Masc / Fem

We are now the masculine and the feminine.  We are the hunters, the gatherers, the fathers, the mothers, and the workers.  I  cook, I clean, I work, I study, I spend, I shop, I drink, I diet, I commit, I explore, I travel,  I settle, I go on top, and under. Who am I? What sex am I? Can you tell by considering any of these activities I do? I am not a he/she I am the new masc/fem, masculine, feminine. Whatever new crappy term you would like to use it does not matter. What question this raises, however, is as follows: are these terms, these ideas (masculine and feminine) still

useful or are they becoming out of date?

Notice, however, that the subject is I, and not everyone. I can only speak for myself, the activities I do. I cannot speak for all. I could perhaps speak of my culture, but not everyone in my culture does what I do. Maybe the majority does do the above, but this is a concern of sociologists to investigate not a philosopher.  So I pass the task on to them, what do people do now? Are there any clear distinctions in our activities between the sexes? I’m not sure there are. 

Nevertheless, if, for example, men generally are: staying at home, rearing the children, doing the cooking, the cleaning, and spending, whilst the women are working, travelling, drinking and being on top; can we describe the men as masculine and the women as feminine? Are these gender roles based on sex? If they are based on sex, I’m not convinced there is strict correlation. And if they are based on sex, then we would have to constantly modify the meaning of the terms to fit with the complex behaviours -- which may be distinct between man and women, or not.

Or did a philosopher think of these concepts then just apply them to which object fits with it? Is this likely? That a philosopher sat on the steps of a stoop, and said, “Let’s make up two separate ideas where one is defined by being physically strong and the other is physically weak.” They then went out into the world and looked at the males and the females and noticed that men were more physically strong, and that more women were physically weak. And then the philosopher defined man as masculine and women as feminine?  This doesn’t seem that likely.

From these thoughts I would conclude that I would want to see some scientific evidence that there are a lot of women that act the same, a lot of men that act the same, and these same ways are different between men and women. If this can be proved to be true, then these ways may be defined as feminine or masculine, but until then I am happy to abandon the notion all together.

Ellese Elliott

Art - By Angela Gooderson

This weeks artist was Angela Gooderson:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Angela-Gooderson-Portrait- Artist/212749708758739?fref=ts 

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 38

This is a man’s, man’s, man’s world

Before this enterprise even takes its most basic shape, I would like to clarify the following point: under my understanding of people, a human being is an individual, a person, a personality so to speak, before they are a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’. Thus my article will concentrate not on the fact that this world is mainly controlled by the biological male, but on the fact that what we classify as ‘male’ characteristics are the dominating side of our culture. 

So why do I say that you are an individual before you are a man or a woman? I’d like to present three arguments to support this claim. The first argument is found in the observation of children. Children are thinking, feeling human beings who are not yet of reproductive ‘capabilities’ and thus do not display specific gender characteristics. They have not yet being assigned gender roles; at least at an early age. At a later stage we force this upon them. These beings who are not yet manly men or femme fatales still ARE, they live, feel, create, experience, laugh and cry without a specific gender role to fulfil. Children in play, also play with their identity. They have personalities and make choices, yet when a boy likes dancing for example, we might fall on the prejudice of claiming that that’s a feminine tendency, here we are assigning the activity a gender and thus we impose this prejudice on the boy. The boy was expressing a liking for the activity, not a sexual preference or a gender tendency. To a big extent that is what we have done; we have given what originally is a biological role, the gender, to an activity, an abstract concept or a thing. We do that assigning constantly.

My second point is the huge psychological variety of shades and degrees of between male and female that we have amongst individuals. Who is completely male or completely female? None. We have different shades of the palette of assigned role activities. Yes, some cultures and people are stricter than others in their assigning of roles; but human beings keep coming to the world with an extreme originality and variation in the scale between male and female. People come into a society which is frightened of that obscurity and forces upon every individual the so called way of belonging to their genre. The person is only validated (especially during adulthood-productive and reproductive age) on basis of their gender. The person then becomes obsessed on being this male or female ideal rather than whatever version of human they are. This of course creates a schism and its obvious conclusion of suffering and a feeling of inadequacy. Sad times. We cannot bear the beaming individuality of the human creature.

This doesn’t mean that we would all be ambiguous beings if there weren’t gender roles, but it would mean that a man who enjoyed fashion wouldn’t immediately be classified as a homosexual and a woman who plays sports and is of larger physical mass wouldn’t either - and the same with personalities. A freer ‘gender’ concept would give us greater freedom to do different activities whilst still remaining true to ourselves. Besides the fact that men can’t bear children and women can’t father children, we have a greater leeway in gender roles than we think.

My third point as to why we are individuals before we are a gender is that although our body is male and female, our psyche is not. The mind of human beings, both, the one that collects information and logically processes it and the one that creates and imagines, are neither male nor female, they are both. We have yet again tried to give gender to things such as creativity, saying it is a more female attribute than, say, scientific thought. This last point is very important as it brings me to the thesis of this article. This is a man’s world because the accepted thought characteristics of our historical time belong to the assigned category of male.

We have reached a point in our culture where we have assigned different affects to different genders. For example, our culture identifies violence with male thought, and female with a nurturing principle. We also think of ego consciousness as male; aggression (thus wars), the logical mind (thus science), inventiveness, outward acting. The male is the builder of civilization, and I should also mention religion is a male institution, culturally. On the other hand, we think of the subconscious as female, as female characteristics in our culture are thought to be passive, creative, intuitive, uninviting and concerned with preserving the status quo.  Yet in this division, we can clearly appreciate that the first set of characteristics are the most widely accepted in our culture, as we find the subconscious frightening. Even in this separation we can tell that what we have built up to be the ‘male consciousness’, is the accepted consciousness and what is considered the ‘female consciousness’ is feared and unknown and thus repressed. Our society keeps hurting and trying to control what represents the unknown part of the psyche and the connection of humanity to nature through birth, the female.

Thus when I say this is a man’s world I mean the choice of consciousness we have adopted; the masculine-technological. This man’s world represses female elements, including his own. If the male was to be devoid of nurturing elements and compassion, he would be biologically hard wired to be so, yet he is not. Here I would also like to add that the great human qualities of love, strength, compassion, intellect and imagination, do not belong to one sex or another and thus we could advance and reach a true civilization if we merged the different types of consciousness, instead of repressing them, in order to reach true understanding.

Till that day, good bye.

Eliza Veretilo

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 38

Sex differences and Philosophy

I will set out here what I believe to be the relationship between sex differences and the practice of philosophy. I should be quick to point out that by ‘philosophy’ I don't mean ‘academic philosophy’, but, rather, I am using the word in the traditional and historic sense of ‘the pursuit of wisdom’ - or the pursuit of absolute truth. That's not to say that an academic philosopher can't be interested in such matters, but only that if such a person exists then they had better keep it a close secret if they want to keep their job - or their spouse.

By ‘sex differences’ I mean the psychological differences between the sexes.  For purposes here, I am not concerned with the source of those differences, and to what degree those differences are due to purely genetic, or cultural factors.  Rather, I am primarily concerned with the differences themselves, and what they mean for the practice or the survival of philosophy.

Some people maintain that there are no observed psychological differences between the sexes, and that both sexes have an equal degree of interest in, or affinity for, all pursuits.  I don't know what planet those people are living on, but it's not the one that I experience, from whatever corner of the globe I find myself.  I can only tell you of how this world presents itself to me.

In that regard it should be made clear that this essay is not of only iron-clad, absolute philosophy, but also draws on empirical experience, and is therefore open to the uncertainties inherent in all empiric observation.  For this reason, I cannot say with absolute certainty that the behaviour of women, or anyone, is not entirely an elaborate act, and a deception, and for that matter I also cannot say with absolute certainty that women even so much as physically exist.

What I observe is that women, on average, and across all cultures, tend to gravitate more towards passive, unconscious ends: emotions, feelings, comfort, friends, immediacy, and (passive) connection to all that surrounds them.  Dave Sim, the notorious independent comic publisher and self-styled genius, refers to the feminine mind as ‘The Merged Void’.

To the degree that a person -- male or female -- exhibits these qualities, I say that they are ‘feminine’.  And the assignment of this label is regardless of whether the associated behaviour has a genetic or cultural cause. All men share those same ‘feminine’ qualities to greater or lesser extent - and for the most part, it must be said, to a very large extent (e.g., the sexual impulse).  However, I observe that men, on average, and across all cultures, tend to gravitate more towards the active, the conscious, the abstract, towards cold hard logic, isolation, distinction, difference, structure, identity over time (rather than momentary), (conscious) relation, and the absolute. As before, to the degree that a person - male or female - exhibits these qualities, I say they are ‘masculine’.

My source data is infinite, but as one tiny, simple, and concrete example of my everyday experience I can tell you about the subscription rates on YouTube video channels.  Around ninety-five percent of the subscribers to my own philosophy channel are male.  Getting away from philosophy channels, to channels that have a significant component of abstract and logical content, such as a standard atheist channel, it is not uncommon for 90% of the subscribers to be male.

It may be objected that there is little formal scientific evidence establishing these observed behavioural differences between men and women.  I put this down to two reasons: the first reason is that the differences in question do not lend themselves to be studied by science. For example, how could researchers identify whether a person has an attraction to logic if the researchers themselves don't have a very clear grasp as to what logic is? In this case, which is all too common, the researchers are not qualified for the particular task.

The second reason is that any researcher who expresses evidence for any observable psychological differences between men and women is immediately in danger of losing their job and their career, since our society is not one that encourages free inquiry.  As dissatisfying as these facts might be, and as much as we would like science to help, it is a limitation we simply have to accept.

I realise that no amount of my personal experience will ever be truly convincing, since different people have different experiences – however, I'm telling you about my experience, and so we can continue.

Two things should be noted with regard to my use of the terms ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’. Firstly, as should already be clear, neither is inherent in either sex.  That is, ‘femininity’ is not a property of being female, nor ‘masculinity’ of being male.  The labels are mere tools of convenience and can be discarded any time they cease to be useful, such as might occur if women ever become more masculine than men.  Secondly, my use of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ is descriptive only, and not prescriptive. Our conclusion, then, is that anyone who wants to pursue wisdom should cultivate the ‘masculine’ aspects of personality, since logic is a requirement of wisdom.

At this point the question of elitism is often raised.  What about those who enjoy their emotions, who are content with the simple and immediate pleasures of life, and who don't want to be philosophers? What about those who are feminine?  "What about women?" I am bluntly asked.

I don't imagine for a moment that all people, and indeed all beings or things, should become philosophers. The world would be a strange place indeed if all things were philosophers. Philosophers for breakfast, lunch, and tea? It's not a sensible idea.

While philosophers are unquestionably ‘superior’, they are only superior at being philosophers.  Yes, philosophers have god-like, seemingly magical knowledge, but wisdom can never make up the sum total of all existence.  At the very least, the things upon which wisdom depends, such as memory, or logic itself, will forever and necessarily remain unwise (i.e., without wisdom) . . . yet the philosopher cannot exist without them. In this manner the wise and the unwise form a unity; in modern parlance, a team.

Putting aside all things, should all people become wise philosophers?  Is a person necessarily inferior if they put handbags, sport, art, or sex, ahead of philosophy? Does a philosophically naive, sense-centred (feminine) person make a better nurse for infants than an old and seasoned philosopher, mind sharp as a razor, and deep as darkest space? I honestly don't know, but one thing I do know is that one or two philosophers would be a promising start.

Kevin Solway

For more of Kevin's work visit: http://www.theabsolute.net/

Sexism, Logic and Intuition II - Martin Prior

Sexism, Logic and Intuition II

I was originally intending to write on ‘Socialism and the ethics of gender rôles’, but I got bogged down.  Anyway, this article is of course going out on the Valentine’s Day Issue, when very recently Rupert Murdoch was thinking aloud that perhaps Page Three might well be scrapped.

So I am now adding a Part II to the paper I wrote last year, where I argued:

“Let us know get to the substance of the issue: certain activities are regarded as ‘treating women as objects’.  Well firstly, an argument condemning activity between consenting adults on the basis of a simile is a very questionable ethical argument.  Many things have a resemblance to something else: if I lift somebody up from the floor, in a sense I am treating somebody as an object, so one must go directly to the basis of the similarity that causes concern.

“But even if we accept this description of the activity: treating some adults as objects with their consent does not imply we should treat all such adults as objects regardless of their consent.

“So we cannot condemn say beauty contests for treating people as objects, but I believe we can go back to intuition: if our intuition is that the people present at such activities ‘treat blondes as stupid’ and the like, then we may feel that even if the event is not intrinsically sexist, in practice that is precisely what it is.  But we must also avoid making generalisations.”

I think that Mr Murdoch’s reasons for having (and perhaps not having) Page Three are entirely cynical: he wants to boost his circulation.  Indeed it is a perversion of democracy that opinion-formers can attract a readership by such cynical methods – not least those who push their views by scare-mongering against Trades Unions, and thereby induce working people to act against their own interests.

I don’t believe in banning Page Three: if in our idealistic monogamous society the numbers don’t match, let the remainder of dividing by two pursue their needs privately and unobtrusively, perhaps towards the end of the paper.

But Mr Murdoch is to my mind a sexist since he has so little respect for women that he can use them in this way.  I think that if he wants to drop Page Three, this will also be cynical and disrespectful to women – particularly the moral self-congratulation - and he should be compelled to run it, and endure the loss of circulation he fears would happen.

Note on the ethics of gender rôles: in previous articles I have discussed

(i)             the importance of rôle combination in gender rôles, probably any rôles – permitting the learning of skills at a young age,

(ii)           the need for socialism to relate society and/or customs through skills to the environment.

Skills and technology are to my mind pivotal to the egalitarian goals of socialism, and I believe that whatever customs are evolved for effective combination of rôles, there should not be the stereotyping between the genders at the level of skills and technology.

But then, if there is no aptitude stereotyping, so that each subject attracts equal numbers of men and women, will the sciences attract more women.  Or the humanities attract more men?

Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 38

Child Support - By Johannon Davis

Child Support

The traditional model of the masculine presence within the family as the provider has been embraced vastly throughout innumerable cultures and traditions. Yet within a comparatively short time frame within history, this role has been resisted and altered through economic, legal and  moral attitudes with a noticeable pressure now placed on women in the familial setting to provide emotional, spiritual  and now economic support for her dependant young.

While the attainment of equal employment and educational opportunities for women was sought to improve choice, social standing, protection (from abuse within the home and wider society) and to support ambition and social failings, the emphasis on the modern female has become that of ever growing responsibilities and ever diminishing support. The modern mother may now in the face of the ruins of her relationship find herself as the sole source of emotional and physical support for her children, with the male presence within the life of the child too often reduced to a faceless cash source only. The stigma of the modern mother is that should she find herself emotionally or physically taxed by the unequal distribution of the labour of daily child rearing she all too often faces criticism while the absent male is commended for the faceless ‘child support’. Surely the deserting of the post of father, once a socially endorsed entry into manhood, should reflect not on the mother, but indicate the disillusion of the masculine role within the family.

One may argue that the pursuit of activities external to the home (through the hunter and gatherer roles seen in historical man) and the subsequent reduction in the provision of emotional security to the infant through these activities - the masculine presence is through neglect and social alleviation of paternal responsibilities, rendering itself obsolete. The deconstruction of the family unit and reduction of the male presence in the child rearing process is reducing the role of man to a commercial enterprise in reproductive processes or a source of financial income only - where in some traditional roles the father may adapt the belief that to provide financial support and ‘putting food on the table’ is the full extent of his role- distancing himself from the active engagement in the role of child rearing inclusive of communication, discipline and moral implementation of the cultural code within the traditions of the family unit has led to further social inequalities than is measurable. The equality of partnership sought by early campaigners for female rights has been undermined by the mistake that the woman who can do it all, must, with the must being reduced from exemption to normality and those women who demand the equal and fair distribution of the labour of child rearing derided as ‘struggling mothers’.

Yet the loss of the traditional male role is not so easily solved simply by the laying of blame of modern man. The attitude of some men who feel minimal social pressure to provide greater input in the raising of their young, appears also to be fuelled by some women who resist the masculine presence within the child rearing process, having adapted the ‘i can, i will, i must’ attitude that to allow the father figure within the lives of their children is a slight on their mothering skills or in the same way some men may take the failure of their relationship with their spouse as a failure in their chance to raise their children, some women may also confuse the failure of their relationship with their spouse with the ability for their partner to adequately and successfully contribute to the raising of the child.

Whilst the template of masculinity has undergone a seismic shift in a remarkably short period of time, leaving many men and women in a state of bemusement of the validity of roles which until 40 years ago were common place, the family unit must come to a place of understanding that the provision of material goods are of secondary importance to the provision of protection, emotional stability and guidance from both parents. The need for warmth and bonding between child and parent remains a static need in a culture of fluid parenting rights and responsibilities.

Johannon Davis

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 38

Let’s engender a debate about gender - Samuel Mack-Poole

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

Sexism, Logic and Intuition II - By Martin Prior

Sexism, Logic and Intuition II

I was originally intending to write on ‘Socialism and the ethics of gender rôles’, but I got bogged down.  Anyway, this article is of course going out on the Valentine’s Day Issue, when very recently Rupert Murdoch was thinking aloud that perhaps Page Three might well be scrapped.

So I am now adding a Part II to the paper I wrote last year, where I argued:

“Let us know get to the substance of the issue: certain activities are regarded as ‘treating women as objects’.  Well firstly, an argument condemning activity between consenting adults on the basis of a simile is a very questionable ethical argument.  Many things have a resemblance to something else: if I lift somebody up from the floor, in a sense I am treating somebody as an object, so one must go directly to the basis of the similarity that causes concern.

“But even if we accept this description of the activity: treating some adults as objects with their consent does not imply we should treat all such adults as objects regardless of their consent.

“So we cannot condemn say beauty contests for treating people as objects, but I believe we can go back to intuition: if our intuition is that the people present at such activities ‘treat blondes as stupid’ and the like, then we may feel that even if the event is not intrinsically sexist, in practice that is precisely what it is.  But we must also avoid making generalisations.”

I think that Mr Murdoch’s reasons for having (and perhaps not having) Page Three are entirely cynical: he wants to boost his circulation.  Indeed it is a perversion of democracy that opinion-formers can attract a readership by such cynical methods – not least those who push their views by scare-mongering against Trades Unions, and thereby induce working people to act against their own interests.

I don’t believe in banning Page Three: if in our idealistic monogamous society the numbers don’t match, let the remainder of dividing by two pursue their needs privately and unobtrusively, perhaps towards the end of the paper.

But Mr Murdoch is to my mind a sexist since he has so little respect for women that he can use them in this way.  I think that if he wants to drop Page Three, this will also be cynical and disrespectful to women – particularly the moral self-congratulation - and he should be compelled to run it, and endure the loss of circulation he fears would happen.

Note on the ethics of gender rôles: in previous articles I have discussed

(i)             the importance of rôle combination in gender rôles, probably any rôles – permitting the learning of skills at a young age,

(ii)           the need for socialism to relate society and/or customs through skills to the environment.

Skills and technology are to my mind pivotal to the egalitarian goals of socialism, and I believe that whatever customs are evolved for effective combination of rôles, there should not be the stereotyping between the genders at the level of skills and technology.

But then, if there is no aptitude stereotyping, so that each subject attracts equal numbers of men and women, will the sciences attract more women.  Or the humanities attract more men?

Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 38

Let’s engender a debate about gender - By Samuel Mack-Poole

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

For Mary: 15-50 - By Siobhon Wilson

For Mary: 15-50

15.

Grown. Taut.

Started but not yet begun.

Buds of sexuality pucker,

Unknowing what they held inside.

Eyes down, bitten lip.

An unfurnished room.

20.

Ibiza. Him.

Begun but not yet created.

Sex.

Known but not owned.

She is for sale.

Eye contact. Wide smile.

Playing at Four becomes foreplay.

He.

Shiny and new.

Owned but not known.

30.

Baby. Nothing But.

Created but not yet realised.

Sexuality is replaced with Mothercare.

She is owned and she has produced.

Tired eyes, sighing mouth.

Her = Child.

Le petit mort.

A shrunken room

Littered with debris of the past

Home to the little cot.

40.

Ten years un-needed.

Discarded but not fully released.

Sexuality is reconstructed in old, betraying photographs.

Flowers wilt in dry soil, only half-opened.

Eyes worn, time-wrinkled frown.

Identity is unknown to all who occupy.

50.

Grown. Sagged.

Started but not yet begun.

The stretching of time leaves marks on her body.

The perennials turn to seed,

Desaturated, the negative of colour.

Eyes down, bitten lip.

She leaves.

An unfurnished room:

She opens a window and

Breathes in air.

 

By Siobhon WilsonThe Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26

Points of light and the Androgyne - By Selim 'Selim' Talat

Points of light and the Androgyne

 

i) More voices means more power to the group

- The patriarchy is not an alliance, more a code of battle that respects his rivals right to fight. It is composed of 'points of light' in great number. Although each point is individual, it is granted freedom (to flourish or perish) by belonging to the whole. Thus, every action of an individual within the fully composed 'face' is more powerful than it would be individually.

- Without a collective face, without a voice, an individual entity can rarely be heard, or understood.

- The lack of a large number of women in philosophy is why her face is only half-formed. This lack of number disempowers all of the points of light that make up this face.

ii) Our romantic imagination is oppressing the 'female'

- How powerful the human imagination is! It can add so much romance to the world, yet often at the cost of missing the real picture.

- A value system is always formed, sometimes outside the ordinary dictation of nature (for instance, what is considered 'beautiful' can be completely removed from any natural instincts - for better or for worse).

- Appeals to 'human nature' are often made by those who cannot fully define what they actually mean by the cliché.

- The new reality created by the mind is easily reinforced by the self-obsessed creature. The romance of illusion replaces reality when it becomes second-nature.

- The warped view of the 'female'-other is more appealing than the human-she (at least, to this perverse mindset). She is mysticized as something simultaneously greater and less than human - she is one day admired, another day feared. On no day is she an equal. And in reality, the power of mystical femininity is no real power at all.

- A different value system emerges for woman and man, man and woman. This becomes habit, then tradition. Traditions have the habit of being accepted unquestioning and being enforced by mass dis/approval – the power of brute mental force!

- The true egalitarian starting point of different genders, linked, equal, in an intimate alliance, is polarized by that most horrid of things - platonic perfection. Unrealistic ideals create unreachable goals and beautiful phantoms that nullify the magic of this 'dull' world - we stand now in the shadow of false gods.

- The face of the Patriarch is full, his voice a resounding echo of power. The Matriarch is not yet complete. She is still dancing to his tune, playing his game, powerful only within its confines.

iii) With equal respect for the outcomes, we discover an equal choice

- So long as 'female' is seen as a romanticised entity, more so than her 'male' counterpart, the true nature of her cannot be seen. Nor can she be truly understood, or respected, whilst we maintain these delusions.

- Soon (when?) Matriarch shall be complete, beside Patriarch. She can match him and both will dissolve into an Androgyne. Between the binary extremes of gender can fully emerge near-infinite possibility.

- From this point the individual will be free to design itself between the broad barriers and guidelines of the many genders that inhabit our sphere of experience.

- Such is the nature of our inevitable progress.

By Selim 'Selim' Talat

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26

Sexism, Logic and Intuition - By Martin Prior

Sexism, Logic and Intuition

In the period 1974-6, I was active in the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL now ‘Liberty’).  At the beginning of this period, banning pornography and prostitution were seen as reactionary in the same way perhaps as any other form of censorship.  Over that short period attitudes changed and differing feminist views became more prominent.

I felt that a number of their arguments were logically flawed and unhelpful.  Before going into detail I am going to consider two points, the first to do with racism.  The late Jade Goody from Big Brother was once accused of being racist for doing an Indian accent, and her response was ‘but people imitate my accent’.  But recently I heard an Indian say – I think on the Wright Show (Channel 5) – that he often heard people doing Indian accents, but he knew intuitively when it was offensive.  Being an immigrant myself, I would say my reaction is similar.  As a linguist I have on occasion done this Indian accent – with best Sanskrit consonants - but I am in fact making a linguistic point, as might an accent trainer in the theatre.  But I have never formally studied Indian intonation which I can improvise without any difficulty, and this bothers me since I am not sure it comes out as respectful.

 

The second point can be made with a Venn diagram I produced two issues ago, about negative reference.  It is shown opposite:

Note that this is a mathematical statement: in language, depending on intonation and context, we might be conceding that two or three blondes might not be stupid (especially with a rising tone).

No, not all blondes are stupid, and some know intuitively when they are being offensively treated as stupid.  But I wonder if such attitudes have an ‘adverse environmental effect’: by being treated as stupid, they use their intelligence less.

Let us know get to the substance of the issue: certain activities are regarded as ‘treating women as objects’.  Well firstly, an argument condemning activity between consenting adults on the basis of a simile is a very questionable ethical argument.  Many things have a resemblance to something else: if I lift somebody up from the floor, in a sense I am treating somebody as an object, so one must go directly to the basis of the similarity that causes concern.

But even if we accept this description of the activity: treating some adults as objects with their consent does not imply we should treat all such adults as objects regardless of their consent.

So we cannot condemn say beauty contests for treating people as objects, but I believe we can go back to intuition: if our intuition is that the people present at such activities ‘treat blondes as stupid’ and the like, then we may feel that even if the event is not intrinsically sexist, in practice that is precisely what it is.  But we must also avoid making generalisations.

I talked at the beginning about consenting adults, and if we don’t respect intuitions we may well not gain such consent.

What set me on the path of questioning feminist arguments was that of gender rôles, mainly condemned because different societies had different rôle systems, and all tended to justify them on an innate basis: so women were innately better cooks etc etc.  Since this is wrong, gender rôles must be wrong.  But the flaw in this is that even if societies don’t all have the same rôle systems, all societies have some rôles.  My view is that gender rôles are chosen according to what can be conveniently combined, and even though one might feel this was not an optimal mix in terms of aptitude, this is compensated for by early learning.

But this combination principle mainly applies within households, so that in terms of careers, aptitude has to be relevant, and studying this should certainly not critically depend on intuition: there is no way that a combination principle can be invoked to say that ballet dancers must be either female or gay!  And feminism is certainly not ‘post-’, so anyone thinking of being the father of post-feminism need not apply.  Nor post-anti-racism.  Nor (even in Tony Blair’s wildest dreams) post-Trades-Unionism.

Philosophers may well be wary of resorting to intuition, but in fact it is the basis of modern linguistics.  Linguists these days do not accept something as grammatical in a particular language unless it accords with the intuitions of a native speaker.  That is a starting point: and philosophy cannot directly use intuitions, but it will have something to say about any scientific method that draws upon it.

Such intuitions to my mind explain why for some ethnic and other groups a neutral term soon becomes derogatory, so that another neutral term has to be found.  Thus the term Polak is derogatory in the States, even though it is the Polish for Pole.  And ‘hussy’ originally meant housewife, and ‘bird’ is derived from a dialect word – I believe Northern - related to bride.

Just one more thing: aren’t beauty contests reinforcing one particular idea of beauty, one particular ‘eye of the beholder’?  So who is what is disrespectful to?

Postscript on post-feminism...

In the last issue we talked about magic, and about madness in the issue before that, so now I can adapt my diagrams of those issues to post-feminism:

 

The analysis is very similar to that of Magic.  But the bubble should really straddle :)  and :].

The very serious point relates to observations and variables: any progressive movement will deal with a situation there are more variables than observations, and must proceed by trial and error, picking out the strands in a situation.  As in language-learning, which might be characterised by

imitation(!) -> deduction -> correction,

error has to be constructive.  In that process, where the parallel of imitation is problematic but possibly still valid (perhaps rôle-models but this needs further examination), deductions will often take the form of over-generalisations.  We will add to our understanding if we allow for intuition, and allow for gender rôle within the household and outside, but of course that creates problems as well as attempted solutions.

By Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26