While I consider myself an advocate of gay rights, I am troubled by the biological essentialism I have seen in certain segments of the gay rights movement. The argument goes something like this: A person is born biologically attracted to people of the same gender, so their being gay is ok.
I agree with the first part of the statement - that sexuality (at least for men, for women the picture is slightly more ambiguous) is biological, however, I do not believe that simply because a behavior is biologically mandated that makes it moral.
Thus, while one's attraction is a matter of biology, how one chooses to act - or not act- about those attractions is a matter of choice. It is possible to be attracted to members of the same sex and not act on that attraction. Of course, to do so would be extremely difficult, not to mention emotionally, psychologically, and physically unhealthy, and could easily result in misery, but it is possible - which means that not do so, to choose to act on one's desires - is a choice.
Studies show that much of who we are is influenced by genetics. Murderers are often born pre-disposed to violence. I dread the day a murderer gets off in court because he shows a DNA test that proves he was biologically pre-disposed to violence.
Recent studies have showed that pedophilia, like homosexuality, is a biologically pre-determined sexual orientation. Yet pedophilia is still a crime - and rightly so. We expect pedophiles, as difficult as it may be for them, to keep it in their skirt/pants, for the safety of our children and the health of our society.
Of course, unlike pedophilia, I do not believe that homosexuality is immoral - which brings me to my other point of contention: By fighting for gay rights on the platform that being gay is biologically pre-determined, the gay rights groups are inadvertently and implicitly acknowledging that homosexuality is immoral. If homosexuality is moral, it should not matter whether or not it is biologically pre-determined - no one asks if my desire to share my toys with my neighbor is biologically pre-determined, because it is considered a moral action - I only need to use biology as an excuse or justification if my action would not be moral, were it not for the fact that I was biologically compelled to do it, and hence had no choice in the matter.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Gender Essentialism
As a friend of mine recently reminded me that Judith Butler, one of the pioneers of gender and queer theory, believes that gender is performative. That is to say, gender is a role one assumes, not a biologically pre-determined outcome.
The notion that gender roles (as opposed to physical sex) are biologically pre-determined is called "gender essentialism". Gender/queer theory believes that gender essentialism is a self-reifying force: By framing gender as a biological imperative, it causes women and men to simply accept the gender roles they are given, thus "proving" its own theory by becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Like many feminists, I believe that gender roles can change, and that they must change in order to provide us with a more egalitarian society. Furthermore, I believe that the status of current gender roles negatively affects not only the lives of women, but also the lives of men - even straight men who feel comfortable in their current role - albeit, to different degrees and in different ways.
I do however, believe in what I shall term the "soft" theory of gender essentialism: I believe that women are born biologically prone to certain (but not all) types of roles/actions often associated by society with the term "feminine", and men are born biologically prone to certain (but not all) types of roles/actions often associated with the term "male".
Being biologically prone to something however, does not make it one's destiny. Thus, a person may be born biologically prone to alcoholism, but still not become an alcoholic. Similarly, a person may be biologically prone to obesity, but if they are aware of their genetic pre-disposition and work hard to combat it, they may maintain a healthy weight.
The problem is not that our society has set up gender roles, but a) that a vast power differential exists between those roles b) that it is considered unacceptable for a person of a certain sex to not adhere to the gender role associated with that sex.
I have no hard evidence for this, but somehow I connect Kinsey's groundbreaking work about homosexuality/heretosexuality being a scale, as opposed to a strict dichotomy, with the beginning of the acceptance of homosexuals. It is harder to classify someone as Other if their Otherness stems not from them having a trait completely alien to you, but rather, from their having the same trait as you, but to a completely different degree - you are both on the same scale, just at different points.
I think gender, like sexuality, should be scalar. There can be a feminine pole and a masculine pole, with all sorts of shades in between. This scale should be dissociated from sex. Thus, a male sexed person should have the freedom to take on the role on the ultra-feminine side of the scale, and vice versa. I suspect most people would fall somewhere in between, taking qualities they like from each gender. This dissociation would make life substantially easier for gender queer and transgender people, without completely getting rid of gender, since many people out there enjoy taking on gender roles.
This gender-sex dissociation however, must not be taken on at the expense of changing the discourse about gender roles to begin with, and of getting rid of the power differential between the female and male roles.
The notion that gender roles (as opposed to physical sex) are biologically pre-determined is called "gender essentialism". Gender/queer theory believes that gender essentialism is a self-reifying force: By framing gender as a biological imperative, it causes women and men to simply accept the gender roles they are given, thus "proving" its own theory by becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Like many feminists, I believe that gender roles can change, and that they must change in order to provide us with a more egalitarian society. Furthermore, I believe that the status of current gender roles negatively affects not only the lives of women, but also the lives of men - even straight men who feel comfortable in their current role - albeit, to different degrees and in different ways.
I do however, believe in what I shall term the "soft" theory of gender essentialism: I believe that women are born biologically prone to certain (but not all) types of roles/actions often associated by society with the term "feminine", and men are born biologically prone to certain (but not all) types of roles/actions often associated with the term "male".
Being biologically prone to something however, does not make it one's destiny. Thus, a person may be born biologically prone to alcoholism, but still not become an alcoholic. Similarly, a person may be biologically prone to obesity, but if they are aware of their genetic pre-disposition and work hard to combat it, they may maintain a healthy weight.
The problem is not that our society has set up gender roles, but a) that a vast power differential exists between those roles b) that it is considered unacceptable for a person of a certain sex to not adhere to the gender role associated with that sex.
I have no hard evidence for this, but somehow I connect Kinsey's groundbreaking work about homosexuality/heretosexuality being a scale, as opposed to a strict dichotomy, with the beginning of the acceptance of homosexuals. It is harder to classify someone as Other if their Otherness stems not from them having a trait completely alien to you, but rather, from their having the same trait as you, but to a completely different degree - you are both on the same scale, just at different points.
I think gender, like sexuality, should be scalar. There can be a feminine pole and a masculine pole, with all sorts of shades in between. This scale should be dissociated from sex. Thus, a male sexed person should have the freedom to take on the role on the ultra-feminine side of the scale, and vice versa. I suspect most people would fall somewhere in between, taking qualities they like from each gender. This dissociation would make life substantially easier for gender queer and transgender people, without completely getting rid of gender, since many people out there enjoy taking on gender roles.
This gender-sex dissociation however, must not be taken on at the expense of changing the discourse about gender roles to begin with, and of getting rid of the power differential between the female and male roles.
A Note on Cheating and Space
Often, there may be things partner A does that bother partner B, even if they are within the bounds set by the couple. If such a situation occurs, here are a couple of questions worth asking yourself:
1. Why does this bother you? Is there something specific about the situation - ie, B is meeting a girl at a restaunt, a setting you mentally define as a "date'? Is it that this situation objectively makes you uncomfortable - ie, having B have dinner alone with a girl at a fancy restaurant will always make you uneasy? If so, it might pay to take a second look at the boundaries you have set for your relationship - maybe you could make a "no dinners with a person of whatever gender(s) we are sexually attracted to at a fancy restaurant" rule, where B and the girl can meet for a pizza dinner or for a fancy lunch, and still have space to have a friendship, but not in a way that makes you uncomfortable.
2. Alternatively, did B and this girl once date? If so, remember: There is a reason they broke up, and a reason he is with you now, and not with her.
3. If you are nervous after asking yourself these questions, it may pay to have a conversation that goes something like this:
A. Affirmation
I wanted to talk to you about your dinner with C tonight. I love you, and I know that you would not violate my trust.
B. Expression of Concern
However, I am uneasy about your having dinner with C tonight,
C. Reason
because ......now discuss what you can do, both as inviduals and as a couple, to adress this reason/cause of concern.
or
I don't know why that is, and I know I have no reason to be concerned, however, I wanted to share my feelings with you, and let you know what's going on in my head.
D. Resolution
An active, concrete solution to address the reason if there is one.
or (and optional, sometimes there is no resolution for a reason-less problem, and that is ok)
I am still trying to figure out why I am concerned, and trying to work on myself so as not to feel this way in the future. I want you to feel comfortable to go out with friends.
E. Re-Affirmation
I am grateful/happy that we have had this conversation. I love you and I hope you have a good time tonight.
4. Is this an unreasonable fear? Does it pay to ignore it? Sometimes it can pay to share unreasonable fears in a calm manner, because if not, they might come up in an angry manner later on (ex. if you resent A's having dinner with C even though you know it is unreasonable). It is important to pick a good time, when you are both happy and not rushed, to have these types of conversations, even though it is hard and so tempting to keep pushing it off.
5. Does this fear speak to a fundamental insecurity about yourself or about your relationship? If so, is this an issue that can be talked about and worked through? If it is due to insecurity about yourself, it may pay to seek professional help, because insecurity can be a major drain on any relationship.
6. Does this speak to a very particular issue that is easily adressed? For example, if you realize that boys' nights make you nervous because you feel very left out of that part of your hubby's life, it might pay to have one night (or even a couple) where you boyfriend's guy friends (and maybe even their significant others as well) come over for dinner, or where you go out for drinks. These night should be in addition to your boyfriends' guys nights out however, not instead of. That way, next time he goes out, you will feel more secure because you will know who he is going with, and you won't feel like its this mysterious part of his life that you're not included in.
1. Why does this bother you? Is there something specific about the situation - ie, B is meeting a girl at a restaunt, a setting you mentally define as a "date'? Is it that this situation objectively makes you uncomfortable - ie, having B have dinner alone with a girl at a fancy restaurant will always make you uneasy? If so, it might pay to take a second look at the boundaries you have set for your relationship - maybe you could make a "no dinners with a person of whatever gender(s) we are sexually attracted to at a fancy restaurant" rule, where B and the girl can meet for a pizza dinner or for a fancy lunch, and still have space to have a friendship, but not in a way that makes you uncomfortable.
2. Alternatively, did B and this girl once date? If so, remember: There is a reason they broke up, and a reason he is with you now, and not with her.
3. If you are nervous after asking yourself these questions, it may pay to have a conversation that goes something like this:
A. Affirmation
I wanted to talk to you about your dinner with C tonight. I love you, and I know that you would not violate my trust.
B. Expression of Concern
However, I am uneasy about your having dinner with C tonight,
C. Reason
because ......now discuss what you can do, both as inviduals and as a couple, to adress this reason/cause of concern.
or
I don't know why that is, and I know I have no reason to be concerned, however, I wanted to share my feelings with you, and let you know what's going on in my head.
D. Resolution
An active, concrete solution to address the reason if there is one.
or (and optional, sometimes there is no resolution for a reason-less problem, and that is ok)
I am still trying to figure out why I am concerned, and trying to work on myself so as not to feel this way in the future. I want you to feel comfortable to go out with friends.
E. Re-Affirmation
I am grateful/happy that we have had this conversation. I love you and I hope you have a good time tonight.
4. Is this an unreasonable fear? Does it pay to ignore it? Sometimes it can pay to share unreasonable fears in a calm manner, because if not, they might come up in an angry manner later on (ex. if you resent A's having dinner with C even though you know it is unreasonable). It is important to pick a good time, when you are both happy and not rushed, to have these types of conversations, even though it is hard and so tempting to keep pushing it off.
5. Does this fear speak to a fundamental insecurity about yourself or about your relationship? If so, is this an issue that can be talked about and worked through? If it is due to insecurity about yourself, it may pay to seek professional help, because insecurity can be a major drain on any relationship.
6. Does this speak to a very particular issue that is easily adressed? For example, if you realize that boys' nights make you nervous because you feel very left out of that part of your hubby's life, it might pay to have one night (or even a couple) where you boyfriend's guy friends (and maybe even their significant others as well) come over for dinner, or where you go out for drinks. These night should be in addition to your boyfriends' guys nights out however, not instead of. That way, next time he goes out, you will feel more secure because you will know who he is going with, and you won't feel like its this mysterious part of his life that you're not included in.
Open Relationships: Part Deux for the Menage a beacoups de persons...
I beleive that whatever a couple mutually defines as cheating, is cheating, and there is no "right" or "wrong" definition, as long as each partner is comfortable with the definition. Open relationships do not violate this rule. However, often one partner will compromise - either by agreeing to not do something they would like to do, or by agreeing to let their partner do something they would rather have that partner not do. I understand that some degree of compromise is inevitable, but due to the nature of open relationships, I beleive that when the compromise is a couple's not being monogomous because of the needs of one person, at that point, it is not a compromise at all, but one partner capitulating to the other on something that defines the very nature of their relationship. So I think open relationships are prone to misuse.
Also, being non-monogomous is not a substitute for one person giving the other space, though many seem to think it is.
My other major beef with open relationships is that you are defining your relationship not in relation to your partner, but in relation to others (being with other people) or in relation to what is not present in your relationship (monogamy) as opposed to what is (love, affection, fun, etc.). This may seem like a minor semantic issue, but I beleive that words effect realities, and shape how we view things, giving form to self-fulfilling prophecies. Shaping discourse about something can become in effect, shaping the thing itself. I am not going to pretend to understand Foucault, though I have tried reading and re-reading various works by him, but that is what other people (ie college professors) tell me he said.
Also, being non-monogomous is not a substitute for one person giving the other space, though many seem to think it is.
My other major beef with open relationships is that you are defining your relationship not in relation to your partner, but in relation to others (being with other people) or in relation to what is not present in your relationship (monogamy) as opposed to what is (love, affection, fun, etc.). This may seem like a minor semantic issue, but I beleive that words effect realities, and shape how we view things, giving form to self-fulfilling prophecies. Shaping discourse about something can become in effect, shaping the thing itself. I am not going to pretend to understand Foucault, though I have tried reading and re-reading various works by him, but that is what other people (ie college professors) tell me he said.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Open Relationships
Ok, now that I have tackled Random Hookups (yay!) time to move on to Open Relationships (Polyamory is all around us, and then the feeling grows.*):
There are two major types of open relationshops:
1. The couple is allowed random hookups, but not to date in a serious way.
2. All cards - both physical connections and emotional ones/real dating - are on the table.
Within these two categories, there are two physical sub-categories:
3. Yes to everything but sex.
4. Any physical action is ok.
I understand I have no right to judge; I know many people who are extremely happy with their open relationships. I am speaking right now about hesitations I have about the institution (leaving aside religious issues - clearly, Orthodox Judaism does not recognize the concept of an "open marriage" - nor would I want one - "Hey honey, I can't tuck the kids in tonight because I need to meet my lover at the S&M club down the street" - that might work for some people and make them very happy, but it's not my style.)
1. I would like to start off by observing that 90% of the people I know in open relationships either a) do not plan on getting married/winding up together permanently or b) see the open-ness as a remedy to the problem of dating long-distance, to be terminated once the couple is able to live near (or with) each other. I think that these facts say quite a lot about the nature of a long distance relationship: It is often either an indicator of doubts as to the long-long-term viability, or an imperfect remedy for having sexual needs that for whatever reason, can not currently be fulfilled by the partner in question.
Now, with these two facts in mind, I will explain my personal misgivings about this type of romantic attachment:
1. If you are saying that dating and physical connections are both on the table, you are essentially saying that you can not completely fulfill either each other's emotional or physical needs, and if you are both seriously dating on the side, you are both seriously seeking out romantic life partners who are not each other, which begs the question - why are you together in the first place?
2. If you are only having random hookups, whether or not those hookups involve actual sex, there is a major STD risk (yes, you can get herpes from a hookup that does not involve intercourse). You are basically limiting yourself to people you do not know, and often, people who engage in random hookups, since they tend to be with more people, have a higher risk of STDs, since they have more potential sources from whom to pick up disease. I do not mean this as a moral judgement; it is an unfortunate but true fact. This means your risk is higher as well. Of course, you could just go around having random hookups with people you know/trust they don't have STDs, but after a while, wouldn't that get pretty awkward?
3. If you are people who enjoy spending time together but sleep both with each other and with others, what makes you more than friends with benefits?
If any couples in open relationships want to respond, that would be great - I would love to learn more about this from people actually involved in it, and hear what they have to say. I have heard form my friends, but its a limited sample.
There are two major types of open relationshops:
1. The couple is allowed random hookups, but not to date in a serious way.
2. All cards - both physical connections and emotional ones/real dating - are on the table.
Within these two categories, there are two physical sub-categories:
3. Yes to everything but sex.
4. Any physical action is ok.
I understand I have no right to judge; I know many people who are extremely happy with their open relationships. I am speaking right now about hesitations I have about the institution (leaving aside religious issues - clearly, Orthodox Judaism does not recognize the concept of an "open marriage" - nor would I want one - "Hey honey, I can't tuck the kids in tonight because I need to meet my lover at the S&M club down the street" - that might work for some people and make them very happy, but it's not my style.)
1. I would like to start off by observing that 90% of the people I know in open relationships either a) do not plan on getting married/winding up together permanently or b) see the open-ness as a remedy to the problem of dating long-distance, to be terminated once the couple is able to live near (or with) each other. I think that these facts say quite a lot about the nature of a long distance relationship: It is often either an indicator of doubts as to the long-long-term viability, or an imperfect remedy for having sexual needs that for whatever reason, can not currently be fulfilled by the partner in question.
Now, with these two facts in mind, I will explain my personal misgivings about this type of romantic attachment:
1. If you are saying that dating and physical connections are both on the table, you are essentially saying that you can not completely fulfill either each other's emotional or physical needs, and if you are both seriously dating on the side, you are both seriously seeking out romantic life partners who are not each other, which begs the question - why are you together in the first place?
2. If you are only having random hookups, whether or not those hookups involve actual sex, there is a major STD risk (yes, you can get herpes from a hookup that does not involve intercourse). You are basically limiting yourself to people you do not know, and often, people who engage in random hookups, since they tend to be with more people, have a higher risk of STDs, since they have more potential sources from whom to pick up disease. I do not mean this as a moral judgement; it is an unfortunate but true fact. This means your risk is higher as well. Of course, you could just go around having random hookups with people you know/trust they don't have STDs, but after a while, wouldn't that get pretty awkward?
3. If you are people who enjoy spending time together but sleep both with each other and with others, what makes you more than friends with benefits?
If any couples in open relationships want to respond, that would be great - I would love to learn more about this from people actually involved in it, and hear what they have to say. I have heard form my friends, but its a limited sample.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Random Hookups
I have long argued the the culture of random hookups tends to hurt women more than men. This is because it is easier (as a general rule - of course there are exceptions!) for men to detach themselves from a hookup than it is for women. I beleive this is mostly due to socialization: Women are taught to expect/want sex only within the context of a serious relationship, are taught that their self-worth stems from such relationships, as well as from desirability (putting so much more pressure on each sexual encounter) and that hooking up outside of a relationship makes them a whore. Part of this however, is biological: Women tend to produce a hormone that encourages emotional attachment during sex - men do not produce this hormone.
Empirically, I have gotten a number of late-night phonecalls from girls with what I term post-hookup syndrome: Feeling used and rejected when it turns out the man really only wanted a one-night stand, feeling upset when said man avoids one afterwards, neglecting even the friendship which might have existed pre-hookup. I have yet to receive one such call from a man.*
I have developed a few theories about this phenomena. I don't know if any are right, but I suspect each is right for some situations but not for others, though there may be some situations not encompassed by these theories:
1. The girl secretly hopes for more than a random hookup, even though the guy says its all he wants, so she is dissapointed when what he said turns out to be true.
2. The girl lies to herself and really wants more (as she is conditioned to do by our society), but only realizes after that fact that she was lying to herself.
3. There was a sexual tension to the friendship/acquaintance-ship, and hooking up got rid of the tension this relationship was premised on, therefore, for the man, getting rid of the need for the relationship/further contact, whereas for the woman, who viewed the tension as part of but not all of the relationship, the need for it is still there.
4. The man is ashamed in some way, hence does not want to face the woman, who reminds him of his shame. (Like in Amon and Tamar: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08b13.htm)**
5. The man has been told by society that girls can not handle random hookups, but will want to turn those into a relationship, and/or he has a big ego (perhaps because as a man in our patriarchal society, he is encouraged to have a big ego). He therefore interprets even normal, friendly, unromantic actions by the girl as evidence that she really wants him, and is pursuing a romantic relationship with him. He does not interpret such actions as evidence pre-hookup, because he has no "proof" she is attracted to him, but does interpret them as such once they are corroborated by the hookup-cum-proof. He thus avoids the girl, to send the clear message that he is not romantically interested in her, to counter-act her perceived romantic interest in him.
Closing Thoughts:
1. This paradigm could be changed if women were taught to dissociate emotion from sex, but would such a dissociation be "good" - would it be healthy? Isn't there something to be said for having sex mean something? Maybe the shift should be that men are encouraged to value sex as an emotional experience.
2. I am generalizing, and beleive that this generalization holds true because of the patriarchal way our society is currently structured, but here goes: The average woman, if she is with a friend she is not particularly attracted to/not romantically interested in, if he solicits her for a hookup, will not take it. The average man, on the other hand, will, as long as there is even the slightest amount of physical attraction. This observation is backed up by psychological studies, but I beleive those studies are biased. Evolutionary psychology in general has a tendency to reinforce stereotypes about women wanting emotional attachments more than men, because they need to look for a father who will help raise the kids, whereas men look for more sexual attachments to spread their seed, but I beleive that this is largely due to bias: Evolutionary psychologists often want to find results that enforce these stereotypes, precisely because those stereotypes reinforce the evolutionary theory that the researchers have even before they start designing their experiments.
Also, here is a link to an interesting article on the topic, that quotes from one of my favorite Sex and The City Episodes (hey, don't judge me!): http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/29282186/ns/today-relationships/t/can-you-should-you-have-sex-man/
* I notice I use the words girls/man vs girls/boy or women/men. I beleive this has to do with the way our society disrespects women, but respects men - hence term of disrespect for females my age seems natural to me, whereas one of respect is my de facto for males. If you think"girl" is respectful: Know that in the south, during the Jim Crow era, African-American men and women were reffered to by white people as boy/girl, no matter what their age, as a matter of principle, in order to disrespect them. Both Richard Wright and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have mentioned this fact in various writings. I am too lazy to look up exact quotes right now.
** As Pirkey Avot says, "A love based on something - the thing dissapears, the love dissappears." It then gives the Amnon/Tamar story as an example - an attraction based on lust that evaporated once the lust was satisfied. Of course, here "friendship"or some other noun must be substituted for love.
Empirically, I have gotten a number of late-night phonecalls from girls with what I term post-hookup syndrome: Feeling used and rejected when it turns out the man really only wanted a one-night stand, feeling upset when said man avoids one afterwards, neglecting even the friendship which might have existed pre-hookup. I have yet to receive one such call from a man.*
I have developed a few theories about this phenomena. I don't know if any are right, but I suspect each is right for some situations but not for others, though there may be some situations not encompassed by these theories:
1. The girl secretly hopes for more than a random hookup, even though the guy says its all he wants, so she is dissapointed when what he said turns out to be true.
2. The girl lies to herself and really wants more (as she is conditioned to do by our society), but only realizes after that fact that she was lying to herself.
3. There was a sexual tension to the friendship/acquaintance-ship, and hooking up got rid of the tension this relationship was premised on, therefore, for the man, getting rid of the need for the relationship/further contact, whereas for the woman, who viewed the tension as part of but not all of the relationship, the need for it is still there.
4. The man is ashamed in some way, hence does not want to face the woman, who reminds him of his shame. (Like in Amon and Tamar: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08b13.htm)**
5. The man has been told by society that girls can not handle random hookups, but will want to turn those into a relationship, and/or he has a big ego (perhaps because as a man in our patriarchal society, he is encouraged to have a big ego). He therefore interprets even normal, friendly, unromantic actions by the girl as evidence that she really wants him, and is pursuing a romantic relationship with him. He does not interpret such actions as evidence pre-hookup, because he has no "proof" she is attracted to him, but does interpret them as such once they are corroborated by the hookup-cum-proof. He thus avoids the girl, to send the clear message that he is not romantically interested in her, to counter-act her perceived romantic interest in him.
Closing Thoughts:
1. This paradigm could be changed if women were taught to dissociate emotion from sex, but would such a dissociation be "good" - would it be healthy? Isn't there something to be said for having sex mean something? Maybe the shift should be that men are encouraged to value sex as an emotional experience.
2. I am generalizing, and beleive that this generalization holds true because of the patriarchal way our society is currently structured, but here goes: The average woman, if she is with a friend she is not particularly attracted to/not romantically interested in, if he solicits her for a hookup, will not take it. The average man, on the other hand, will, as long as there is even the slightest amount of physical attraction. This observation is backed up by psychological studies, but I beleive those studies are biased. Evolutionary psychology in general has a tendency to reinforce stereotypes about women wanting emotional attachments more than men, because they need to look for a father who will help raise the kids, whereas men look for more sexual attachments to spread their seed, but I beleive that this is largely due to bias: Evolutionary psychologists often want to find results that enforce these stereotypes, precisely because those stereotypes reinforce the evolutionary theory that the researchers have even before they start designing their experiments.
Also, here is a link to an interesting article on the topic, that quotes from one of my favorite Sex and The City Episodes (hey, don't judge me!): http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/29282186/ns/today-relationships/t/can-you-should-you-have-sex-man/
* I notice I use the words girls/man vs girls/boy or women/men. I beleive this has to do with the way our society disrespects women, but respects men - hence term of disrespect for females my age seems natural to me, whereas one of respect is my de facto for males. If you think"girl" is respectful: Know that in the south, during the Jim Crow era, African-American men and women were reffered to by white people as boy/girl, no matter what their age, as a matter of principle, in order to disrespect them. Both Richard Wright and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have mentioned this fact in various writings. I am too lazy to look up exact quotes right now.
** As Pirkey Avot says, "A love based on something - the thing dissapears, the love dissappears." It then gives the Amnon/Tamar story as an example - an attraction based on lust that evaporated once the lust was satisfied. Of course, here "friendship"or some other noun must be substituted for love.
Excerpts: 2
More Boyarin Excerpts
pg 82: "In midrashic texts, Eve is nearly always presented as the victim of the snake and not the victimizer of man. According to the midrash, the snake did not seduce Eve to have sex with Adam - she had already had sex with Adam - but rather, he seduces her to have adultery with him....human intercourse, even in this world, carries no stain, just as it did not for Adam and Eve..."Woman" in Bible and midrash, is almost never essentialized as something evil and dangerous, as a snare to man. According to the rabbis, there was no Fall into sexuality in the Garden of Eden. On the rabbinic readings, Adam has had intercourse with Eve from the beginning. Their intercourse is not associated in any way with the snake, the "forbidden fruit", or a Fall or expulsion from the garden. Licit sexuality, the intercourse of married couples, belongs not to the demonic realm of the snake, but to the innocent realm of the Garden of Innocence itself. Indeed, according to Genesis Rabbah 18:6, the snake became inflamed with lust for Eve because he saw Adam and Eve having intercourse with each other, and according to 19:3, he came and spoke to Eve while Adam was sleeping after having intercourse with her."
Pgs. 84-88 engage in a feminist readings of Pandor in Hesiod, and of a Pandora-like rabbinic midrash, in which Pandora's guilt is displaced onto Adam.
95-97: Boyarin cites Buckley and Gottleib, who point out that historically, when women have been excluded from male domains, such as "hunting gear", that object has been interpreted as prestigious, and women's exclusion signs of their inferiority, whereas when men have been excluded from a female domain - "such as menstrual blood" - that object has been classified as inferior, and women's inclusion signs of their inferiority. Boyarin then explains, "If as I have argued, within Rabbinic Judaism of the Talmudic period, even menstrual taboos did not constitute an essentialized fear and hatred of women as defiling, such interpretations were certainly latent and easily derived from the practices...In the rabbinic period...legends, fears, and terrors of women's sexuality apparently persisted below the official consciousness of textuality and culture. The evidence for the existence of such legends in the rabbinic culture, however, comes only from the repression or denial in the "official texts". The rabbinic culture (understood strictly here as the culture of the Rabbis themselves) did not countenance them. But from the Middle Ages on, they became well entrenched in rabbinic culture and official religion, paralleled exactly by similar changes in the discourse of menstruation from cultic disability to near-demonic contamination. The development of such demonized images of women...is, moreover, paralleled by a growing anxiety about sexuality itself during the Jewish Middle Ages. We could argue then, that mysogyny was a latent and predictable effect of the disenfranchisement of women, and even more so of the menstrual taboos themselves. We must not however, read the texts of classical rabbinic literature through the fear and hatred of women characteristic of the later period, running the risk, by doing so, of further cannonizing the mysogynistic position."
pg. 109: Baba Metzia 59a: "Rav Pappa to Abbaye: Don't people say," if you wife is short, bend down and whisper to her?""
pg.110 Nedarm 29a-b - worth looking up, too long to quote.
pg. 142-143, discussing Ketubot 61b: "In addition to the aspect of sexuality as an obligation a man owns his own body, ..the married man was considered by Talmudic law under a legal-contractual obligation to sleep with his wife regularly for her pleasure and benefit. This obligation was derived by the Rabbis from the verse that, when taking a second wife, a man must not "reduce the flesh, covering, or seasons" (Exodus:21:10) of the first wife...the hegemonic opinion is that "flesh" means food, "covering" refers to clothing, and "seasons" refers to the regularity of sexual intercourse. This obligation was made contractual in the standard rabbinically approved marriage contract, which reads, "I will feed you, clothe you, and have intercourse with you, in accordance with the customs of Jewish husbands."
pg. 227-228: "My assumption is we can not change the actual past. We can only change the present and the future, in part by changing our understanding of the past. Unless the assumption is that the past is ... a burden to be thrown off...then constructing a monolithically negative perception of the past and cultivating anger at it seem to be counterproductive and disempowering for change. Finding only mysogyny in the past reproduces mysogyny; finding only a lack of female power.autonomy, and creativity, reifies female passivity and victimhood. In contrast to this, recovery of those forces in the past that opposed the dominant andocentriscm can help put us on trajectory for empowerment and transformation."
*****************************************************************************
Thanks to a friend for sharing the following link: http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Boyarin/BoyarinArticles/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)