From: mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women warriors and male myths (WAS: Military Quote)
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:29:15 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

>Why do I cling to this belief?  Because I believe that gender is an
>essential aspect of society, and gender is associated with more than
>just sex and pregnancy.  If I strip the concept of gender down to its
>essentials, I find a nurture vs. protection dichotomy.  To be feminine
>is to be nurturing, nourishing and *non-threatening*.  To be masculine
>is to be protective and agressive.  (This is the attribute that I
>believe Bly calls "fierceness".)  These attributes are naturally
>linked to one's biology, and are found throughout the animal kingdom,
>almost universally among mammals.

Oh, *no*, the sociobiology argument again. The problem with this
sort of claim is [at least] three-fold:

1. Nature is more diverse than one tends to think. It uses the
strategies that happen to work for a given species in a given
ecological niche. So you can pick whatever example fits your claim.
(Among lions it's the females that coordinate and execute the hunt.)
The examples cited never prove much about the evolution of h. sapiens.
"Three-toad sloths do it *this* way," but so what? You're no closer
to unraveling the nature vs. nurture debate, which

2. is probably irrelevant any way. [cf Steven J. Gould about this.]
Biology determines the set of potential behaviors an individual or
a species will manifest. Humans have evolved to be extremely flexible
-- just look at the diversity of human cultures.

3. Finally, even if evolution selected for certain survival traits
during the paleolithic age, why should those traits be perpetuated
20,000 years later. Nature never "meant" us to talk on UseNet, either.

>
>There are some (like myself) who really do want to protect women.

There are some (like a lot of women) who really aren't *asking* you to
to protect them. 

>Many men *have* thought about this, and written about it.  Making a
>sacrifice for the common good has been considered a virtue, and only a
>society that promotes self-absorption would denigrate that.  Courage
>has been promoted as a "masculine" virtue--not in that automatically
>appears in all men, nor in that it is unbecoming in women--but in that
>it is *expected* of men.  Lack of courage can be forgiven in a woman
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>because she has other burdens to bear.  This is one of the few perks
>that women have traditionally had.  Don't knock it.

Who here is doing the forgiving? This is what people mean when they talk
about "paternalism." 

>Well, I *don't* agree.  I think most men *would* would protect a woman
>in preference to another man.  I certainly would.  And if both I and a

Unless the second man was the first man's lover, for instance. But
here's the root of where you and I disagree. You believe that gender
is inherent and essential; I do not.

>woman were in danger, and someone came to save us, I would expect that
>the woman would be helped first.

____________________________________________________________________
Mike Wasson, U of Hawai'i  [standard disclaimer]
	     Fat Messiah Games, S. Pacific HQ    
____________________________________________________________________
"The possible horrors that may result from such manipulation are
graphically depicted"  -- LISP manual
"Fill da puka!" -- Wahine volleyball fan
____________________________________________________________________



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.