of the ways of "coping" with patriarchal norms as an unarticulated form of resistance (See for this Deniz Kandiyoti's analyis of gender relations in Turkey, an article published in _Feminist Studies_ "Emancipated but Unliberated"). Since patriarchy relagates women to the level of insignifigance and routine practices (such as mothering), women's way of articulating violence significantly differs due to their victim position... Mine __ >CB: Lets leave out "normal" and "abnormal". Lets use "some" and "some". >Do hormones have some impact on some males' and some females' behavior ? >CB
RE: Genderization (fwd)
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/16/00 02:38PM >>> NO. __ CB: So, hormones do nothing ? They are like the appendix ? the tonsils ? or which behavior do you have in mind? CB: Sexual behavior. Seems to me that some people's sexual behavior is influenced by hormones. It does not make a final determination, because there is also cultural learning, nurture. But nature is not a zero influence in sexual behavior. I suppose one might say hormones only impact body shape and parts ( beard or beardless, etc. ) and not behavior. agressiveness? it has nothing to do with male hormones per se. it is because males are socialized in that way. that is why it becomes a manly charecteristic..there are agressive women too, and the reason why they do so is because 1) they either internalize the dominant cultural practices by normalizing male violence (for example think about "son obbsessed" mothers who think it is their son's right to mistreat his wife) or 2) agresssion is one of the ways of "coping" with patriarchal norms as an unarticulated form of resistance (See for this Deniz Kandiyoti's analyis of gender relations in Turkey, an article published in _Feminist Studies_ "Emancipated but Unliberated"). Since patriarchy relagates women to the level of insignifigance and routine practices (such as mothering), women's way of articulating violence significantly differs due to their victim position... ___ CB: I don't know about aggressiveness, but I don't think any studies have proven that hormones have no impact on anything. They only prove that socialization has an impact. But they have not proven that ONLY socialization determines behavior. I don't think humans are 100 % determined by socialization. Humans are much more determined by socialization than any other species, but it is not complete social determination. It is a combination of nature and nuture, not just nuture. A given individual may be "completely" determined by socialization, but not all individuals are completely determined by their socialization. Also, some socialization may be in the same direction as the influence of hormones. Socialization is not always necessarily in conflict with the tendency that the hormones give. CB Mine __ >CB: Lets leave out "normal" and "abnormal". Lets use "some" and "some". >Do hormones have some impact on some males' and some females' behavior ? >CB
Re: Re: Genderization
At 11:55 AM 05/16/2000 -0700, you wrote: >RE > > Would we conclude that hormones have no impact on behavior ? > >I don't know. Very possibly hormones might have some impact on behavior. > >But the issue is: what percent of behavior is explained by hormones? > >My opinion, worth the electronic paper I write on, is about 2 percent. The >other 98 percent is explained by social forces. I don't think these issues can be quantified in this way (though maybe I've been influence by Stephen J. Gould too much). Biology sets limits (that can be modified by technology), whereas culture seems to determine how we live within those limits (and when and how we decide to use technology to modify the biological limits). See my long missive in this thread. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Genderization
>>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/16/00 03:25PM >>> I don't think these issues can be quantified in this way (though maybe I've been influence by Stephen J. Gould too much). Biology sets limits (that can be modified by technology), whereas culture seems to determine how we live within those limits (and when and how we decide to use technology to modify the biological limits). See my long missive in this thread. _ CB: Marshall Sahlins has the same formulation on limits. I agree. However, biology sets some tendencies or directions, as well as limits. Culture and experience can sometimes reverse those tendencies or directions, but sometimes culture goes parallel with the biological tendencies or directions. CB
Re: Re: Genderization
Ricardo can you document any of this with citations from Marx, or is this more undergraduate sociology. Rod Ricardo Duchesne wrote: > On 16 May 00, at 17:30, Ted Winslow wrote: > > > How about including as categories to be used in understanding these aspects > > of ourselves the categories of self-determination and of a capacity for full > > self-determination of thought, desire and action as the "idea" of humanity? > > Marx seems a lot closer to the social constructivism that > dominates much of undergraduate sociology today than Hegel. The > Kantian/Hegelian concept of self-determination was transformed in > his hands into a practical-laboring actitivity. He also thought that > humans are constructed by a determinate set of social relations, > and that humans can be re-constructed, which was taken to mean > by many followers that those who know what is good for everyone > else have the right to reconstruct the deceived "masses". Che > called this reconstructed self the "new man". But if Hegel was > right, modern humans will never tolerate any such constructions > except under terms which they have set for themselves (in a > democratic setting). -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Genderization
Ricardo wrote:
>
> Marx seems a lot closer to the social constructivism that
> dominates much of undergraduate sociology today than Hegel. The
> Kantian/Hegelian concept of self-determination was transformed in
> his hands into a practical-laboring actitivity. He also thought that
> humans are constructed by a determinate set of social relations,
> and that humans can be re-constructed, which was taken to mean
> by many followers that those who know what is good for everyone
> else have the right to reconstruct the deceived "masses". Che
> called this reconstructed self the "new man". But if Hegel was
> right, modern humans will never tolerate any such constructions
> except under terms which they have set for themselves (in a
> democratic setting).
Marx has appropriated idea of "practical-laboring activity" as
self-determination from Kant and Hegel.
"We presuppose labour in a form in which it is an exclusively human
characteristic. A spider conducts operations which resemble those of the
weaver, and a bee would put many a human architect to shame by the
construction of its honeycomb cells. But what distinguishes the worst
architect from the best of bees is that the architect builds the cell in his
mind before he constructs it in wax. At the end of every labour process, a
result emerges which had already been conceived by the worker at the
beginning, hence already existed ideally. Man not only effects a change of
form in the materials of nature; he also realizes his own purpose in those
materials. And this is a purpose he is conscious of, it determines the mode
of his activity with the rigidity of a law, and he must subordinate his will
to it." Capital, vol. 1, pp. 283-4
"By right we ought only to describe as art, production through freedom, i.e.
through a will that places reason at the basis of its actions. For although
we like to call the product of bees (regularly built cells of wax) a work of
art, this is only by way of analogy; as soon as we feel that this work of
theirs is based on no proper rational deliberation, we say that it is a
product of nature (of instinct).
"If, as sometimes happens, in searching through a bog we come upon a bit
of shaped wood, we do not say, this is a product of nature, but of art. Its
producing cause has conceived a purpose to which the plank owes its form.
Elsewhere too we should see art in everything which is made, so that a
representative of it in its cause must have preceded its actual existence
(as even in the case of bees), though without the effect of it even being
capable of being thought. But if we call anything absolutely a work of art,
in order to distinguish it from a natural effect, we always understand by
that a work of man." Kant, Critique of Judgement (Bernard translation),
p.145-6
"Man is not only immediate and single, like all other natural things; as
mind, he also reduplicates himself, existing for himself because he thinks
himself. He does this, in the first place, theoretically, by bringing
himself into his own consciousness, so as to form an idea of himself. But
he also realizes himself for himself through practical activity. This he
does by reshaping external things, by setting the seal of his inner being
upon them, thereby endowing them with his own characteristics. Man's
spiritual freedom consists in this reduplicating process of human
consciousness, whereby all that exists is made explicit within him and all
that is in him is realized without. Here not only artistic making but all
human behaving and explaining whether in the forms of political and moral
action, religious imaginative awareness, or scientific knowledge--has its
ground and necessary origin." (Hegel, Aesthetics, pp. 3-4)
As I suggested in an earlier post, Marx treats "relations of production" as
key to the development of "freedom" in the Kant/Hegel sense. Prior to the
"end of history" these relations are less than fully compatible with such
development ("less than fully compatible" does not mean wholly incompatible
with any positive development, however; the developmental process is
"dialectical").
This is in no small part because they involve coercion - it is the kind and
degree of coercion entailed in their relations of production that identify
the successive "stages" in this process.
The relations necessary for the full development of individual autonomy are
completely free of coercion.
In the third thesis on Feuerbach, Marx explicitly rejects the "materialism"
which excludes any role for self-determination and which implicitly
underpins the idea that "good" people can be "constructed" through
coercive imposition.
"The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and
upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that the
educator must himself be educated. This doctrine must, therefore, divide
society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
"The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of
Re: Re: Genderization
If Charles is channelling Chang, he's doing a bad job of it. He forgot to add that we have nothing to fear from unemployment... Steve On Wed, 17 May 2000, Doug Henwood wrote: > Charles Brown wrote: > > >CB: Wasn't GDP socio-politically constructed in order to hoodwink the people ? > > You channeling Chang? > > No it wasn't constructed to hoodwink the people. It was constructed > to get a picture of the macroeconomy. Planning for WW II accelerated > the process in the U.S., but national income accounting in general > has a long history that has little to do with hoodwinking the people. > > Doug > >
Re: Re: Genderization
Although Marx certainly emphasized "techne" I doubt if there is any passage where he rejects the other aspects. And again with class consciousness, it is emphasized, because it is one of the main fault lines in the capitalism system, but I have never seen any indication that Marx thought that it was the totality of critical refection. Habermas and the rest of the critical theorists are simply wrong. Rod Ricardo Duchesne wrote: > On 17 May 00, at 14:05, Ted Winslow wrote: > > > > Marx has appropriated idea of "practical-laboring activity" as > > self-determination from Kant and Hegel. > > in the process transforming its meaning and, as Habermas would > say, reducing it to "techne", and though there is a critical reflective > aspect to Marx, it is still strictly in terms of class consciousness. > > -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Genderization
Hey, I'm not dogmatic about my Changism. Extract the rational kernel of left liberals when you can. CB >>> Stephen E Philion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/17/00 05:07PM >>> If Charles is channelling Chang, he's doing a bad job of it. He forgot to add that we have nothing to fear from unemployment... Steve On Wed, 17 May 2000, Doug Henwood wrote: > Charles Brown wrote: > > >CB: Wasn't GDP socio-politically constructed in order to hoodwink the people ? > > You channeling Chang? > > No it wasn't constructed to hoodwink the people. It was constructed > to get a picture of the macroeconomy. Planning for WW II accelerated > the process in the U.S., but national income accounting in general > has a long history that has little to do with hoodwinking the people. > > Doug > >
Re: Re: Genderization
Ricardo wrote: > >> Marx has appropriated idea of "practical-laboring activity" as >> self-determination from Kant and Hegel. > > > in the process transforming its meaning and, as Habermas would > say, reducing it to "techne", and though there is a critical reflective > aspect to Marx, it is still strictly in terms of class consciousness. > Marx does not reduce Kant's "production through freedom" to "techne". For instance, like Kant (for whom "production through freedom" can "only prove purposive as play, i.e. as occupation which is pleasant in itself" Critique of Judgment p. 146) he conceives production through freedom as an end-in-itself, an activity whose subject is the "universally developed individual". (As I pointed out earlier, the role Marx assigns to "class" can be made consistent with this by interpreting it in terms of Hegel's account of the role of the master/slave relation in the development of rational self-consciousness.) "The practical creation of an objective world, the fashioning of inorganic nature, is proof that man is a conscious species-being -- i.e., a being which treats the species as its own essential being or itself as a species-being. It is true that animals also produce. They build nests and dwelling, like the bee, the beaver, the ant, etc. But they produce only their own immediate needs or those of their young; they produce only when immediate physical need compels them to do so, while man produces even when he is free from physical need and truly produces only in freedom from such need; they produce only themselves, while man reproduces the whole of nature; their products belong immediately to their physical bodies, while man freely confronts his own product. Animals produce only according to the standards and needs of the species to which they belong, while man is capable of producing according to the standards of every species and of applying to each object its inherent standard; hence, man also produces in accordance with the laws of beauty." Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Collected Works, vol. 3, pp. 276-7 "The real wealth of society and the possibility of a constant expansion of its reproduction process does not depend on the length of surplus labour but rather on its productivity and on the more or less plentiful conditions of production in which it is performed. The realm of freedom really begins only where labour determined by necessity and external expediency ends; it lies by its very nature beyond the sphere of material production proper. Just as the savage must wrestle with nature to satisfy his needs, to maintain and reproduce his life, so must civilized man, and he must do so in all forms of society and under all modes of production. This realm of natural necessity expands with his development, because his needs do too; but the productive forces to satisfy these expand at the same time. Freedom, in this sphere, can consist only in this, that socialized man, the associated producers, govern the human metabolism with nature in a rational way, bringing it under their collective control instead of being dominated by it as a blind power; accomplishing it with the least expenditure of energy and in conditions most worthy and appropriate for their human nature. But this always remains a realm of necessity. The true realm of freedom, the development of human powers as an end in itself, begins beyond it, though it can only flourish with this realm of necessity as its basis. The reduction of the working day is the basic prerequisite." Marx, Capital vol. 3 pp. 958-9 "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly - only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" Critique of the Gotha Programme Kant, Goethe and Hegel are sublated by Marx. My interpretive thesis is that the ideas set out in the passages I quoted are positively preserved in this sublation. Ted -- Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054 York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario CANADA M3J 1P3
Re: Re: Genderization
Doug Henwood wrote: > Sam Pawlett wrote: > > >Well, it is necessary that the male penetrate the female or the species > >will fail to reproduce itself. > > ...except for the occasional turkey-baster. Why not say "it is necessary for the female to engulf the male sperm . . ."? How do you determine whether A penetrates B or B engulfs A? Carrol
Re: Genderization/Tenderization
>>> Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/18/00 12:49PM >>> Sam Pawlett wrote: >Well, it is necessary that the male penetrate the female or the species >will fail to reproduce itself. ...except for the occasional turkey-baster. _ CB: Now there's sex materialized by a new regulatory norm.
Re: genderization (fwd)
One can not "identify" masculine behavior by looking at the presence or absence of reproductive organs.. I think the research is biased for the reasons I mentioned below. It does not consider the social factors other than the "family"! Mine >It does saying "acting like" anything. It says "identifying as" >Rod >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Rod posted: > > >Saturday May 13 1:02 AM ET > > >Study Questions 'Sex Reassignment' > > >By SETH HETTENA, Associated Press Writer > > >BALTIMORE (AP) - The practice of surgically ``reassigning'' boys born > >without penises is > >being called into question by a new study that suggests gender identity > >is determined in the > >womb. > > >Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Hospital on Friday said the study > >found that such boys, > >raised as girls, had masculine behavior and most declared themselves to > >be boys. > > actually, this is falsified by other studies. Many studies prove that > there is no necessary relationship between your biological identity and > gender identity. If you are born with a penis, you may develop a different > identity through time, so you don't need to be born without a penis to > see how you develop a masculine identity. In so far as the above study is > concerned,I would still look at the social environment of male > participants. boys may be raised as girls, but do the researchers look at > the non-familial enviromental factors such as schooling, friends, > media,etc.? The boys may have learnt masculine behaviour from other > external sources, which could have become dominant through time, as to > contradict family socialization. this has nothing to do with their > hormones, but something to do with the contradictions between two forms of > socialization (family versus outside family)..we should not underestimate > the external factors. Many children, grown with, let's say, egalitarian > values at home and see parents sharing household responsibilities equally, > may become patriarchal later due to their socialization into external > forms of masculinist social practices.. > > It is also true the reverse case. Many women are grown up with > social values that contradict the conventional female wisdom. Some > parents, but still few, choose not to give their daughters dolls or son > gun toys, or even not vice versa (which . Another big example is > mothering. Vulgar biological determinists relate mothering to women's > biological and emotional predisposition. It has been found out that men > can mother as adequately as women since mothering is a social function, > not a biological one. There are many men around who raise children. There > are also many women around who don't prefer mothering... Acting "like a > man or a woman" is a socially learnt behavior designed to fit the > ideological constructions of gender. > > Mine -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: genderization (fwd)
In a message dated 00-05-13 17:00:18 EDT, you write: << Many women are grown up with social values that contradict the conventional female wisdom. Some parents, but still few, choose not to give their daughters dolls or son gun toys, or even not vice versa >> Yeah, this is a lot easier said than done. We won't let guns (toy or real) in the house, but my son has always played with anything that looks gunlike (sticks), and his fantasy life is mosty childish dreams of slaughter. He also dances ballet, out of choice, but he is a very boyische boy. I should add that we have no TV. My daughter never showed interest in toy tools, and has always played with dolls. She went throw a stage from 3 to 6 or so when she would wear nothing but dresses, the frillier the better. I am not saying that this shows anything about an affinity between boy genes and guns or girl genes and dolls, but anyone who thinks that it is a simple matter to go against the stereotypes has no children. --jks
Re: genderization (fwd)
It does saying "acting like" anything. It says "identifying as" Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Rod posted: > > >Saturday May 13 1:02 AM ET > > >Study Questions 'Sex Reassignment' > > >By SETH HETTENA, Associated Press Writer > > >BALTIMORE (AP) - The practice of surgically ``reassigning'' boys born > >without penises is > >being called into question by a new study that suggests gender identity > >is determined in the > >womb. > > >Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Hospital on Friday said the study > >found that such boys, > >raised as girls, had masculine behavior and most declared themselves to > >be boys. > > actually, this is falsified by other studies. Many studies prove that > there is no necessary relationship between your biological identity and > gender identity. If you are born with a penis, you may develop a different > identity through time, so you don't need to be born without a penis to > see how you develop a masculine identity. In so far as the above study is > concerned,I would still look at the social environment of male > participants. boys may be raised as girls, but do the researchers look at > the non-familial enviromental factors such as schooling, friends, > media,etc.? The boys may have learnt masculine behaviour from other > external sources, which could have become dominant through time, as to > contradict family socialization. this has nothing to do with their > hormones, but something to do with the contradictions between two forms of > socialization (family versus outside family)..we should not underestimate > the external factors. Many children, grown with, let's say, egalitarian > values at home and see parents sharing household responsibilities equally, > may become patriarchal later due to their socialization into external > forms of masculinist social practices.. > > It is also true the reverse case. Many women are grown up with > social values that contradict the conventional female wisdom. Some > parents, but still few, choose not to give their daughters dolls or son > gun toys, or even not vice versa (which . Another big example is > mothering. Vulgar biological determinists relate mothering to women's > biological and emotional predisposition. It has been found out that men > can mother as adequately as women since mothering is a social function, > not a biological one. There are many men around who raise children. There > are also many women around who don't prefer mothering... Acting "like a > man or a woman" is a socially learnt behavior designed to fit the > ideological constructions of gender. > > Mine -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Genderization (fwd)
Charles, your views are very well taken. Let me clarify a couple of issues here since I started the thread. Let's confront the fact leftist men could not sufficiently criticize the patriarchal conceptions of womanhood, and whenever they did they did so as to rationalize gender division of labor by reducing sexual relations to reproduction of species solely. Reproduction was explained in functional terms as biology was reified: If B is necessary A should precede (ie, men should penetrate women, but not vice versa). Power relations underlying reproduction were not problematized. This was partly because "social" was still explained in theological/natural terms. Accordingly, the left should reconsider itself if we are to gain something from Marxism's potential to liberate women. Only Marxist feminism can achieve this goal if the left is open enough to accept a couple of propositons: 1. there is no biological basis for women's oppression (Schulamit type of arguments). there is also no biological basis for women's superiority (ethics of gender difference). we neither want to romanticize nor to degrade women. 2. there is no natural or biological basis for women's domestic functions such as child- caring and motherhood. These roles are socially constructed. Since they are social, they can be changed, as their practicising has remarkably changed throughout history, though not totally eliminated. 3. Women's roles change across time and space, within classes, races and societies. While there is a dominant form of patriarchy that subjects every woman to all kinds of exploitation (battering, rape, etc..), women's experience of subjection differs within the same group and across groups (women living in poverty may be vulnerable to economic and sexual exploitation whereas middle class women may be les vulnerable to economic exploitation due to living under the patronage of their bourgeois husbands). So class cuts accross gender as capitalism maintains "sex/gender system".. Mine Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/20/00 09:02AM >>> >Sam, look it. You fucked up, and you fucked up royally. Admit it, >and go on from there. >The question you must ask yourself is why did you feel it necessary >to make a big thing out of a tautology that no one denies -- that >sexual relations are necessary for human reproduction. -clip- _ >CB: Sam probably felt he had to say this because even though it is a >tautology, many on these lists treat this tautology as a triviality, >unimportant in understanding human history and society, and especially >the social relations between women and men. This tautology is often >treated as unimportant or "uninteresting" as compared to other factors, >especially in post-modernist anti-essentialist discourse. This is the >error of thinking that because social relations and culture are important >in shaping human history and society, much more important than in other >species, that nature or natural causes have no importance or no >interesting importance in shaping human beings.
Re: Genderization (fwd)
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/23/00 02:41AM >>> Charles, your views are very well taken. Let me clarify a couple of issues here since I started the thread. Let's confront the fact leftist men could not sufficiently criticize the patriarchal conceptions of womanhood, and whenever they did they did so as to rationalize gender division of labor by reducing sexual relations to reproduction of species solely. Reproduction was explained in functional terms as biology was reified: If B is necessary A should precede (ie, men should penetrate women, but not vice versa). Power relations underlying reproduction were not problematized. This was partly because "social" was still explained in theological/natural terms. ___ CB: Yes, comrade, I accept your criticism and agree with your historical sketch. I am not so much speaking of the weaknesses you discuss, as a new phenomenon I have observed on the Left 2000, in which there is an error in taking the issues you raise too much in the other direction such that non-male supremacist aspects of biological sexual relations are ignored and despised. It precisely a new form of idealism, or religion even , and interestingly shares with ole time religion/idealism a taboo on even discussing sex between women and men. Not all discussion of the biology of sex in relation to the culture of sex is male supremacist. But under the excuse of rooting out male chauvinism , some eliminate all discussion of the relation of biology and culture in sex. They try to make it all culture. This can become as reactionary as sociobiology, anti-bio theology. _ Accordingly, the left should reconsider itself if we are to gain something from Marxism's potential to liberate women. Only Marxist feminism can achieve this goal if the left is open enough to accept a couple of propositons: 1. there is no biological basis for women's oppression (Schulamit type of arguments). there is also no biological basis for women's superiority (ethics of gender difference). we neither want to romanticize nor to degrade women. _ CB: Yes, but there is an important affirmative action task of building wordly respect, more worldly, material respect of women by men. Millenia of male supremacy must be countered by a special emphasis on men respecting women FOR A LONG TIME, generations even. This should not be confused with the old problem of fake putting women on pedestals, when they are not really so highly honored. 2. there is no natural or biological basis for women's domestic functions such as child- caring and motherhood. These roles are socially constructed. Since they are social, they can be changed, as their practicising has remarkably changed throughout history, though not totally eliminated. 3. Women's roles change across time and space, within classes, races and societies. While there is a dominant form of patriarchy that subjects every woman to all kinds of exploitation (battering, rape, etc..), women's experience of subjection differs within the same group and across groups (women living in poverty may be vulnerable to economic and sexual exploitation whereas middle class women may be les vulnerable to economic exploitation due to living under the patronage of their bourgeois husbands). So class cuts accross gender as capitalism maintains "sex/gender system".. _ CB: Yes Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/20/00 09:02AM >>> >Sam, look it. You fucked up, and you fucked up royally. Admit it, >and go on from there. >The question you must ask yourself is why did you feel it necessary >to make a big thing out of a tautology that no one denies -- that >sexual relations are necessary for human reproduction. -clip- _ >CB: Sam probably felt he had to say this because even though it is a >tautology, many on these lists treat this tautology as a triviality, >unimportant in understanding human history and society, and especially >the social relations between women and men. This tautology is often >treated as unimportant or "uninteresting" as compared to other factors, >especially in post-modernist anti-essentialist discourse. This is the >error of thinking that because social relations and culture are important >in shaping human history and society, much more important than in other >species, that nature or natural causes have no importance or no >interesting importance in shaping human beings.
Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Rod writes: >... It is a difficult question. How much is behaviour controlled by >chemicals, genes, etc. and how much is it learned behaviour? I don't know >the answer. But there are many who do claim to know. The biological >determinist are one group and the cultural determinists are another. I am >fairly sure that both of them are wrong. The answer lies somewhere in the >middle. ... One important part of this discussion is the distinction between "gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see "sex" in biological terms (I've got XY, while my wife has a full complement of X chromosomes) and "gender" in cultural terms. Sex starts with the "male" vs. "female" dichotomy, though it's more complicated, as indicated by the fact that some XY types are born without the full "equipment" (the topic of the story that started this thread). Perhaps it's a little like the current literature on "shadow syndromes," so that it's more than one chromosome (or several genes) that determine biological sex. In any event, there are some gray areas between male and female, biologically speaking. When it comes to gender, the (sometimes fuzzy) distinction is between "masculine" and "feminine." These seem to refer to cultural norms, norms that seem generally to be aimed at drawing a cultural line corresponding to the biological line. In other words, biologically-based differences are exaggerated by the culture. Nonetheless, the meaning of "gender" clearly has varied between cultures (including between classes) and between different historical periods. The aristocratic fop who was sent to the guillotine in late 18th century France is very different from, say, George W. Bush in terms of "masculinity" even though they probably have the same combination of "sex" chromosomes. The way in which the meaning of masculine and feminine change over time, place, and class divides suggests that biological determinism of gender should be rejected. However, there is a biological component. For example, in "normal" sex, it's the male who penetrates the female, with the latter (but not the former) facing the possibility of getting pregnant. Though there are a lot of alternatives to "normal" sex, the biological difference suggests that males and females would have completely different attitudes toward the sex act. Such attitudes seem central to the cultures of masculinity and femininity. Similarly, the culture helps determine whether the alternatives to "normal" sex are applied or ignored as taboo, so that cultural affects the importance of such attitudes. Since causation goes both ways, both brands of determinism are wrong. However, each has the potential to add some insights as long as we don't try to be reductionist. BTW, Carol Tavris has a useful book on all of this, _The Mismeasure of Woman_. She brings up a log of interesting stuff of the sort that I didn't deal with above. Sometimes, leftists lean toward the cultural determinist side, because they hope that by changing society, it will get rid of the perceived obnoxious aspects of masculinity and femininity. Of course, this isn't the only road. For example, in her utopian novel, WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME, Marge Piercy's utopians have been biologically altered to encourage equality and democracy: biological men breast-feed babies, babies are produced by incubators, etc. (It's true in the dystopia that appears in that book, too, except that the biological alterations exaggerate the differences between the sexes.) On the abstract level, there's no reason leftists should favor either brand of determinism _a priori_. But let's shift gears, getting away from the politically-charged topic of the assignment of gender to people of different sexes. It used to be thought that the incidence of autism was determined by the child's cultural environment. The Bruno Bettelheim, a Freudian, blamed the "refrigerator mother" (the mom who doesn't show enough affection for her child) for the child's autism. Among other things, this example shows that cultural determinism need not be politically progressive. By the 1990s, Bettelheim's theory had been utterly rejected by the psychiatric and psychological communities, based on the weak-to-nonexistent empirical evidence behind it. (Bettelheim is nowadays dismissed as a quack.) Instead, they lean toward a biological theory, which need not be genetic, since autism might arise due to damage while the fetus is in the uterus of a variety of different sorts (including environmental pollution, which might explain the autistic cluster in New Jersey). Some even blame the effects of early-childhood immunizations for the onset of autism (though my unprofessional impression is that this theory is picking up a correlation that doesn't correspond to causation). In any event, since there seem to be a variety of different types of autism (including high-functioning autism or Asperger's Synd
Re: Re: Genderization (fwd)
>Biology sets limits (that can be modified by technology whereas >Jim technology is *not* neutral. it IS political. it is already part of the definition of dominant cultural practices under capitalism just as science is. the idealist discourse of biology versus culture or whether biology sets limits or not is itself embedded in hidden normative assumptions. Recently, you can see this so called "liberating aspects of technology" advocated by geneticists who say that fetus's gender can be determined (intervened) before it is born. Besides the stupidity of the argument, this sort of reasoning is "politically dangerous". It reinforces patriarchal practices by allowing parents to opt for males rather than for females, since in the dominant culture, it is still considered to be a "pride" to have a son. another example. some african americans go under surgery to make their skin whiter. technology, again, reinforces racism by imposing "white man's biological and racial superiority" on african americans. Change your color! look cool! and become like a civilized man! Mine Doyran Phd Student Political Science SUNY/Albany
Re: Re: Genderization (fwd)
Sorry! Sam Pawlett's definition of sex is sexist. It is not simply sexist because of the "penetration" thing (since intercourse is necessary). so why is it sexist then? first, sexual activity is constructed in his language as an activity "initiated" by men, so women are presented as powerless and relegated to the level of sexual insignifigance. second, the sole purpose of sexual activity is reduced to getting women pregnant and injecting male sperm into women's bodies. as i said before, there is no reason to assume biological motherhood. We are not living hunting gathering societies where reproduction was somewhat necessary for small bands to maintain their species.Time has changed; sexual roles have changed. We are not living in stone ages. I reject to see the sole purpose of sex as reproduction. Many women prefer not to have children, and I don't see the reason why they should!!! Mine >> Sam Pawlett wrote: > >> >Well, it is necessary that the male penetrate the female or the species >> >will fail to reproduce itself. > > ...except for the occasional turkey-baster. >Why not say "it is necessary for the female to engulf the male sperm . . ."? >How do you determine whether A penetrates B or B engulfs A? Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Genderization
Greetings Economists, I agree with what Mine raises about the sexist point of view that Sam Pawlett put forward as his view of human reproduction. Sam had made that remark in the context of discussing essentialism, and I would just add to what Mine wrote that, Sam's remarks show how an essentialist view of human sex fails to account for the reality of human social relations. An essential description from Sam's point of view, would be that without some property P something is no longer essential. In this case penetration of the woman to have human reproduction is essential as a conception for Sam. Essentialism cannot take into account how sex between two people has no essential to it, but is plastic and changeable, and mutual when not one sided as Sam thinks it ought to be thought of. Sexism flows out of exactly making one part of the act essential in some aspect. Sam may not make love as he thinks it ought to be theoretically understood of course, one more contradiction to resolve. One of many times where essence fails to help us understand even the most prosaic of human activities. Which is why in current research the classical point of view is in trouble explaining human minds. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: genderization (fwd)
I think you should read the report of the study again. It says that boys surgically transformed to resemble girls still identify as boys and act as boys (this may be mimicing, etc.) But they were raised as girls. And identified to everyone as girls. I understand your point about vulgar biological determinism, but to deny the influence of hormones, etc. is a vulgar idealism. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > One can not "identify" masculine behavior by looking at the presence or > absence of reproductive organs.. > > I think the research is biased for the reasons I mentioned below. It does > not consider the social factors other than the "family"! > > Mine > > >It does saying "acting like" anything. It says "identifying as" > > >Rod > > -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: genderization (fwd)
NO. You are creating false dichotomies. Vulgar biological "determinism" is a already product of vulgar "idealist" mentality, which essentializes, reifies and idealizes biology.. Mine >I understand your point about vulgar biological determinism, but to deny >the >influence of hormones, etc. is a vulgar idealism. >Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > One can not "identify" masculine behavior by looking at the presence or > absence of reproductive organs.. > > I think the research is biased for the reasons I mentioned below. It does > not consider the social factors other than the "family"! > > Mine > > >It does saying "acting like" anything. It says "identifying as" > > >Rod > > -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: genderization (fwd)
And up is down and left is right and black is white and out is in and no is yes and big is little and... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > NO. You are creating false dichotomies. Vulgar biological "determinism" is > a already product of vulgar "idealist" mentality, which essentializes, > reifies and idealizes biology.. > > Mine > > >I understand your point about vulgar biological determinism, but to deny > >the > >influence of hormones, etc. is a vulgar idealism. > > >Rod > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > One can not "identify" masculine behavior by looking at the presence or > > absence of reproductive organs.. > > > > I think the research is biased for the reasons I mentioned below. It does > > not consider the social factors other than the "family"! > > > > Mine > > > > >It does saying "acting like" anything. It says "identifying as" > > > > >Rod > > > > > > -- > Rod Hay > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > The History of Economic Thought Archive > http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html > Batoche Books > http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ > 52 Eby Street South > Kitchener, Ontario > N2G 3L1 > Canada -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Jim Devine wrote: >One important part of this discussion is the distinction between >"gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see >"sex" in biological terms You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But she has a point. Doug
Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Jim Devine wrote: >Sometimes, leftists lean toward the cultural determinist side, because >they >hope that by changing society, it will get rid of the perceived obnoxious >aspects of masculinity and femininity. Of course, this isn't the only >road. >For example, in her utopian novel, WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME, Marge >Piercy's utopians have been biologically altered to encourage equality >and >democracy: biological men breast-feed babies, babies are produced by >incubators, etc. Jim, from what I see, Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers "biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with (men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into feminine practices. We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new intimacy!! Mine
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Jim Devine wrote: > > Since causation goes both ways, both brands of determinism are wrong. > However, each has the potential to add some insights as long as we don't > try to be reductionist. BTW, Carol Tavris has a useful book on all of this, > _The Mismeasure of Woman_. She brings up a log of interesting stuff of the > sort that I didn't deal with above. > How about including as categories to be used in understanding these aspects of ourselves the categories of self-determination and of a capacity for full self-determination of thought, desire and action as the "idea" of humanity? If, as seems to be the case, men and women have differing "natural inclinations", this would then mean only that what Hegel called the "originally sensuous will" is gendered. What identifies men and women as human, however, is a shared capacity for overcoming this "originally sensuous will", i.e. for "autonomy" in Kant's sense, for full self-determination. This, I take it, is what Hegel and Marx mean by "freedom" as the "idea" of humanity. "That man is free by Nature is quite correct in one sense; viz., that he is so according to the Idea of Humanity; but we imply thereby that he is such only in virtue of his destiny - that he has an undeveloped power to become such; for the 'Nature' of an object is exactly synonymous with its 'Idea'. ... Freedom as the ideal of that which is original and natural, does not exist as original and natural. Rather must it be first sought out and won; and that by an incalculable medial discipline of the intellectual and moral powers. ... To the Ideal of Freedom, Law and Morality are indispensably requisite; and they are in and for themselves, universal existences, objects and aims; which are discovered only by the activity of thought, separating itself from the merely sensuous, and developing itself, in opposition thereto; and which must on the other hand, be introduced into and incorporated with the originally sensuous will, and that contrarily to its natural inclination." (Hegel, The Philosophy of History, pp. 40-41) Social contexts can be more or less supportive of such development. According to Marx, the most supportive such context would be a community of "associated producers", "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." Ted Winslow -- Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054 York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario CANADA M3J 1P3
Re: Genderization, Nursing, Children's Toys
Mine wrote: >This side effect seems to reinforce traditional gender roles .. If you > don't breast feed your child, you are not considered to be a real mother. When I was a baby (late 1950s) the fad in the USA was to get babies as quickly as possible to a bottle. Nursing a child, at that time, was considered old- fashioned and great social pressure existed to use a bottle. And, in the "old days" in the USA well-to-do women didn't nurse at all but hired someone else (a nurse-maid)to nurse their children. And, the attempts of evil MNCs to get poor women in poor countries to buy formula -- rather than nursing -- is well- documented. They were somewhat successful in changing social practices in many countries. The rise of social pressure to nurse a baby as long as possible returned in the 1980s, I think, associated in some way with conservative trends then current in the USA. Certainly nursing can make holding a job very difficult. (This doesn't mean this return of social pressure to nurse was bad: there are certain health advantages for a baby who nurses for at least a number of months.) But, the biological ability of women to nurse does not mean society forces women to nurse (as when I was a baby in the late 1950s and in "the old days"). Biology does not force women to nurse; society does. And, it is not clear what "capitalism wants" as far as nursing goes. In recent years social conservatives (who are also pro-capitalist) and certain capitalist firms have disagreed over the desirability of nursing. Eric
Re: Re: Re: Genderization (fwd)
Mine, there are many many people on this list who believe that women should have children and that it is their only purpose in life. So, the argument you make is bound to be very controversial. I understand that Sam is also for keeping women bound barefoot in the kitchen...for shame! Steve On Thu, 18 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > second, the sole purpose of sexual activity is reduced to getting women > pregnant and injecting male sperm into women's bodies. as i said before, > there is no reason to assume biological motherhood. We are not living > hunting gathering societies where reproduction was somewhat necessary for > small bands to maintain their species.Time has changed; sexual roles have > changed. We are not living in stone ages. I reject to see the sole purpose > of sex as reproduction. Many women prefer not to have children, and I > don't see the reason why they should!!! > > Mine > > >> Sam Pawlett wrote: > >> >Well, it is necessary that the male penetrate > the female or the species >> >will fail to reproduce itself. > > > > ...except for the occasional turkey-baster. > > >Why not say "it is necessary for the female to engulf the male sperm . . > ."? > > >How do you determine whether A penetrates B or B engulfs A? > > Carrol > >
Re: Re: Re: Genderization (fwd)
true, Doyle.. Mine -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:28:47 -0700 From: Doyle Saylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19269] Re: Re: Re: Genderization Greetings Economists, I agree with what Mine raises about the sexist point of view that Sam Pawlett put forward as his view of human reproduction. Sam had made that remark in the context of discussing essentialism, and I would just add to what Mine wrote that, Sam's remarks show how an essentialist view of human sex fails to account for the reality of human social relations. An essential description from Sam's point of view, would be that without some property P something is no longer essential. In this case penetration of the woman to have human reproduction is essential as a conception for Sam. Essentialism cannot take into account how sex between two people has no essential to it, but is plastic and changeable, and mutual when not one sided as Sam thinks it ought to be thought of. Sexism flows out of exactly making one part of the act essential in some aspect. Sam may not make love as he thinks it ought to be theoretically understood of course, one more contradiction to resolve. One of many times where essence fails to help us understand even the most prosaic of human activities. Which is why in current research the classical point of view is in trouble explaining human minds. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Re: Genderization (fwd)
I don't wanna be controversial, but why? Mine >Mine, there are many many people on this list who believe that women >should have children and that it is their only purpose in life. So, the >argument you make is bound to be very controversial. >Steve
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Thank you for sparing us. She is another of the idealist. "Language is the only reality" school of metaphysical thinking. A firm believer of the Humpty Dumpty theory of linguistics. Rod Doug Henwood wrote: > Jim Devine wrote: > > >One important part of this discussion is the distinction between > >"gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see > >"sex" in biological terms > > You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on > how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively > constructed. But she has a point. > > Doug -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
BUT Butler neglects the Marxist feminist critique of how capitalism underlies the construction of sex and gender. Exploitation is not only discursive, it is REAL as it is embedded in oppressive practices. Butler apolitical critique of gender categories reminds me of the absurdity of post-modern pessimism: "don't criticicize sexism and racism because you perpetuate the same discourse" B. so what? See Rosamary's book _Materialist Feminism_ for an excellent critique of Butler (edited volume).. Mine >You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how >"sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But >she has a point. >Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
I wrote: >>One important part of this discussion is the distinction between "gender" and "sex." The way I try to deal with these terms is to see "sex" in biological terms... << Doug writes: >You're lucky I'll spare you a long quotation from Judith Butler on how "sex" and the "biological" are themselves discursively constructed. But she has a point.< Rod writes: >Thank you for sparing us. She is another of the idealist. "Language is the only reality" school of metaphysical thinking. A firm believer of the Humpty Dumpty theory of linguistics.< I don't know anything about Butler, so I can't comment on her views. If she's indeed one of the "language is the only reality" types, then forget her. Doug, aren't all of the statistics you wield so well in LBO "discursively constructed"? Does that mean that they should be flushed down the toilet? More importantly, I really don't like the kind of argument in which someone says "But Authority X says you're wrong," where here X is Butler. I think that the old bumper-sticker slogan "Question Authority" was quite valid. Just because X was right about issue Y doesn't mean that he or she is right about issue Z. Instead, tell us what logical argument X presented, what kind of empirical evidence he or she mobilized, and/or what kind of philosophical-methodological insights X had. The sex/gender distinction (and the dialectic between them) was developed by anthropologists (who of course used language and so constructed their concepts "discursively"), many of whom were influenced by feminism. Unfortunately, I can't give you a specific reference, since my books are in boxes... If we are to reject the sex/gender distinction, what is the alternative? How does that alternative concept help us understand the relevant issues? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
At 05:14 PM 05/16/2000 -0400, you wrote: >Jim Devine wrote: > >Sometimes, leftists lean toward the cultural determinist side, because > they hope that by changing society, it will get rid of the perceived > obnoxious aspects of masculinity and femininity. Of course, this isn't > the only road. For example, in her utopian novel, WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF > TIME, Marge Piercy's utopians have been biologically altered to encourage > equality and democracy: biological men breast-feed babies, babies are > produced by incubators, etc. Mine writes: >Jim, from what I see, Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is >difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because >she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. I really don't care if she's a Marxist or not, since Marxism is not the sole source of truth (while some Marxists are downright wrong). I know that she does not suffer from "biological essentialism," since her utopia also involves all sorts of _societal_ changes that do not stem from biological changes. If anything, causation in her book runs from society to biology. >Feminists like Marge Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist >tradition. I don't find name-calling of this sort to be useful. More useful would be if you were to read her novel. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
> For example, in her utopian novel, WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF >> TIME, Marge Piercy's utopians have been biologically altered to encourage >> equality and democracy: biological men breast-feed babies, babies are >> produced by incubators, etc. as it is "written" above, Marge Piercy is making an implicit case for biological reductionism. "Culture" enters into play to "endorse" her utopian vision of "biologically altered" men. so culture "corrects" what is biologically "incorrect" (according to her) .. Piercy's argument is *still* biologically essentialist... >I don't find name-calling of this sort to be useful. More useful would be >if you were to read her novel. I already read her novel in Turkish version. More useful would be if you were to improve your knowledge of feminism, since you are confusing different feminist positions.. It is FLAT absurd to compare leftist feminist position to Marge Piecy's biologically guided cultural feminism. No feminist reader would buy this.. Mine
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
btw, the turkish translation of the novel is _Zamanin Kiyisindaki Kadin_ published by _Ayrinti_ publishers. I clearly remember it now.Marge Piercy represents the radical feminist tradition, not Marxist.. Mine >>I don't find name-calling of this sort to be useful. More useful would be >>if you were to read her novel. >I already read her novel in Turkish version.
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her work.
She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose novels and
poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of leftists owe a
lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an Marxist Feminist," so
not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one reason I gave up on labels of
thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe to her? I don't thonk so. Has
she fought the good fight for almost 40 years? You better believe it. --jks
In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
"biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
(men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
feminine practices.
We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should
be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
intimacy!! >>
Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
from my reading of her, she was making a radical feminist case
(radical alteration of biological identity as to make men feed babies).she
might be a figure on the left, which i am not denying. in the begining of
the second wave feminist movement, socialist and radical feminists were in
the same camp, and then they departed for several reasons. but in
so far as her "biological idealism" is concerned,I would not "typically"
charecterize Marge Piercy as a marxist feminist. it is not my purpose to
bash her, so I don't understand why you get emotionally offensive. we are
discussing the "nature" of her argument here.. I did *not* say she is
"beyond the pale" because she is not a Marxist..You had better read my
post once again..
Schulamit was a figure on the left too. so what? are we not gonna
say something about her work?
let's drop off this dogmatic way of thinking..
Mine
>Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her
work. She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose
novels and poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of
leftists owe a lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an
Marxist Feminist," so not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one
reason I gave up on labels of thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe
to her? I don't thonk so. Has she fought the good fight for almost 40
years? You better believe it. --jks
In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
"biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
(men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
feminine practices.
We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should
be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
intimacy!! >>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Rod Hay wrote: >Thank you for sparing us. She is another of the idealist. "Language is >the only reality" school of metaphysical thinking. A firm believer of the >Humpty Dumpty theory of linguistics. If only you hadn't said that... Doug [from the introduction to Judith Butler's Bodies That Matter] What I would propose in place of these conceptions of construction is a return to the notion of matter, not as site or surface, but as a process of materialization that stabilizes over time to produce the effect of boundary, fixity, and surface we call matter. That matter is always materialized has, I think, to be thought in relation to the productive and, indeed, materializing effects of regulatory power in the Foucaultian sense. Thus, the question is no longer, How is gender constituted as and through a certain interpretation of sex? (a question that leaves the "matter" of sex untheorized), but rather, Through what regulatory norms is sex itself materialized? And how is it that treating the materiality of sex as a given presupposes and consolidates the normative conditions of its own emergence? Crucially, then, construction is neither a single act nor a causal process initiated by a subject and culminating in a set of fixed effects. Construction not only takes place in time, but is itself a temporal process which operates through the reiteration of norms; sex is both produced and destabilized in the course of this reiteration. As a sedimented effect of a reiterative or ritual practice, sex acquires its naturalized effect, and, yet, it is also by virtue of this reiteration that gaps and fissures are opened up as the constitutive instabilities in such constructions, as that which escapes or exceeds the norm, as that which cannot be wholly defined or fixed by the repetitive labor of that norm. This instability is the deconstituting possibility in the very process of repetition, the power that undoes the very effects by which "sex" is stabilized, the possibility to put the consolidation of the norms of "sex" into a potentially productive crisis. Certain formulations of the radical constructivist position appear almost compulsively to produce a moment of recurrent exasperation, for it seems that when the constructivist is construed as a linguistic idealist, the constructivist refutes the reality of bodies, the relevance of science, the alleged facts of birth, aging, illness, and death. The critic might also suspect the constructivist of a certain somatophobia and seek assurances that this abstracted theorist will admit that there are, minimally, sexually differentiated parts, activities, capacities, hormonal and chromosomal differences that can be conceded without reference to "construction." Although at this moment I want to offer an absolute reassurance to my interlocutor, some anxiety prevails. To "concede" the undeniability of "sex" or its "materiality" is always to concede some version of "sex," some formation of "materiality." Is the discourse in and through which that concession occurs-and, yes, that concession invariably does occur-not itself formative of the very phenomenon that it concedes? To claim that discourse is formative is not to claim that it originates, causes, or exhaustively composes that which it concedes; rather, it is to claim that there is no reference to a pure body which is not at the same time a further formation of that body. In this sense, the linguistic capacity to refer to sexed bodies is not denied, but the very meaning of "referentiality" is altered. In philosophical terms, the constative claim is always to some degree performative. In relation to sex, then, if one concedes the materiality of sex or of the body, does that very conceding operate - performatively - to materialize that sex? And further, how is it that the reiterated concession of that sex - one which need not take place in speech or writing but might be "signaled" in a much more inchoate way - constitutes the sedimentation and production of that material effect? The moderate critic might concede that some part of "sex" is constructed, but some other is certainly not, and then, of course, find him or herself not only under some obligation to draw the line between what is and is not constructed, but to explain how it is that "sex" comes in parts whose differentiation is not a matter of construction. But as that line of demarcation between such ostensible parts gets drawn, the "unconstructed" becomes bounded once again through a signifying practice, and the very boundary which is meant to protect some part of sex from the taint of constructivism is now defined by the anti-constructivist's own construction. Is construction something which happens to a ready-made object, a pregiven thing, and does it happen in degrees? Or are we perhaps referring on both sides of the debate to an inevitable practice of signification, of demarcating and delimit
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
The excellent one to start with is Marxist feminist Gayle Rubin's article published in _Towards an Anthropology of Women_ "The Traffic in Women: Political Economy of Sex". It offers a much better argument than the one offered by Butler's metaphysical post-modernism.. Mine >The sex/gender distinction (and the dialectic between them) was developed >by anthropologists (who of course used language and so constructed their >concepts "discursively"), many of whom were influenced by feminism. >Unfortunately, I can't give you a specific reference, since my books are >in >boxes...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
Jim Devine wrote: >I don't know anything about Butler, so I can't comment on her views. >If she's indeed one of the "language is the only reality" types, >then forget her. Doug, aren't all of the statistics you wield so >well in LBO "discursively constructed"? Does that mean that they >should be flushed down the toilet? Why do people think that calling something "discursively constructed" means it's trivial? GDP is a discursive construction - it has no existence apart from the system of monetary representation that it emerged from. It doesn't feed people or make them happy, but important folks pay lots of attention to it and it guides their actions. >More importantly, I really don't like the kind of argument in which >someone says "But Authority X says you're wrong," where here X is >Butler. I think that the old bumper-sticker slogan "Question >Authority" was quite valid. He said, citing an authority... >Just because X was right about issue Y doesn't mean that he or she >is right about issue Z. Instead, tell us what logical argument X >presented, what kind of empirical evidence he or she mobilized, >and/or what kind of philosophical-methodological insights X had. I gave it to you from the horse's mouth. >The sex/gender distinction (and the dialectic between them) was >developed by anthropologists (who of course used language and so >constructed their concepts "discursively"), many of whom were >influenced by feminism. Unfortunately, I can't give you a specific >reference, since my books are in boxes... > >If we are to reject the sex/gender distinction, what is the >alternative? How does that alternative concept help us understand >the relevant issues? Even if you don't take the whole Butler dose, I think it's always important to ask what is happening ideologically when biology - or "nature" - is invoked. When people start talking about hormones, there's some invocation of physical necessity against whose judgment there's no appeal. Or in the dismal science, "natural" rates of interest or unemployment. As Keynes said of the "natural" rate of interest, it's the one that is most likely to preserve the status quo; I think you'll find the same when "natural" differences between the sexes (not genders) are invoked. Doug
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
I agree that labels are the question. But the label "labels" is
not the question either. That is, labelling Piercy "non-marxist"
does not prove her wrong. Equally, labelling Mine a labeller
does not prove her wrong. For example, Mine writes, "The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality"
stems from "biological inequality." Question: Is that a false
interpretation of Piercy? If it is a correct interpretation, then we
don't need any "label" of Piercy to believe that she is wrong.
Justin then asserts, "Does P hold the views you ascribe to her?
I don't thonk so." Well, why? Mine has offered her interpretation,
and that interpretation stands until someone who has read
Piercy can offer another one. Justin doesn't do that. He just
labels Mine a Marxist, meaning someone whose opinions
don't matter.
To repeat: I agree with Justin that labels should be kept out of
it -- and Mine's argument would have been better had she left
out the labels. But then Justin labels Mine, but unlike her he
doesn't offer any other arguments except a label.
So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She
wins, zero to minus 1.
Carrol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her work.
> She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose novels and
> poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of leftists owe a
> lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an Marxist Feminist," so
> not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one reason I gave up on labels of
> thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe to her? I don't thonk so. Has
> she fought the good fight for almost 40 years? You better believe it. --jks
>
> In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
> difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
> she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
> Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
> problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
> from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
> Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
> problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
> "biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
> problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
> (men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
> effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
> naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
> feminine practices.
>
> We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should
> be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
> biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
> equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
> biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
> discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
> intimacy!! >>
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Carrol, I agree with your constructive criticism here
What I did was to present my own interpretation of Piercy and offer a
reasonable argument about why she seemed to me somewhat controversial (I
won't repeat the argument since it is in the archives of the list). If
Justin has something to say with the "content" of my analysis, then he
should offer another interpretation. Rational discussion requires logical
counter-arguments untill the parties convince each other. If Justin
challenges my reading of her as biologically essentialist, then he should
"reason" why he thinks the contrary..
Labeling me marxist feminist is not the solution here..
merci,
Mine
>I agree that labels are the question. But the label "labels" is not the
question either. That is, labelling Piercy "non-marxist" does not prove
her wrong. Equally, labelling Mine a labeller does not prove her wrong.
For example, Mine writes, "The big problem with her argument is that she
assumes "gender inequality" stems from "biological inequality."
Question: Is that a false interpretation of Piercy? If it is a correct
interpretation, then we don't need any "label" of Piercy to believe that
she is wrong. Justin then asserts, "Does P hold the views you ascribe to
her? I don't thonk so." Well, why? Mine has offered her interpretation,
and that interpretation stands until someone who has read Piercy can offer
another one. Justin doesn't do that. He just labels Mine a Marxist,
meaning someone whose opinions don't matter.
To repeat: I agree with Justin that labels should be kept out of
it -- and Mine's argument would have been better had she left
out the labels. But then Justin labels Mine, but unlike her he
doesn't offer any other arguments except a label.
So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She
wins, zero to minus 1.
Carrol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her work.
> She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose novels and
> poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of leftists owe a
> lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an Marxist Feminist," so
> not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one reason I gave up on labels of
> thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe to her? I don't thonk so. Has
> she fought the good fight for almost 40 years? You better believe it. --jks
>
> In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
> difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
> she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
> Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
> problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
> from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
> Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
> problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
> "biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
> problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
> (men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
> effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
> naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
> feminine practices.
>
> We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should
> be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
> biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
> equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
> biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
> discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
> intimacy!! >>
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
OK, fair enough. I would not focus too much on P's early Women at the Edge of
Time--she has written a lot of books since--and I would not necessarily try to read a
novelist's own opinions off the surface of her novels. just because P wrote a book
about the Weather Underground doesn't mean she advocates bombing. I think P would
agree with you about why we on the left want men to share childraising; she needn't
think that we men can't do it unless we have our works fixed. P imagines a utopia, but
it is not a perfect world; one of her string suits is to write utopian fiction that
does not depicta n ideal state. Ursula K. LeGuin did that in The Dispossessed too. As
for Firestone, I think she's great, bit primitive as a theorist, but I learned a lot
from her work. Perhaps I should say that I am from that period myself, which may be
why I reacted that way to what I took to be an ignorant slam at one of the people
important to forming my own (very unbiologically determist) sensibilit!
!
y. --jks
In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:50:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
from my reading of her, she was making a radical feminist case
(radical alteration of biological identity as to make men feed babies).she
might be a figure on the left, which i am not denying. in the begining of
the second wave feminist movement, socialist and radical feminists were in
the same camp, and then they departed for several reasons. but in
so far as her "biological idealism" is concerned,I would not "typically"
charecterize Marge Piercy as a marxist feminist. it is not my purpose to
bash her, so I don't understand why you get emotionally offensive. we are
discussing the "nature" of her argument here.. I did *not* say she is
"beyond the pale" because she is not a Marxist..You had better read my
post once again..
Schulamit was a figure on the left too. so what? are we not gonna
say something about her work?
let's drop off this dogmatic way of thinking..
Mine
>Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her
work. She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose
novels and poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of
leftists owe a lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an
Marxist Feminist," so not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one
reason I gave up on labels of thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe
to her? I don't thonk so. Has she fought the good fight for almost 40
years? You better believe it. --jks
In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
"biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
(men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
feminine practices.
We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should
be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
intimacy!! >>
>>
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Why don't you relax Justin?
Mine
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:37:30
-0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19100] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE:
Genderization (fwd
OK, fair enough. I would not focus too much on P's early Women at the Edge of
Time--she has written a lot of books since--and I would not necessarily try to read a
novelist's own opinions off the surface of her novels. just because P wrote a book
about the Weather Underground doesn't mean she advocates bombing. I think P would
agree with you about why we on the left want men to share childraising; she needn't
think that we men can't do it unless we have our works fixed. P imagines a utopia, but
it is not a perfect world; one of her string suits is to write utopian fiction that
does not depicta n ideal state. Ursula K. LeGuin did that in The Dispossessed too. As
for Firestone, I think she's great, bit primitive as a theorist, but I learned a lot
from her work. Perhaps I should say that I am from that period myself, which may be
why I reacted that way to what I took to be an ignorant slam at one of the people
important to forming my own (very unbiologically determist) sensibilit!
!
!
y. --jks
In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:50:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
from my reading of her, she was making a radical feminist case
(radical alteration of biological identity as to make men feed babies).she
might be a figure on the left, which i am not denying. in the begining of
the second wave feminist movement, socialist and radical feminists were in
the same camp, and then they departed for several reasons. but in
so far as her "biological idealism" is concerned,I would not "typically"
charecterize Marge Piercy as a marxist feminist. it is not my purpose to
bash her, so I don't understand why you get emotionally offensive. we are
discussing the "nature" of her argument here.. I did *not* say she is
"beyond the pale" because she is not a Marxist..You had better read my
post once again..
Schulamit was a figure on the left too. so what? are we not gonna
say something about her work?
let's drop off this dogmatic way of thinking..
Mine
>Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her
work. She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose
novels and poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of
leftists owe a lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an
Marxist Feminist," so not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one
reason I gave up on labels of thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe
to her? I don't thonk so. Has she fought the good fight for almost 40
years? You better believe it. --jks
In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
"biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
(men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
feminine practices.
We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should
be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
intimacy!! >>
>>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization
I wrote: >>I don't know anything about Butler, so I can't comment on her views. If >>she's indeed one of the "language is the only reality" types, then forget >>her. Doug, aren't all of the statistics you wield so well in LBO >>"discursively constructed"? Does that mean that they should be flushed >>down the toilet? Quoth Doug: >Why do people think that calling something "discursively constructed" >means it's trivial? GDP is a discursive construction - it has no existence >apart from the system of monetary representation that it emerged from. It >doesn't feed people or make them happy, but important folks pay lots of >attention to it and it guides their actions. The idea that the distinction between sex and gender (or between biology and society) is "socially constructed" (similar to "discursively constructed" without the over-emphasis on language, which is only one aspect of society) is so trivial and obvious that I assumed that the only reason bring it up is as criticism, that I should change my point of view in some way. In any event, I think there's an objective basis for the socially constructed concepts of sex & gender. I gave some evidence, some argument. Was there something wrong with my presentation? is there an alternative to the sex/gender distinction that can help us deal with these issues more effectively? does Butler suggest one? >>More importantly, I really don't like the kind of argument in which >>someone says "But Authority X says you're wrong," where here X is Butler. >>I think that the old bumper-sticker slogan "Question Authority" was quite >>valid. >He said, citing an authority... yeah, but that authority is _correct_! Actually, I wasn't citing an authority as much as using the anonymous bumper-sticker writer as a summary for a position I've been arguing on and off on pen-l for years. I'm willing to take responsibility for that view, independent of some authority figure's assertions. >>If we are to reject the sex/gender distinction, what is the alternative? >>How does that alternative concept help us understand the relevant issues? > >Even if you don't take the whole Butler dose, I think it's always >important to ask what is happening ideologically when biology - or >"nature" - is invoked. When people start talking about hormones, there's >some invocation of physical necessity against whose judgment there's no >appeal. There's nothing in the notion of the role of hormones that says that one can't overcome the urges that result from them. Simply bringing up the flow of testosterone (or whatever) is not that same thing as advocating determinism, essentialism, or reductionism. Look, I'm horny a lot (seemingly due to the baleful influence of hormones), but that doesn't mean that I always do something about it, right? it also doesn't determine exactly what I do about those hormones, right? That means that not only does the "natural" sphere play a role but society does too. Hey, if you and Don Roper don't mind, I'll use a dirty word. The relationship between biology and society is a _dialectic_. >Or in the dismal science, "natural" rates of interest or unemployment. As >Keynes said of the "natural" rate of interest, it's the one that is most >likely to preserve the status quo; I think you'll find the same when >"natural" differences between the sexes (not genders) are invoked. This is not a good analogy. The natural rate of unemployment, for example, is mostly a code-phrase for capitalism's need to have a reserve army of labor, an institution created by society. On the other hand, is the fact that men have "outies" and women have "innies" somehow socially constructed? No. What's socially constructed is the fact that the former have the lion's share of the power. This shunning of the role of biology threatens to veer into prudish Platonism ... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Genderization, [Fwd: Political Classification of Biological Fact]
Just last night I learned an interesting little factoid that bears on the current thread. A psychiatrist lecturing on medications and pregnancy mentioned that one of the anti-psychotic drugs had a side effect fortunate for women nursing their infants but unfortunate for men. It causes women to produce more milk It causes men to produce *some* milk. Men who encountered this side effect, he said, tended to be very upset. :-) Men *can* lactate. So lactation is *not* a dependable indication of either sex or gender. Carrol Original Message Subject: Political Classification of Biological Fact Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:32:24 -0600 From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Doug Henwood wrote: > Biology is often invoked to > put an end to debate or analysis. Even such raw biological facts as > childbirth and lactation take on very different meanings depending on > social arrangements Though at some point Doug and I seem to have a disagreement, here he is almost tautologically correct, and someone who can't see his point is indeed clueless. The difficulty comes when classifications to which we are accustomed come to seem somehow more "real" than unaccustomed categories. It would be just as "Real" to divide humanity into those under 5'2'' in height (women) and those over 5'2'' (men). That is every bit as much a *biological* marker as is lactation. Why in the world should we pick out lactation rather than height as the basis for splitting the human species into two categories? Why should gender be a privileged classification? All classifications are arbitrary. Any answer given to that question will, upon examination, turn out to be a social or political rather than a biological proposition. The division based upon lactation, we will be told, is more "important." It is only important, however, because of a political decision to continue the human species indefinitely. We could decide to cease reproducing but spend most of our time in volleyball playing, with leagues divided up in a similar fashion to boxing. "Shorties." "Mediums." "Real Talls." Et cetera. Now capacity to lactate would be as trivial and invisible as the number of clogged pores on the back of one's hand. This is why Kelley has every right to be annoyed when someone tells her she is ignoring biology. The clueless simply cannot see that all the "natural" or "biological" differences between "men" and "women" are only meaningful within a given set of historical (political) contingencies. The interesting question then becomes why so many people are so insistent on claiming that two genders is a "real" and lasting categorization. I know why I am insistent on the importance of maintaining the importance of biology in human life (even while insisting that the meaning of any biological fact is always politically established) -- the denial of biology is always, at some point, also the denial of history. But the attempt to assert biology by ascribing some independent "meaning" to lactation or child birth also denies history. Try it yet another way. Kelly's interlocutor admits that women aren't pregnant all the time and that many women don't ever have children, while all women sooner or later are unable to have children any longer. So a classification of "women" based on this pregnancy is really pretty trivial -- unless he wants to claim that certain forms of activity or certain social relations should be denied to those who are merely (at some point in their lives) potentially capable of pregnancy. THis is really wild. If no political/social decisions are to be made on the basis of the division, why make it? Twist and turn as you want, there is no way of saying that such and such "really" makes one a woman without sneaking in some political element to give the claim substance. I am potentially capable of having an utterly crippling headache every 5 to 7 days should I stop taking 12 mg. of a rather expensive medicine (Zanaflex) each day. Why not divide the human species up into the Zanaflex-dependent and the Zanaflex-independent. It would under many conditions be far more useful thatn the division into male and female genders. And so forth. And playing with various Logic 101 games is not relevant, because "If P then Q" is irrelevant until you make a political decision that Q has some particular meaning. Someone did try not long ago to give the "capacity for pregnancy" such an intrinsic meaning by his insistence that the abortion rate was somehow related to women's fear of motherhood, or something like that. That is, he insisted that roughly one-half of all humans were *politically* defined by a physical attribute which was trivial unless someone chose to make it significant. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Carroll, I do not label Mine a Marxist, nor do I think that if I or anyone did so
characterize her that that would mean that her views did not matter. Whether or not
Mine or Piercy or you or I adopts a certain label is not the issue. The issue is
whether our views are credible, defenisble, and useful. Carroll apparently has
concluded that I am not a Marxist, and therefore my views are of no account. Please
note that I do not subscribe to this characterization either. I do not think that
labelling oneself in this manner serves any useful function. It would not tell Carroll
anything concrete if I said I was a Marxist, because it would not tell him whether I
believed the things he things are most important.
Now, as to the question whether Piercy holds the view that biological characteristics
determine gender behavior without social intermedaition, or however Mine wanted to
characterize the view she ascibed to P. Since Mine offers no poarticular evidence that
P holds such a view, it is hard to know on what basis she thinks P holds it. it is
somewhat hard to tell anyway. P is a novelist and poet. She has written some political
theory, or polemics along time ago, mainly against male exploitation of women during
the antiwar movement, including the classic essay the grand Coolie Damn, but unlike
you or me, she does not normally write her views down as political propositions
intended to be directly evaluated.
I have, however, read virtually all of P's novels and most of her poetry. I see
nothing in her works that would tend to support an attribution of any sort of
biological determinism to P. She does portray women and womemn as different in various
ways, but she is careful to show some women as socialized into subordinate roles, as
she shows other breaking free of them in various ways. The book on the French
revolution is a lovely exploration of a whole range of behavior from utterly absed to
very radical. She also portrays men in a similar range. She shows lesbian
relationships as positive, for eaxmple in her WWII book, but has favorable portraits
of heterosexual relations, such as that in He She & It of the matriach of her New
England kibbutz or commune with Yod, the very male animotronic robot hero. On my
reading, i conclude taht she does not accept the view Mine says she holds.
--jks
In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:13:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< I agree that labels are the question. But the label "labels" is
not the question either. That is, labelling Piercy "non-marxist"
does not prove her wrong. Equally, labelling Mine a labeller
does not prove her wrong. For example, Mine writes, "The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality"
stems from "biological inequality." Question: Is that a false
interpretation of Piercy? If it is a correct interpretation, then we
don't need any "label" of Piercy to believe that she is wrong.
Justin then asserts, "Does P hold the views you ascribe to her?
I don't thonk so." Well, why? Mine has offered her interpretation,
and that interpretation stands until someone who has read
Piercy can offer another one. Justin doesn't do that. He just
labels Mine a Marxist, meaning someone whose opinions
don't matter.
To repeat: I agree with Justin that labels should be kept out of
it -- and Mine's argument would have been better had she left
out the labels. But then Justin labels Mine, but unlike her he
doesn't offer any other arguments except a label.
So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She
wins, zero to minus 1.
Carrol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her work.
> She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose novels and
> poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of leftists owe a
> lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an Marxist Feminist," so
> not on ythe left, so beyond the pale). It's one reason I gave up on labels of
> thsi sort. Does P hold the views you ascribe to her? I don't thonk so. Has
> she fought the good fight for almost 40 years? You better believe it. --jks
>
> In a message dated 5/16/00 5:18:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
> difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
> she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
> Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
> problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
> from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
> Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
> problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
> "biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
> problem--the problem which does not or
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Justin,
my reaading of P is based on her novel _Women On the Edge of Time_. I gave
my interpretation of her feminism based on this specific document, so her
poetry is not relevant to the issue here since I DID NOT comment on her
poetry. You say I have provided no evidence to my claims. If you
carefully read my post, I DID. P "herself" says in her utopia that men
should be biologically altered to feed babies to develop an
ethics of femininity. Since my understanding of feminism has NOTHING to do
with feeding babies (which is the traditional role I REJECT, BUT
which P naturalizes and romanticizes),I articulated my criticism on this
ground.
merci,
Mine
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:29:27
-0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19098] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE:
Genderization (fwd) Carroll, I do not label Mine a Marxist, nor do I
think that if I or anyone did so characterize her that that would mean
that her views did not matter. Whether or not Mine or Piercy or you or I
adopts a certain label is not the issue. The issue is whether our views
are credible, defenisble, and useful. Carroll apparently has concluded
that I am not a Marxist, and therefore my views are of no account. Please
note that I do not subscribe to this characterization either. I do not
think that labelling oneself in this manner serves any useful function. It
would not tell Carroll anything concrete if I said I was a Marxist,
because it would not tell him whether I believed the things he things are
most important.
Now, as to the question whether Piercy holds the view that biological characteristics
determine gender behavior without social intermedaition, or however Mine wanted to
characterize the view she ascibed to P. Since Mine offers no poarticular evidence that
P holds such a view, it is hard to know on what basis she thinks P holds it. it is
somewhat hard to tell anyway. P is a novelist and poet. She has written some political
theory, or polemics along time ago, mainly against male exploitation of women during
the antiwar movement, including the classic essay the grand Coolie Damn, but unlike
you or me, she does not normally write her views down as political propositions
intended to be directly evaluated.
I have, however, read virtually all of P's novels and most of her poetry. I see
nothing in her works that would tend to support an attribution of any sort of
biological determinism to P. She does portray women and womemn as different in various
ways, but she is careful to show some women as socialized into subordinate roles, as
she shows other breaking free of them in various ways. The book on the French
revolution is a lovely exploration of a whole range of behavior from utterly absed to
very radical. She also portrays men in a similar range. She shows lesbian
relationships as positive, for eaxmple in her WWII book, but has favorable portraits
of heterosexual relations, such as that in He She & It of the matriach of her New
England kibbutz or commune with Yod, the very male animotronic robot hero. On my
reading, i conclude taht she does not accept the view Mine says she holds.
--jks
In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:13:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< I agree that labels are the question. But the label "labels" is
not the question either. That is, labelling Piercy "non-marxist"
does not prove her wrong. Equally, labelling Mine a labeller
does not prove her wrong. For example, Mine writes, "The big
problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality"
stems from "biological inequality." Question: Is that a false
interpretation of Piercy? If it is a correct interpretation, then we
don't need any "label" of Piercy to believe that she is wrong.
Justin then asserts, "Does P hold the views you ascribe to her?
I don't thonk so." Well, why? Mine has offered her interpretation,
and that interpretation stands until someone who has read
Piercy can offer another one. Justin doesn't do that. He just
labels Mine a Marxist, meaning someone whose opinions
don't matter.
To repeat: I agree with Justin that labels should be kept out of
it -- and Mine's argument would have been better had she left
out the labels. But then Justin labels Mine, but unlike her he
doesn't offer any other arguments except a label.
So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She
wins, zero to minus 1.
Carrol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe you better read some Marge Piercy and cure your ignorance of her work.
> She is one of the premier literary figures on the left, tio whose novels and
> poetry,a nd, yes, political writing, several generations of leftists owe a
> lot. I also get tired of line-drawing ("She's not an Ma
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
Carrol Cox wrote: >So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She >wins, zero to minus 1. Wow. That's just so clarifying. I've learned so much on PEN-L the last few days. Doug
Re: Genderization,[Fwd: Political Classification of Biological Fact] (fwd)
interesting, Carrol. I did not know the effects of anti-psychotic drugs on men and women respectively. I would say, however, it is still "unfortunate" that women produce "more milk" as a result of this treatment during pregnacy. Eventhough men produce "some" milk, they are still better off. This side effect seems to reinforce traditional gender roles by allowing the possibility for women to nurse their infants, while men can still escape from child caring responsibilities. It must be a really bothering thing to have milk on your breasts all the time. I have seen women complaining about this fact. If you don't breast feed your child, you are not considered to be a real mother. This feeding practice seems to be part of the routine of mothering as it relates to domestic duties of women. Mine >Just last night I learned an interesting little factoid that bears on the >current thread. A psychiatrist lecturing on medications and pregnancy >mentioned that one of the anti-psychotic drugs had a side effect >fortunate for women nursing their infants but unfortunate for men. It causes women >to produce more milk It causes men to produce *some* milk. Men who >encountered this side effect, he said, tended to be very upset. :-) Men *can* lactate. So lactation is *not* a dependable indication of either sex or gender. Carrol Original Message Subject: Political Classification of Biological Fact Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:32:24 -0600 From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Doug Henwood wrote: > Biology is often invoked to > put an end to debate or analysis. Even such raw biological facts as > childbirth and lactation take on very different meanings depending on > social arrangements Though at some point Doug and I seem to have a disagreement, here he is almost tautologically correct, and someone who can't see his point is indeed clueless. The difficulty comes when classifications to which we are accustomed come to seem somehow more "real" than unaccustomed categories. It would be just as "Real" to divide humanity into those under 5'2'' in height (women) and those over 5'2'' (men). That is every bit as much a *biological* marker as is lactation. Why in the world should we pick out lactation rather than height as the basis for splitting the human species into two categories? Why should gender be a privileged classification? All classifications are arbitrary. Any answer given to that question will, upon examination, turn out to be a social or political rather than a biological proposition. The division based upon lactation, we will be told, is more "important." It is only important, however, because of a political decision to continue the human species indefinitely. We could decide to cease reproducing but spend most of our time in volleyball playing, with leagues divided up in a similar fashion to boxing. "Shorties." "Mediums." "Real Talls." Et cetera. Now capacity to lactate would be as trivial and invisible as the number of clogged pores on the back of one's hand. This is why Kelley has every right to be annoyed when someone tells her she is ignoring biology. The clueless simply cannot see that all the "natural" or "biological" differences between "men" and "women" are only meaningful within a given set of historical (political) contingencies. The interesting question then becomes why so many people are so insistent on claiming that two genders is a "real" and lasting categorization. I know why I am insistent on the importance of maintaining the importance of biology in human life (even while insisting that the meaning of any biological fact is always politically established) -- the denial of biology is always, at some point, also the denial of history. But the attempt to assert biology by ascribing some independent "meaning" to lactation or child birth also denies history. Try it yet another way. Kelly's interlocutor admits that women aren't pregnant all the time and that many women don't ever have children, while all women sooner or later are unable to have children any longer. So a classification of "women" based on this pregnancy is really pretty trivial -- unless he wants to claim that certain forms of activity or certain social relations should be denied to those who are merely (at some point in their lives) potentially capable of pregnancy. THis is really wild. If no political/social decisions are to be made on the basis of the division, why make it? Twist and turn as you want, there is no way of saying that such and such "really" makes one a woman without sneaking in some political element to give the claim substance. I am potentially capable of having an utterly crippling headache every 5 to 7 days should I stop taking 12 mg. of a rather expensive medicine (Zanaflex) each day. Why not divide the human species up into the Zanaflex-dependent and the Zanaflex-independent. It would und
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
George Orwell wrote about a future society in 1984. Aldous Huxley wrote about a future society in Brave New World, Margaret Atwood wrote about a future society in Handmaid's Tale, Ursula LeGuin wrote about a future society in the Dispossed. I don't thing that any one of them were suggesting that the scenarios that they outlined "should" be followed. What evidence is there that Piercy says that her scenario "should" be followed. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Justin, > > my reaading of P is based on her novel _Women On the Edge of Time_. I gave > my interpretation of her feminism based on this specific document, so her > poetry is not relevant to the issue here since I DID NOT comment on her > poetry. You say I have provided no evidence to my claims. If you > carefully read my post, I DID. P "herself" says in her utopia that men > should be biologically altered to feed babies to develop an > ethics of femininity. Since my understanding of feminism has NOTHING to do > with feeding babies (which is the traditional role I REJECT, BUT > which P naturalizes and romanticizes),I articulated my criticism on this > ground. > > merci, > > Mine > > -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:29:27 > -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19098] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: > Genderization (fwd) Carroll, I do not label Mine a Marxist, nor do I > think that if I or anyone did so characterize her that that would mean > that her views did not matter. Whether or not Mine or Piercy or you or I > adopts a certain label is not the issue. The issue is whether our views > are credible, defenisble, and useful. Carroll apparently has concluded > that I am not a Marxist, and therefore my views are of no account. Please > note that I do not subscribe to this characterization either. I do not > think that labelling oneself in this manner serves any useful function. It > would not tell Carroll anything concrete if I said I was a Marxist, > because it would not tell him whether I believed the things he things are > most important. > > Now, as to the question whether Piercy holds the view that biological >characteristics determine gender behavior without social intermedaition, or however >Mine wanted to characterize the view she ascibed to P. Since Mine offers no >poarticular evidence that P holds such a view, it is hard to know on what basis she >thinks P holds it. it is somewhat hard to tell anyway. P is a novelist and poet. She >has written some political theory, or polemics along time ago, mainly against male >exploitation of women during the antiwar movement, including the classic essay the >grand Coolie Damn, but unlike you or me, she does not normally write her views down >as political propositions intended to be directly evaluated. > > I have, however, read virtually all of P's novels and most of her poetry. I see >nothing in her works that would tend to support an attribution of any sort of >biological determinism to P. She does portray women and womemn as different in >various ways, but she is careful to show some women as socialized into subordinate >roles, as she shows other breaking free of them in various ways. The book on the >French revolution is a lovely exploration of a whole range of behavior from utterly >absed to very radical. She also portrays men in a similar range. She shows lesbian >relationships as positive, for eaxmple in her WWII book, but has favorable portraits >of heterosexual relations, such as that in He She & It of the matriach of her New >England kibbutz or commune with Yod, the very male animotronic robot hero. On my >reading, i conclude taht she does not accept the view Mine says she holds. > > --jks > > In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:13:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > << I agree that labels are the question. But the label "labels" is > not the question either. That is, labelling Piercy "non-marxist" > does not prove her wrong. Equally, labelling Mine a labeller > does not prove her wrong. For example, Mine writes, "The big > problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" > stems from "biological inequality." Question: Is that a false > interpretation of Piercy? If it is a correct interpretation, then we > don't need any "label" of Piercy to believe that she is wrong. > Justin then asserts, "Does P hold the views you ascribe to her? > I don't thonk so." Well, why? Mine has offered her interpretation, > and that interpretation stands until someone who has read > Piercy c
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
I did *not* say that P meant that her scenario should be followed. we are moving away from the subejct matter of the discussion! I have to run to finish my term paper, sorry!! Mine -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:24:32 -0400 From: Rod Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19117] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd) George Orwell wrote about a future society in 1984. Aldous Huxley wrote about a future society in Brave New World, Margaret Atwood wrote about a future society in Handmaid's Tale, Ursula LeGuin wrote about a future society in the Dispossed. I don't thing that any one of them were suggesting that the scenarios that they outlined "should" be followed. What evidence is there that Piercy says that her scenario "should" be followed. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Justin, > > my reaading of P is based on her novel _Women On the Edge of Time_. I gave > my interpretation of her feminism based on this specific document, so her > poetry is not relevant to the issue here since I DID NOT comment on her > poetry. You say I have provided no evidence to my claims. If you > carefully read my post, I DID. P "herself" says in her utopia that men > should be biologically altered to feed babies to develop an > ethics of femininity. Since my understanding of feminism has NOTHING to do > with feeding babies (which is the traditional role I REJECT, BUT > which P naturalizes and romanticizes),I articulated my criticism on this > ground. > > merci, > > Mine > > -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:29:27 > -0400 (EDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19098] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: > Genderization (fwd) Carroll, I do not label Mine a Marxist, nor do I > think that if I or anyone did so characterize her that that would mean > that her views did not matter. Whether or not Mine or Piercy or you or I > adopts a certain label is not the issue. The issue is whether our views > are credible, defenisble, and useful. Carroll apparently has concluded > that I am not a Marxist, and therefore my views are of no account. Please > note that I do not subscribe to this characterization either. I do not > think that labelling oneself in this manner serves any useful function. It > would not tell Carroll anything concrete if I said I was a Marxist, > because it would not tell him whether I believed the things he things are > most important. > > Now, as to the question whether Piercy holds the view that biological >characteristics determine gender behavior without social intermedaition, or however >Mine wanted to characterize the view she ascibed to P. Since Mine offers no >poarticular evidence that P holds such a view, it is hard to know on what basis she >thinks P holds it. it is somewhat hard to tell anyway. P is a novelist and poet. She >has written some political theory, or polemics along time ago, mainly against male >exploitation of women during the antiwar movement, including the classic essay the >grand Coolie Damn, but unlike you or me, she does not normally write her views down >as political propositions intended to be directly evaluated. > > I have, however, read virtually all of P's novels and most of her poetry. I see >nothing in her works that would tend to support an attribution of any sort of >biological determinism to P. She does portray women and womemn as different in >various ways, but she is careful to show some women as socialized into subordinate >roles, as she shows other breaking free of them in various ways. The book on the >French revolution is a lovely exploration of a whole range of behavior from utterly >absed to very radical. She also portrays men in a similar range. She shows lesbian >relationships as positive, for eaxmple in her WWII book, but has favorable portraits >of heterosexual relations, such as that in He She & It of the matriach of her New >England kibbutz or commune with Yod, the very male animotronic robot hero. On my >reading, i conclude taht she does not accept the view Mine says she holds. > > --jks > > In a message dated Tue, 16 May 2000 10:13:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > << I agree that labels are the question. But the label "labels" is > not the question either. That is, labelling Piercy "non-marxist" > does not prove her wrong. Equally, labelling Mine a labeller > does not prove her wrong. For example, Mine writes, "The big > problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" > stems from "biological inequal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Genderization (fwd)
:-) Can't reds have fun? Carrol Doug Henwood wrote: > Carrol Cox wrote: > > >So far the score is Justin -1 + 0. Mine's score is -1 + 1. She > >wins, zero to minus 1. > > Wow. That's just so clarifying. I've learned so much on PEN-L the > last few days. > > Doug
Sam, you fucked up! Admit it, and let's get onwith it, was Re: Genderization (fwd)
>>> Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/20/00 09:02AM >>> >>> Brad De Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/22/00 12:55PM > Sam, look it. You fucked up, and you fucked up royally. Admit it, and go on from there. The question you must ask yourself is why did you feel it necessary to make a big thing out of a tautology that no one denies -- that sexual relations are necessary for human reproduction. -clip- _ CB: Sam probably felt he had to say this because even though it is a tautology, many on these lists treat this tautology as a triviality, unimportant in understanding human history and society, and especially the social relations between women and men. This tautology is often treated as unimportant or "uninteresting" as compared to other factors, especially in post-modernist anti-essentialist discourse. This is the error of thinking that because social relations and culture are important in shaping human history and society, much more important than in other species, that nature or natural causes have no importance or no interesting importance in shaping human beings. Nobody denies that sexual relations are necessary for human reproduction, they just chastise and mock anyone who includes this necessity in discussion of ...well just about anything on these lists. It is sort of a new taboo on talking about sexual relations between women and men. CB
Sam, you fucked up! Admit it, and let's get on with it, was Re: Genderization (fwd)
Sam Pawlett wrote: > I think I would say this thread is dead here, but I have to reply to > false accusations. Mention the word "penetrate" and you get labelled an > August Strindberg! Sam, look it. You fucked up, and you fucked up royally. Admit it, and go on from there. The question you must ask yourself is why did you feel it necessary to make a big thing out of a tautology that no one denies -- that sexual relations are necessary for human reproduction. Everyone knows that. And in case you don't realize how deeply learned we all are, let me pass on the information that no one will deny that the capital of New York State is Albany, that St. Louis is west of Miami, that the higher ground in Colorado is higher thatn most land in Iowa. Also it is really true that 2+2 = 4, at least in Euclidean arithmetic. It's been a long while since I studied number theory so I may be off here. When someone solemnly pronounces a tautology, it is quite reasonable for others to look for an ulterior motive of some sort. And when in as deeply sexist a social order as ours, and in as deeply sexist a leftist movement as ours, the pompous tautology is on women's *place* -- in the maternity ward, that is -- the motive one looks for is a sexist motive. Not the obvious one. I'm not saying that Sam Pawlett really wants to keep women in the nursery. What I am saying, however, is that Sam has give his comrades reason to fear his trustworthiness. A trustworthy leftist in the year 2000 has some awareness of the manners of the women's movement. In the same way that a trustworthy caterer would would not pick his nose as he passes the cocktails around. What your casual use of the word "penetrate" indicates, until you can demonstrate otherwise, is that you belong to that overwhelming majority of leftist men in the 19th and 20th centuries who were perfectly sincere in believing that women should be equal but who simply didn't thing that the issues were all that important. But someone in the year 2000 who does not recognize the centrality to working class struggle of the struggle against male supremacy and sexism is not a comrade who can be trusted to have a sense of proportion on other issues. A failure in this respect simply distorts anyone's political thinking on *all* subjects. Carrol
Re: Sam, you fucked up! Admit it, and let's get on with it, was Re: Genderization (fwd)
Carrol, Maybe your are being humorous and I am too dense to get it. Otherwise, this message is unacceptable here. Carrol Cox wrote: > Sam Pawlett wrote: > > > I think I would say this thread is dead here, but I have to reply to > > false accusations. Mention the word "penetrate" and you get labelled an > > August Strindberg! > > Sam, look it. You fucked up, and you fucked up royally. Admit it, > and go on from there. > > The question you must ask yourself is why did you feel it necessary > to make a big thing out of a tautology that no one denies -- that > sexual relations are necessary for human reproduction. Everyone > knows that. And in case you don't realize how deeply learned we > all are, let me pass on the information that no one will deny that > the capital of New York State is Albany, that St. Louis is west > of Miami, that the higher ground in Colorado is higher thatn most > land in Iowa. Also it is really true that 2+2 = 4, at least in > Euclidean arithmetic. It's been a long while since I studied number > theory so I may be off here. > > When someone solemnly pronounces a tautology, it is quite reasonable > for others to look for an ulterior motive of some sort. And when in as > deeply sexist a social order as ours, and in as deeply sexist a leftist > movement as ours, the pompous tautology is on women's *place* -- > in the maternity ward, that is -- the motive one looks for is a sexist > motive. > > Not the obvious one. I'm not saying that Sam Pawlett really wants > to keep women in the nursery. What I am saying, however, is that > Sam has give his comrades reason to fear his trustworthiness. A > trustworthy leftist in the year 2000 has some awareness of the > manners of the women's movement. In the same way that a > trustworthy caterer would would not pick his nose as he passes > the cocktails around. > > What your casual use of the word "penetrate" indicates, until you > can demonstrate otherwise, is that you belong to that overwhelming > majority of leftist men in the 19th and 20th centuries who were > perfectly sincere in believing that women should be equal but who > simply didn't thing that the issues were all that important. > > But someone in the year 2000 who does not recognize the centrality > to working class struggle of the struggle against male supremacy > and sexism is not a comrade who can be trusted to have a sense > of proportion on other issues. A failure in this respect simply distorts > anyone's political thinking on *all* subjects. > > Carrol -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
