LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  July 2007

TSE July 2007

Subject:

Re: Sex and Gender, was Jeremiah ...?

From:

Tom Gray <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

T. S. Eliot Discussion forum.

Date:

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:24:56 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (246 lines)

My question is about the argument that gender is
socially-based. As in the original example, law is
socially-based. What is the point of this argument?

My impression is that the implicit argument is that
entities that are socially based are somehow
artificial and not real. I brought up the example of
Dawkins because I see the same sort of argument
brought up in discussion of Darwinian evolution. This
is a confusion between the reality of an entity and
how it has been produced. That the hand was produced
using the methods of Darwinian evolution is an
interesting fact. This, however, has only marginal
application to the understanding of  the  utility of
the hand. The hand has great utility because it has
the properties of being a hand and not because of the
Darwinian historical explanation for its development.

The came could be said of gender. It is socially
defined and is the result of an historical process.
This does not make it any less real and does not make
it any less good or bad.

So the issue that I have is that the whether or not
gender is socially based is beside the main points
that are being made here. It seems that some regard
the current gender roles as things that should be
changed. This is probably something that I agree with.
However it has little to do with the fact that gender
roles are socially based.

The law is socially based. However the law is not
inherently oppressive because of this.

--- Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Perhaps it would be helpful if you state what that
> underlying argument is--on gender, not all things.
> 
> For there is, of course, a Jamesian semantic
> argument.  If one assumes a direct parallel between
> genetic, anatomical, and hormonal sex on the one
> hand and a set of characteristics and social roles
> on the other, then one may say gender is sex.  But
> then one simply has to find a new set of terms to
> differentiate them.
> 
> Cheers,
> Nancy
> 
> >>> Tom Gray <[log in to unmask]> 07/17/07 2:54
> PM >>>
> Teh argument is that gender is socially defined.
> However law is socially defined and language is
> socially defined. Many philosophers even argue that
> reality is socially defined (As an aside, this puts
> Dawkin inanities into perspective).
> 
> So if the argument is that gender roles are socially
> defined. The answer would be that the argument
> proves
> nothing. There is an underlying argument that is not
> being made explicit.
> 
> Tom Gray
> 
> 
> --- Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 
> Well then. Heaven will be full of all these sexed
> souls with no options but premarital relations or
> abstinence -- another absurdist joke on us made by
> our
> creator? heh. Diana
> Jesus said the would be no marriage,
> but I don't think he said anything about sex. ;->
>  
> Cheers,
> Peter
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Diana Manister 
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Sex and Gender, was Jeremiah ...?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps those social roles are fig newtons of our
> imaginations. It comes as news, however, that souls
> are sexed. I thought we could be done with all that
> in
> heaven. heh. 
> 
> It is then astonishing how many brilliant scientists
> and poets and
> thinkers throughout history saw social roles.
> Nancy
> 
> >>> Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]> 07/15/07 1:07 PM
> >>>
> 
> As an artist (painter), it is clear to me that the
> differences between
> male
> and female go beyond the biological and the contour;
> it is, in fact, a
> matter
> of  heart and soul, and social roles have nothing to
> do with it.
> 
> Kate
> 
> In a message dated 7/15/2007 12:53:55 P.M. Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> 
> Nancy  Gish wrote:
> >
> > Eliot is a dead poet and a topic of debate and 
> study, not a
> participant
> > in the debate.
> >
> > Gender does  not mean sex, and its separate
> meaning
> is one of those
> that
> > has become  quite distinct in usage.  It is not a
> euphemism for sex,
> > which  does not need a euphemism anyway, as in
> academic terms it
> refers
> > to  biological difference as distinguished from
> social roles.  Read
> any
> > current or recent texts on gender.
> >  Nancy
> 
> Considering how fixed the distinction between sex
> and
> gender is  I'm
> amazed that any literate person isn't familiar with
> it.
> 
> Even  after making the distinction (gender = social;
> sex = biology)
> there
> still  remain problems: Up until a couple centuries
> ago (this is debated
> by some  of course) the model was one sex, two
> genders: the difference
> between men  and women was a difference of degree --
> women were
> incompletely 'cooked'  men. See Thomas Laqueur,
> _Making Sex: Body and
> Gender from the Greeks to  Freud_ (Harvard UP,
> 1990).
> See also a fine
> review by Stephen Jay Gould,  "The Birth of the
> Two-Sex World," NYRB,
> June 13, 1991.
> 
> Gould  emphasizes that in terms of biology there are
> equal arguments for
> the  one-sex and the two-sex models. Politically I
> have held elsewhere
> that  probably the most desirable model is one-sex,
> many genders. But
> that _is_ a  POLITICAL not a biological or medical
> issue. The biology is
> quite neutral  on the topic.
> 
> From Gould's review:
> 
> ****
> The "two-sex model"  replaced this concept of woman
> and man as two
> clumps
> on a graded continuum  with a notion of two
> fundamentally distinct
> entities, bearing different  organs that imply
> divergent behaviors and
> aptitudes; (divergent perhaps,  but still eminently
> rankable, for sexism
> is the one invariant in this  history of
> transition).
> Laqueur writes:
> 
> Thus the old model, in which  men and women wee
> eighteenth century to a
> new model of radical  dimorphism, of biological
> divergence. An anatomy
> and physiology of   incommensurability  replaced a
> metaphysics of
> hierarchy in the  representation of woman in
> relation
> to man.
> 
> Why did this transition  occur, and why over a broad
> stretch of time
> centered on the early  eighteenth century? The
> answer
> cannot lie in any
> simplistic notion of  empirical discovery wrested
> from
> nature by
> triumphant science (quite a set  of male images). I
> shall return to the
> role of empirics among other causes  of transition
> later in this review,
> but a simple reason suffices to debar  factual
> adequacy as a primary
> agent of the switch: neither model is  "correct" by
> any morphological
> standard; both capture elements of  anatomical
> reality.
> 
> ******
> 
> Both models have supported  male-supremacist
> ideology,
> but in different
> ways, which can be crudely  summarized as
> hierarchical
> vs "scientific."
> Gould's review discusses that  contrast also.
> 
> Carrol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager