From: joelp@cs.man.ac.uk (Joel Parthemore || Pharos Project)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Challenging Gender Roles (kinda long)
Keywords: sex, gender, dogma, gay rights
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:03:38 GMT


Suzanne (Morine) (smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu) writes:

	>I couldn't figure out what this disagreement was about, and looked up
	>the word "awe" (and "awful") in the dictionary, really as a distraction.

Hmm, I didn't think it was a disagreement as much as some mental arm
wrestling.

	>Um  ...turns out I was using an obsolete meaning of the word "awe":
	>"fear or dread"

Thing is, lots of people (most?) seem to do the same thing, or maybe rather,
they conflate the two definitions.  They seem to assume that ``awe'' must
invovle fear and dread, and most importantly, *distance*.

	>Sometime, when I'm not so sick of this  :-), maybe I'll set out to find a
	>word or phrase that describes the phonomenon I was referring to.  I did
	>use examples and other words besides for "awe", so, hopefully, I got the
	>idea across already.

I think you did, too.  I'd like to believe that I was responding to the ideas
*behind* your words, and only superficially to the words themselves.

	>Anyway, now the disagreement makes a lot of sense.

I thought it did already....  :- )  Really, I disagree with people as a way of
showing respect for them.  I only disagree with people I don't respect if I
feel hurt by them, and either want to lash back or just let them know I'm
hurt.

	>The first definition of "awe" in my dictionary is... "an overwhelming
	>feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is
	>grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like."`

This is more what I'd like to see ``awe'' (the thing referred to, rather than
the word itself) become, combined with an *embracing* of the reverent, the
holy.  This is generally not how I've seen it in practice....

	>Seems like an involuntary type of thing, and I can see why you objected
	>to what would read as my apparently implying that sex should not be
	>held in awe - as if one could control such a feeling.

Not the source of my objection, which leads on to your next point:

	>It's just as true that you coudn't tell someone *to* feel awe; awe can't
	>be directed from the outside.  I don't know if a directive is what you
	>were trying to convey here, but it seems like it, from the emphasis on
	>"should":

>>        >>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....

Hmm, not a ``mandated'' directive but a proferred one, for people to take onto
themselves (or not, as they wish).  I think ``awe'' is part of all of us (even
if we lose sight of it), and I think it's something we *should* (yes,
directive) cultivate toward such wondrous Mysteries as sex.  Why not let sex
be both familiar *and* mysterious?  (Why do people treat them as exclusive
properties?)

	>My definition of sex seems to be much more basic than yours.  Something
	>involving at least two bodies, with at least one of them reaching orgasm.
	>A sort of minimal definition that includes everything from what a
	>prostitute sells to customers to what a loving couple does together.
	>Note that it also includes adult rape and child rape.

Hmm, no, I think my definition is as ``basic'', and our definition may in fact
be very similar.  I, too, would generally include rape (though to me, rape is
rape).

	>That people blithely talk about sex as if it could never be anything bad,
	>such as the last two, or even just an unpleasant experience, boggles my
	>mind.

Agreed.

	>What other subject is handled this way - divided into the good and
	>the bad, calling the "good" one thing ("sex"), and the "bad" another
	>thing ("rape")?

Lots of things, I'm afraid:  ``flesh'' versus ``spirit'', ``self-love'' versus
``altruism'', ``darkness'' versus ``light''....  The society I grew up in
seems pervasively dualistic.  I am *strongly* anti-dualistic by nature.

	>Interestingly enough, it's that sort of special treatment of the subject
	>of sex which I was noting in my previous posts!  Nothing directed at you
	>specifically; a lot of people use the "sex = good" equation.

I don't think I was.

Yes, this means that I find something ``awe-full'' in rape as well.  Just
because something beautiful is twisted around into something ugly *does* *not*
*remove* *the* *essential* *beauty* *from* *it*.  To my mind, this makes the
act of forced sex all the more horrifying.

....

	>>My mother once told me something to the effect that you're not
	>>*supposed* to know the person you're married to....  (She and Dad have
	>>been married 38 years.)

	>That's priceless!!!  Ha Ha Ha

And unspeakably sad.  The comic intertwines with the tragic.

		>>Ever wonder about the people who talk about their ``awful''
		>>childhoods, and	 express great gratitude that they're over?

	>	<definition of awful as ``full of awe''>

*Very* nice.  I used the word ``awe-full'' without consciously thinking about
it (though possibly being subconsciously quite deliberate).

	>No, I don't wonder about them; it always seemed obvious to me they
	>meant the sort of "awful" described in the first two definitions!

Indeed.  A *strong* compliment to you, Suzanne!...


<about gender roles>

	>"Large" and "big" were words I threw in just in case you might
	>decide that I was saying there is *no* difference between men and women -
	>an absurdity.

This is how I understood you, but I still wasn't comfortable with it.

	>When I threw the word "large" in, I thought, oh, surely he won't jump to
	>such a ridiculous inference from my statements.

Not to worry:  I didn't, really.  Really.  I did hear you saying they weren't
all that important, so I tried this idea out in the next few paragraphs....

	>You still seemed to infer that I don't know some basic facts....

I probably wouldn't have pursued the conversation so far if I thought you
were.

		>>Women and men are, at some level, biologically different....

	>No.  Duh.  Really?!  :-)  !!!!

Hey, I wasn't lecturing, I was weaving a point that people often *do* miss.
People exaggerate *certain* biological differences and ignore the others....

    >From those statements, and in some others, I think your meaning of
	>"roles" is a sort of anthropological one.  To observe a culture for a
	>period of time and note how things tended to work, to draw a sketch of
	>the way a culture worked.  I agree that such observations are useful.

I don't think it's anything as complicated as anthropology, though I do have
some background in the field.  I still like my ``prescriptive/descriptive''
distinction.

I think people use ``roles'' in both directive and non-directive senses: i.e.,
sometimes with a sense of ``what's proper'', and sometimes only with a sense
of ``what's done''.  Things get worse though:  I may tell you that, in *my*
opinion, you *should* do something, but you may feel otherwise (a sort of
non-directive directiveness) or I may tell you that you *should* do something,
and your own feelings in the matter don't count (a very directive
directiveness).

	>So our problems in coming to an agreement about the usefulness of roles
	>seems to be down to our defining "role" differently.

Partly, perhaps.  I think we also might differ though on what is, ultimately,
useful.

	>I think we agree much more than it has appeared so far.

I think it's always appeared to me that we mostly did agree, which has deeply
influenced the course of this discussion.

>--Suzanne Morine          smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu

Here's smiling at you,

Joel,
		thinking yes, he *should* get on to other things this afternoon....
Xref: sparky soc.motss:38690 talk.politics.misc:44532