From: smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine)
Subject: Re: Challenging Gender Roles (was 2 straight 2 B gay)
Keywords: sex, gender, dogma, gay rights
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 16:50:47 GMT

joelp@cs.man.ac.uk (Joel Parthemore || Pharos Project) writes:

>smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine) writes:
>>[...] sex, and ultimately, gender roles.  These just
>>happen to be subjects that are held somewhat in awe by Americans and
>>some others.  It's as if these subjects are sacred, mysterious, things
>>that we can't start to understand, powerful things that it's better to
>>just not look at....

>....and....

>>...Then, when sex
>>and gender roles are *not* held in awe, gay people will draw no very
>>special notice or threat, and neither would people who cross the lines
>>of gender roles in the other ways; there would be no sizable and serious
>>gender roles - except as antiquated notions...

>Well, hmm, I think sex *should* be held in awe.  I think it is held in awe for
>good reason:  the drives behind it seem central to our definition of human.
>Also I think sex will always be for me something mysterious:  an act which in
>its essence transcends any rational understanding, in its mundaneness promises
>still sudden surprise.

Yes, of course, you're right.  "Overawe" would have been a better word.

When I said "awe", I was thinking of an awe of the fact of sex.  Like the
way AIDS awareness commercials talk about "protect yourself" but puzzlingly
omit the information about just *how* to do that; they're trying to save
lives, but only use vague terms.  Also in the sense that, the way sex
was handled on TV, the schoolyard, etc., I got the impression as a kid/
teenager that only sex was going to change my life and my identity (things I
happened to feel I needed).  That overawe was what I was trying to convey:
a sort of brain-damaged awe of the facts with an accompanying aversion to
them.

>The first time I had sex with a man was one of the awe-inspiring (and scary,
>'cause I didn't know what the future held) experiences of my life.

>What I don't understand is why the sacred must be held untouchable, why the
>powerful must be unapproachable, why we must not even try to understand that
>which is ultimately beyond understanding.  [...]

Exactly.  Very well put.  After all, can a person totally understand another
person? No.  Yet even the most "traditional" of "family values" require that
people form relationships: that people have a long-lasting aim to keep some
sort of understanding between them!

>I'm not sure gender roles are entirely a bad thing either: once they stop
>being prescriptive and become descriptive, once they become things we can
>define, play around with, redefine, rather than having them defining us.

The problem is they are way *too* descriptive.  Man is a hard, immovable,
unemotional provider, interested only in things like football, order,
and business.  Woman is nurturing (man is not), woman is expressive,
changing, is naturally responsible for relationships (that's why a loving
relationship between two men is impossible, doncha know), is passive, has
no opinions, and she is, um, dumb - why else would she love man? !

As for playing around with the roles, and not have them define us, I agree.
For almost any given person, the roles are patented jokes.

But as for redefining them, I object if you mean to make new big descriptive
definitions.  I can't imagine any large descriptive pair of roles for men
and women that could actually work for a majority - even a narrow majority -
of the people.  If we imagine the data points for the traits of every man
and every woman, they would form two largely intersecting sets of human
traits.  There are large women and small men, smart women and dumb men,
compassionate men and heartless women, et cetera, and vice versa.

>A greater respect for the mystery of sex and identity might do us all some
>good.  People can be too sure of their understanding of them.

>I liked your article.

Thanks!  I wanted to post my idea of reality to see if it was missing some
major point(s)!

>Joel,
>      listening to Peter mangle his Smalltalk program

I'm listening to the carpet of the apartment above me get torn out. :-(  :-(

--
--Suzanne Morine          smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu
--"Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort
--of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle."  Helen Keller
--