Print

Print


The conspiracy continues.
P.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: Sex and Gender, was Jeremiah ...?


> No, I don't.  The point is that they have historically been defined as
> feminine characteristics.  Hysteria, for example, is named for "hyster,"
> the Greek term for womb--it MEANS female irrationality.  And for nearly
> all of history it was assumed to be something only women experienced.
>
> If you set up any set of binary opposites like the following, everyone
> will know which is supposed to be masculine and which feminine:
>
> strong/weak
> active/passive
> rational/emotional
> courageous/frightened
> mind/body
> culture/nature
>
> None of this is my opinion--before anyone bothers to say it is; it is
> written all through history.  See Aristotle, Aquinas, the Malleus
> Malificarum, Rousseau, all those "thinkers" and "scientists" who claimed
> women were too delicate to go out in public, unable to read books
> because it would take energy from their reproductive organs and make
> them unable to conceive or drive them mad, all the fools who think a
> woman can't be president because she menstruates.
>
> Consider the woman on the stairs who was once lovely and sane as you.
> Cheers,
> Nancy
>
>
>
> >>> Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]> 07/17/07 11:05 AM >>>
> Acturally, I do feel nurturing at times,?particularly with children and
> dogs,?and I have been emtional.? October of 2004 when the Red Sox won
> the World Series for the first time in 86 years comes to mind.? But, no,
> I don't feel weak and passive at all, and I'm certainly not prone to
> hyseria.? Do you associate such characteristics as female
> characteristics?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 3:23 pm
> Subject: Re: Sex and Gender, was Jeremiah ...?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at AOL.com.
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.10/908 - Release Date: 7/19/2007
6:10 PM
>
>