|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 9, 2009 17:09:22 GMT 10
Beyond Disneyland type nature perspectives, which select or create animal scenarios which conform to and seem to endorse our various social norms, nature carries on regardless. A not very remarkable instance is:-
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Aug 10, 2009 0:09:37 GMT 10
Ah, yes, but we are not Hyenas.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 10, 2009 6:56:49 GMT 10
Ah, yes, but we are not Hyenas. My point was that we tend to look for and select instances from nature which seem to endorse our cultural norms (while some cultures might look to examples such as the hyenas to legitimise their gender roles, we tend to dismiss such common instances as being "peculiar" and "unnatural"). As described at length earlier in the thread (e.g., Reply 26) , as humans our gender (not sex) is culturally constructed, with not one gender laden character trait being identified which is common to all cultures. I put this proposition from the growing field of Gender Theory* to the test elsewhere, asking for someone to cite a universal gender difference: While most simply dismissed the request, bluntly stating there was an obvious (unspecified) difference,** in response to the few that gave specific instances, I was able to provide contrary, cultural examples. Footnotes:* In a boost to the standing of Gender Theory, Pope Benedict XVI has denounced it (just as his church denounced the theories of Galileo and Darwin)
**When a thing is said to be not worth refuting you may be sure that either it is flagrantly stupid - in which case all comment is superfluous - or it is something formidable, the very crux of the problem
Percy Bysshe Shelley
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 22, 2009 19:31:43 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 29, 2009 17:46:11 GMT 10
I recently read an insightful article arising from the controversy around the sex of champion South African athlete, Caster Semenya. The article, entitled, "The Battle of the Sexes Takes on New Meaning" ( The Herald, Newcastle, 27 August 2009, p.9), made me curious about the author Prof. Dreger. This is some of what I found on her personal web site (linked above):- Bravo!
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 13, 2009 11:14:47 GMT 10
Three Cheers for Caster Semenya!!! 18 Years of Age & A World Champion AthleteRaised in good faith as female and subjected to intrusive testing and humiliating media attention. The whole question of sex testing in sports was a non-issue before the Cold War and is a hang-over from Western propaganda to discredit Soviet women athletes. Realistically, gender is ambiguous (e.g., men produce estrogen and women produce testosterone). And, having a competitive edge in sport is at least as much about innate physical capacities, (accidents of birth and parentage), as it is about attitudes and training. Whether or not Caster's physiology fits in with discriminatory and unrealistic cultural stereotypes, she has a right to be proud of who she is and as she is!
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 26, 2009 9:08:31 GMT 10
From when a doctor (once typically male) announces the sex of a new-born baby, and a nurse (once typically female) wraps it in a pink blanket or in a blue blanket, the process of genderfication begins. Handed a baby in blue, both men and women typically try to stimulate it; handed the same baby in pink, they typically try to soothe it; and, handed the same baby in yellow, they are anxious to be told its sex. If you desire to drain to the dregs the fullest cup of scorn and hatred that a fellow human being can pour out for you, let a young mother hear you call dear baby "it"T.S. Eliot(Born this day 1888)
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 1, 2010 20:40:24 GMT 10
Another differing but fairly common perception of gender is suggested by:Couvade syndrome[Excerpt - from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Linked Above] Few women would be surprised by reports of men in some cultures receiving more care when in couvade than the women receive when in labour!? On the ABC TV's Catalyst Program tonight:-
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 7, 2010 10:42:49 GMT 10
At the risk of alienating some of those following this thread, I feel I need to clarify my position: I hold gender (not sex) to be a social construct. Meaning that I do not believe in any inherent, psychological gender differences between men and women. In the context of mainstream Freemasonry this may seem like a feminist stance and, indeed, I am opposed to unjustified discrimination in any organization which espouses universalism, equality and unity — including the exclusion of women from any form Freemasonry I am officially empowered to acknowledge as being regular. In other words, I do not believe that men are inherently different, let alone superior, to women. The flip-side to this position is that I do not believe women are inherently different, let alone superior, to men. Thus, I hold no over-arching, social hopes for gender equality, other than in terms of social justice. Indeed, while the appearance of gender identity still holds societies in its thrall, it is conceivable that reaction to the historical gender discrimination against women may, in some respects, result in an over-correction against men. Personally, I feel that overall the balance is still skewed against women in most areas but there are some contrary examples, which I can reluctantly tolerate for now, in the context of Affirmative Action. On both sides there are examples of discrimination being overstated, which serves only to discredit and inflame. I turn now to another Antipodean Pip, who is responsible for the awesome " Wilson's Almanac." We both maintain there are no inherent gender differences but we come at it from opposite sides. Please click on the link to read Pip Wilson's well reasoned arguments as to why these opinions are myths.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Aug 8, 2010 2:22:30 GMT 10
So, if I turned up at your lodge dressed like Courtney Love, you'd be cool with it? ;D
|
|