Let’s
engender a debate about gender
“Frailty, thy name is woman!” – Hamlet, Act one Scene Two, by
William Shakespeare.
“In a
patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a
group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon.
"Nobody will ever win the Battle of the
Sexes. There's just too much fraternizing with the enemy." - Henry Kissinger.
I
want to waste no time, as I have no time to waste – I shall define my terms immediately:
Sex: either the male or
female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to
the reproductive functions.
Gender: Gender is a range of
characteristics of femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, the
term may refer to the sex (i.e. the state of being male or female), social
roles (as in gender roles) or gender identity.
At long last, we at the The Philosophy Takeaway are going to
converse about the mundane, in the true sense of the word – the worldy, the
earthly. If one approached a
humble plebeian on the street, and asked them to define truth, reality, or what
a thought is, one may find them a little reserved. However, if one asks a woman or a man about gender, one
might, I dare say, get a stronger reaction from said humble plebeian.This
is due to the fact that many people think about this topic, regardless of
intellectual ability, gender, race, or class. The interaction between men and
women, male and female, those who are masculine or feminine, is crucial to the
survival of the species that is Homo Sapien Sapien.
Consequently, we have
been bombarded with social constructs as to how to interact with those who have
a penis, and those who have a vagina. The facts are a simple as such: women and
men have different genitalia. Women have the ability to gestate the humans of
the future, and men have the ability to supply the ingredients to impregnate
women. All this is by the by; the
point is to note that there are physical differences. What isn’t by the by,
however, is the fact we – that is to say our species – have created constructs
which determines how we should act with regard to social etiquette. Please
forgive the anthropological slant, but if one examines humanity in a holistic
sense (I.e, a sense of the whole and how its parts are related and dependent),
it is more than easy to state that there are an abundance of different cultures
across the world. And these cultures have different sets of rules as to how a
man or woman should act.
That last word really
interests me, because I think we do act in ways which are deemed to be
positive or negative, when it comes to gender. A man may pay attention to
football, not because he really enjoys it, but due to the fact it is deemed
masculine. Conversely, a woman may wear pink, not because she wants to, but
because she wants to have a socially acceptable identity; in short, because it
is deemed feminine.
Should we be such slaves
to constructs? I have stated it many times before, but our minds – and I use
that word in a purely metaphorical, rather than metaphysical sense – imprison
us. As Yoda said, “You must unlearn what you have learned.” But why must we? It
is because the past is based, most tragically, upon false dogma.
We think within a
paradigm of an angry, simplistic theology. Our very culture is rich with the
past; we are, unfortunately, fettered to it. Yet, quite absurdly, the rules of the past are broken with
hypocrisy. Let me give a very current example, that of Page 3. As a young father, trying to understand the absurdity of
this world, I am faced with living in a post-Enlightenment culture which
promotes sexual objectification. Although the most edifying philosophical quote
is found on this page, this does little to mitigate the messages which will be
bombarded at my daughter: success is gained through “sexual beauty”; thinking is
not important for women.
I am not as dishonest to
pretend that I am not sexually excited by these photos. Nevertheless, I am
sincerely worried as to the harmful affect they will have my upon daughter’s
thinking. Another generation will
witness a culture which disproportionately objectifies women, no matter how
prevalent Diet Coke adverts may be.
We live in an age of
reason, where philosophical investigation and scientific endeavour should
dominate intellectual thought. Nietzsche stated, “Great things are for the great, abysses for the profound, shudders and
delicacies for the refined, and, in sum, all rare things for the rare.”
Although he was an
habitual misogynist – although some philosophers would argue he was mocking his
ridiculousness – Nietzsche was so close to the truth of the matter. A very
select class of intellectuals, the true philosophers and scientists, are able
to take a step back from the barbaric past, and view the world with a truly
modern philosophical zeitgeist.
And, to quote Lloyd Duddridge,
we shouldn’t reject the past per se, that
would be foolish. However, to take a pack of illiterate fairy tales seriously
is a crime. Furthermore, to accept the status quo with regard to gender in the
United Kingdom would be a moral crime. We owe it to ourselves, and wider
society, to release ourselves from those shackles and redefine what masculinity
and femininity are.
We have lost out on some
truly brilliant female minds due to our historical idiocy. Think how many great
thinkers were castigated and repressed. The female equivalents of Mozart,
Shakespeare, Washington, Descartes, and Da Vinci existed; quite cruelly,
however, they just weren’t given the opportunity to self-actualise.
In conclusion, I must
state that it is the duty of all humans to embrace the excitement of the
present! Let’s be lovers of wisdom, too. For wisdom never resided within the
confines of a male paradigm.
Samuel Mack-Poole
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 38
