July 2oth, 2009
I'm interested in continuing the debate because I took some time to think about your point regarding the sociological aspect of the term "gender".
First off I would like to repeat my point, and maybe add a better contextual situation to what I said this weekend. Which is to say that I think the idea of gender from the societal norms or expectations has it's roots in the evolution of the species. To repeat, if every woman decided that they wanted to be the hunters, and every man decided he was homosexual and wanted to be with other men our species would not have continued to exist. So at one time I think there were probably understood guidelines of how things worked in order to not disappear as a tribe / community / society.
I guess then you can fast forward to modern civilizations and look at the existence of gender in society. What it seems like to me, which could be wrong, is that this is where your opinions of gender begin. I kind of have this opinion that I feel like you chastise the improprieties, but don't take the time to explore why they exist and where they came from. This opinion is definitely based on little or no prior experience in hearing your thoughts on all this. Your opinions are strong, but I haven't heard really why except that you think they're unfair. Which is pretty easy to agree with, since most of the things you have a problem with seem to be legitimately unfair.
Anyways I guess I just wanted to bring up one point that I have kind of been going over in my head regarding the continuance of gender misappropriation. It's hard for me to drop the fact that the roots still lay in basic natural instinct for survival. It kind of led me to a question I wanted to ask you about. I'm expecting that you don't take this as anything more than me trying to understand if I am still missing something, but also wondering if I might be able to raise your own awareness. If gender doesn't exist then why do you bother doing things to make yourself look attractive? I say "you" to ask you pointedly, but it's not like it couldn't be a more general question. I ask you, because you are the one who says that gender doesn't exist, and I feel like any type of attempt or act that plays into society's definition of gender only validates it's existence. I guess I'm just wondering what your stance in on the justification of at least partially adhering to gender roles for someone who so vehemently fights the inequities that gender roles create in society.
Maybe I have it wrong. To me, I both hate and love labels (or generalizations) for reasons that at least for the moment take a back seat to the current subject. Societal rules to me are both unavoidable and at least to some extent also necessary. I feel that there was no way to avoid their institution because they're rooted in our natural development as humans. And I think that even if we could somehow remove the existence of gender that they would probably naturally reappear again anyways. I think if not that we could possibly then run a risk of extinction (though we seem to be doing good at that in plenty other ways).
I can't offer anything more that that I guess. Maybe I feel it's necessary to defend myself because I'm defending acceptance of an idea that seems completely the opposite from yours. Maybe part of that also is my defense of my own ideologies. Am I shallow because I accept the things I cannot change, and find it suitable that I find a comfortable level of understanding? It's pretty clear to see why that stance would seem shortsighted. After all I am of the gender that has been the benefactor not the one that has been unjustly deterred in their search for their destiny. So even then, even with what I believe to be an open minded attempt at idealism because I existed at one point within society's gender role I am innately unable to ever fully grasp the other's perspective. But then the same must be true for the other gender, and so where does that leave us?
I would say that maybe this gets us to the final questions in the arena. First, if we cannot change the past, and there are two disparate sides that almost certainly could never take the same perspective, then how could they ever agree on the benefits and impediments? Would the right thing to do be to focus on changing the future? Which is better, fighting to change inherent behavior, or learning to work with the current construct, and why is it better? For what reasons? What is the potential fallout from these sea changes? If we could change things, and the fastest way would also be the most devastating across all genders would it be worth it?
Again, my point was not to put down any one's beliefs but rather to maybe look for conviction in my own. Though I would be lying if I tried to deny that I hope some of my thoughts shared provided a medium for someone else to also weigh their own judgments, and hopefully find their own level of understanding in both themselves and the ideas of others.
Yours,
Anthony Wilson
No comments:
Post a Comment