Article: Men are the weakest sex

[Amy Sheldon]

About 2-3 decades ago, I came across a succinct quote by a feminist  
author that said, as i recall, that focussing on and worrying about   
the (cultural) emasculation of males hides the strong (cultural)  
influences of immasculation of females.

The context for the quote was cultural critique:  in an androcentric  
culture, females too needed to conform to masculine behaviors, norms,  
beliefs, etc.

We could argue over what this means. But the point, as I recall, was  
to ask if our own conscription into a set of values and ways of  
thinking and behaving in an androcentric culture serves females' best  
interests, or if it weakens and neutralizes females (and perhaps  
others).

Amy Sheldon

On Dec 7, 2008, at 2:45 PM, MJ Hardman wrote:

> A pet peeve of mine: 'gender' is a linguistics term which refers to  
> a grammatically marked noun-class (mostly overt, sometimes covert)  
> which may or may not have anything to do with sex.  Genders may  
> depend on shape, animacy, humanity and a host of other things, none  
> of them having anything to do with sex.
>
> And then, as I remember from a child, the horrible word S-E-X could  
> not be said out loud, so the word 'gender' was imported from  
> linguistics, since English (and IE in general) gender is sex-based,  
> to use as euphemism.  Well!  We lost the word and now it means  
> 'sex' to most people.  Appalling indeed.  On both counts, the one  
> above and the one below.
>
> MJ
>
> On 12/7/08 2:57 PM, "Bryan James Gordon" <linguista at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>> Well, this is simply appalling.
>>
>> * Use of the word "gender" to refer to both gendered behaviours  
>> such as playing with dolls and tea sets, and the biological  
>> "gender" of various animals at risk from chemicals.
>>
>> * Use of the word "gender-bender" furthers indexical links of  
>> perversity and corruption with respect to transpeople, drag  
>> queens, genderqueers, and even ordinary tomboys and "sensitive men".
>>
>> * Complaint of reduction of gene pool furthers indexical links of  
>> reproductive irresponsibility with respect to homosexuality.
>>
>> * Considering the extant studies linking "gender-deviant"  
>> behaviour such as boys playing with tea sets to adult  
>> homosexuality and transgenderism, the Rotterdam study is an  
>> instrument the writer is using to deliberately link chemical- 
>> medical deviance to these phenomena. Apparently, it's not our  
>> fault we're queer, and we should just be tolerated while the  
>> researchers figure out a chemical way to ensure proper gendering  
>> of future generations.
>>
>> * Repeated mention of penis size confirms that penis size is oh-so  
>> important.
>>
>> * In conjunction with the gendered revulsion associated with small  
>> penisses in our culture is the fear tactic of repeated mention of  
>> "feminised genitalia", without ever defining what exactly that means.
>>
>> * Continual mention of statistics of "male" deformities among  
>> various species without any mention of the extent to which these  
>> statistics deviate from the pre-exposure norm.
>>
>> * Serious information structure buried in passage about polar  
>> bears: "hermaphrodite polar bears – with penises and vaginas –  
>> have been discovered and gender-benders have been found to reduce  
>> sperm counts and penis lengths in those that remained male". The  
>> word "remained" indicates a presupposition that the presence of a  
>> penis and a vagina characterises a non-male. Therefore, the writer  
>> assumes that these hermaphrodites are in fact not male. This means  
>> that the writer has no interest in chromosomal sex as a  
>> purportedly Natural or Real thing underlying variation, and  
>> instead is drawing the line at the question, "Does the body have a  
>> penis or a vagina?" Since the OR is exclusive, the answer "both"  
>> is not valid, and the body cannot be classified.
>>
>> Of course nobody's going to argue that endocrine disrupters are a  
>> good thing. They are, in fact, baaaaad! But the overt decision to  
>> replace the term with "gender-benders" indicates some serious  
>> screwed-uppedness.
>>
>> An interesting side point we may want to look at is the style of  
>> the article. Myself, I haven't read much of the right-wing press  
>> since about 2000 or so, but from what I recall, even the worst of  
>> the American right-wingers tend to try for a semblance of  
>> considered, rational objectivity that has never been popular in  
>> the UK. The UK has a very different press tradition, and although  
>> I know very little about it, this article seems to me to have  
>> various threads of alarmism and tabloid-like schadenfreude, even  
>> overtly placed nods towards these styles, that less often make it  
>> into "scientific" reporting on this side of the pond. Not to say  
>> that American objectivist BS is a good thing; it is not! But this  
>> may partially explain this piece.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/gala-l/attachments/20081207/6443d6ec/attachment.htm>