From: wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Androgyny & The Arts
Date: 14 Sep 1992 07:10:03 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au

Barbara Hlavin writes:

	>Fiona Webster writes:  [...]


>When you're locked in a stereo- 
>type of what a man or a woman Ought to Be, and furthermore judge all 
>men and women only in light of how well they fit these models, you're 
>going to place some severe limitations on your creativity and ability 
>to truly "see" (in Iris Murdoch's useful phrase) others.  

Conversely, if one holds no "stereotypes", no opinion of what a person
ought to be, no inclination to compare one person's quality with
another, then one's creativity and ability to 'truly "see" (in whichever
sense you want to take that word) others' will be set free, made
unfetered --- right ?


>This would 
>be a disaster for a writer, unless he were a satirist, as all his/her 
>characters would be one-dimensional figures of good or evil according 
>to how well or ill they fit the approved models. 

Since when does a writer's personal inclinations guarantee the level of
quality of their work ?


>Whatever Hemingway's conflicts may have been in regard to his definition   
>of himself as a man, I can't say that I believe his work is the 
>consequence only, or even primarily,  of conflicted gender identity.
>That's insultingly reductive.  [...]

>Excellent fiction, excellent 
>art of all kinds, is the result of a unique combination of talents, 
>desire, personality, intelligence, character, and a lot of other 
>indefinable qualities. 

Rather than 'insultingly reductive', Barbara-bitch Hlavin chooses "inanely
holistic".
  

>>Androgyny in a state of total
>>freedom might be too self-accepting, too content, to sustain the
>>passion that gives rise to good storytelling.  

>You'll have to tell me what you mean by "total freedom."  Even money 
>and some privacy won't guarantee that; the world is still too much 
>with us, 

Says who?

>we don't renounce our relationships or social obligations. 

1: You are obviously speaking for yourself. 

2: If you consider relationships or social obligations as hindrances to
your freedom then perhaps you ought to find yourself a nice cave in the
mountains where you can live unfetered by the restrictions of
civilization.



>My understanding of the idea of androgyny is that our concepts of 
>men and women are ludicrously lopsided, and in our actual fear of 
>discovering the qualities of the Other in ourselves we not only 
>deny their existence there, but overvalue them in the other person, 
>thereby imprisoning him, all the Hims, in a single role that will 
>certainly not fit everyone of that gender.  
				^^^^^^^^^^^^

1:  Of that "sex", please. Have you already been imprisoned by the transient
conventions of our times?

2:  Why do you give such prominence to "imprisoning him... in a single role that
will certainly not fit everyone..."? Is this something you are prone to,
and you have just recently worked this out for yourself? 

3:  I agree that society tends to condition men to not see some of their
own qualities in the women around them. This has been helped by
the separatist tendency of the women's and gay movements (and the
enshrining of the values espoused by them in law, binding the whole of
society).  


>Thus we shut ourselves 
>off from experiencing the full dimensions of our being and exploring 
>our potential.  And not only prevent the Other from likewise fulfilling 
>himself, but actively punish him for seeking it. 

>(The common example:  emotional sensitivity is a weakness in a man; 
>anger is unattractive and unacceptable in a woman.  So men heroically 
							^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>suppress their grief and joy; woman (equally heroically) suppress 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>their anger, and what do we get?  Another day older and deeper in 
>debt.  Er, we get inappropriate responses and frustrated people who 
>are frightened and ashamed of their genuine feelings.  
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And just what are _genuine feelings_ ?

Are they the ones you get when having a good shit on the toilet? 

Is the feeling of repulsion when you see two gays kissing a "genuine
feeling" ?

When you are throwing a tantrum (you ARE capable of tantrums, are you
not, Barbara?) will the frustration and hate be there ten years hence ?

The only genuine feelings are those to do with your destiny. The other
feelings are as trivial as having a shit on the toilet, and one feels
like shit when one finds one is being seduced by them -- when one's past
is being erased and one is losing one's identity. 

And Barbara berates those that "heroically suppress their grief and
joy". Her superciliousness here betrays her two-faced "commitment 
to understand members of the opposite sex" and thus her androgenous
self. In truth, she understands neither.


John Wojdylo