Print

Print


No doubt if you feel "female," it is because you are.  "Female" refers
to sex, not gender."  Do you "feel" passive, nurturing, emotional, prone
to hysteria, weak, . . . . . ?
Nancy

>>> Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]> 07/16/07 3:01 PM >>>
Well, in my being, I definitely feel female.? It's not like like feeling
American or feeling like a Floridian.? Of course, I feel both American
and Floridian, but the female component goes deeper.

Kate


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 were arrayed according to
their degree of metaphysical?? perfection, their vital heat, along an
axis whose telos was??male, gave way by the late 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





-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:35 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 were arrayed according to
their degree of metaphysical?? perfection, their vital heat, along an
axis whose telos was??male, gave way by the late 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







************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new
AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour




Missed the show?? Watch videos of the Live Earth Concert on MSN. 

________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.