28.7.04 [ ] 1 comments 
Firstly, I must acknowledge a bias: there is difference between the sexes, just as there are differences between individuals. Moreover, there are some aspects of gender, beyond the tangible physical differences, which are given and are a product of genetics (discounting other factors that are a product of upbringing in a particular society).
Of course, you say, every person is the result of interactions between his/her genetic coding, his/her breeding, and that person's own choices (which i shall consider acts of will rather than autonomic responses to environmental influence: go screw yourself Watson). However, to acknowledge such an interaction of genetics and environment on a theoretical neuter begs the same argument upon a prototypical gendered subject.
So, assuming that there is some genetic influence on a person's physical gender and that there is some genetic influence on a person's personality (while personal choice, upbringing, and lifelong environmental stimuli interact with these genetic factors to shape a person's character development over his/her lifetime), it is within the bounds of reasonable extrapolation that some gender-specific traits might also be the result of an interaction between genetics and environment. And, it follows that a person's genetic heritage has an influence on sex-specific traits. That is, a generalization of "male" traits and "female" traits can be made (acknowledging the present impossibility of determining which specific characteristics are the product of endowment and which are developed over time as a product of experience).
Thus, upon some grounds (whose extent is relatively unknown), a generalization in the form of "women" and "men" can be made while having confidence in the existence of some inherent difference.
This may seem an over-abundance of argument for a concept that one normally takes for granted, but it is vitally important before moving forward with the greater argument. The idea of a "woman's movement" or the establishment of a "woman's canon" is moot without a formal acknowledgement that women and men are inherently different in aspects unrelated to physiology. For, the female perspective would be useless if, shaken from the manacles of patriarchal societies, it had the same essence as the male perspective (the canon of which consists mostly of support for a patriarchal society and an inherent fondness for the subjugation of women; i find it an unlikely that the female canon will eventually arrive at an identical perspective to the archaic writings of men).
[aside: I have noted, however, an abundance of new feminist literature which is in support of the subjugation of men and a new wave of female thinkers who believe in the inherent superiority of women; if this is truly the trend in female thought, then my argument is indeed worthless; for, the movement would have become full circle and there would be, in effect, no difference between women and men as far as mental perspective is applicable; at this point, I wish to assume away the existence of these important developments - for now. I will revisit this in a few years once there has been ample evidence to assert that this trend in thinking is not a fad but a true reflection of the state of popular thought.]
Of course, you say, every person is the result of interactions between his/her genetic coding, his/her breeding, and that person's own choices (which i shall consider acts of will rather than autonomic responses to environmental influence: go screw yourself Watson). However, to acknowledge such an interaction of genetics and environment on a theoretical neuter begs the same argument upon a prototypical gendered subject.
So, assuming that there is some genetic influence on a person's physical gender and that there is some genetic influence on a person's personality (while personal choice, upbringing, and lifelong environmental stimuli interact with these genetic factors to shape a person's character development over his/her lifetime), it is within the bounds of reasonable extrapolation that some gender-specific traits might also be the result of an interaction between genetics and environment. And, it follows that a person's genetic heritage has an influence on sex-specific traits. That is, a generalization of "male" traits and "female" traits can be made (acknowledging the present impossibility of determining which specific characteristics are the product of endowment and which are developed over time as a product of experience).
Thus, upon some grounds (whose extent is relatively unknown), a generalization in the form of "women" and "men" can be made while having confidence in the existence of some inherent difference.
This may seem an over-abundance of argument for a concept that one normally takes for granted, but it is vitally important before moving forward with the greater argument. The idea of a "woman's movement" or the establishment of a "woman's canon" is moot without a formal acknowledgement that women and men are inherently different in aspects unrelated to physiology. For, the female perspective would be useless if, shaken from the manacles of patriarchal societies, it had the same essence as the male perspective (the canon of which consists mostly of support for a patriarchal society and an inherent fondness for the subjugation of women; i find it an unlikely that the female canon will eventually arrive at an identical perspective to the archaic writings of men).
[aside: I have noted, however, an abundance of new feminist literature which is in support of the subjugation of men and a new wave of female thinkers who believe in the inherent superiority of women; if this is truly the trend in female thought, then my argument is indeed worthless; for, the movement would have become full circle and there would be, in effect, no difference between women and men as far as mental perspective is applicable; at this point, I wish to assume away the existence of these important developments - for now. I will revisit this in a few years once there has been ample evidence to assert that this trend in thinking is not a fad but a true reflection of the state of popular thought.]
Since the upheaval of the womens movement, we are aware that it is appropriate to abandon the outdated notions that womoen are mentally inferior. However, sexism is still undeniably alive and well. I was watching a special that payed a tribute of sorts to driven women who single handedly ran or started their own business. One particular case caught my attention; it showed a business meeting between all the top managers of a certain corporation, one being a female. When the men were asked what they thought of their XX chromosome leader, one fellow said, well so and so "is just one of the guys". What got me was, the lady manager stood behind him smiling and nodding in approval. I thought to myself, that was a sexist statement. For her to be able to perform as well as or better than her male co-workers she has to be labeled as "one of the guys", because her lack of control over being a female has put her at an immediate disadvantage, despite her talent and fine work ethic.
Yet for a woman to support the subjugagtion of men or to inherently believe that she is superior, would only be a means of overcompensating for the past years of oppression. It's the whole ingroup/outgroup theory. MY gender is better than YOURS. MY gender is so individualitic, YOURS is so generalized. It's so second grade. Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars. Whatever that means.
Post a Comment