Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=10061, phase=CONNECT, target=127.0.0.1:2306). The server is probably not started. LISTSERV 16.0 - TSE Archives

Print

Print


There are a lot of realities of the issue that some people have a hard time facing.
Hiding behind alternative categories helps the avoidance syndrome.

Cheers,
Peter
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kate Troy 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:01 AM
  Subject: Re: Sex and Gender, was Jeremiah ...?


  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.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/904 - Release Date: 7/16/2007 5:42 PM