General status of gender relations vs. Quibbles

[Steve Perry]

it seems to me there are two different questions here,
the political one and the biological one. and saying
that biology should not dictate destiny from a political
standpoint doesn't speak to the question of whether
gender does or does not color one's outlook. i'm basically
agnostic on the scientific side of this, but i think
it's an interesting question. a psychologist named robert
may published a long-forgotten book on the subject around
about 1980, called sex and fantasy; it's out of print but
not hard to find if you check bookfinder.com or other
such sites. he argues, basically, that the differing
biology of men and women's bodies does dictate certain
differences in outlook--for instance, he claims that
as they age, men tend to see life as a process of
running down, falling apart; their perspectives tend to
darken. women, may claims, tend to see life in terms of
processes that--well, "deepen personhood," for want of a
better phrase. i know lots of people who contradict this
generalization, but on the whole it's true in my experience.
is that nature or culture? and is there a way to talk
about the possibility of inborn gender-based differences
without falling victim to the pitfalls of difference
feminism, which kp dissected so artfully a few years
back?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
[mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of kelley
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 11:31 AM
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Subject: RE: General status of gender relations vs. Quibbles

if you'd bother to fucking read and understand my posts you'd see that we
don't disagree verymuch at all.  you're the one who insists on ignoring
everything i type and contructing it as if i'm some kind of idealist
phenomenologist.  bullocks on that.  i simply pointed out that, since i am
from snow country, i know full well that there are many words for snow and
that the idiot who came up with that claim probably came from
california--berserkeley most likely.  therefore, no shit, yoshie i don't
disagree with you in the least since the idiot couldn't and didn't know
about the wide variety of ways in which central new yorkers come to
describe snow and rain which we get the most of in this gd country.

so tell it to a cushion please.  and stop reconstructing all that i type as
the foil against which you make your arguments.

klelley

At 11:56 AM 11/25/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>Kelley:
>>>different kinds & degrees of rain & snow than others (for instance,
compare
>>>Japanese with English), and to describe this kind of difference,
>>
>>that's an odd claim.  english uses adjectives to describe differences in
>>snow and so we have a ton of phrases to describe different kinds of snow.
>>whoever came up with that one circulated a big goof based on a
>>misunderstanding of how english works with separate adjectives.
>
>Now, I'd call it a quibble, nay, a perfect _cavil_.  My point is simply
>about the distinction between the "social/discursive constructions" that
>involve oppression and those that do not.
>
>That said, the difference here lies not only between nouns & adjectives.
>The language makes meanings in social use, in humans making transactions
>(affective, cognitive, practical, etc.) with not only other humans _but
>also the natural & social world_.  You live in Florida -- how "meaningful"
>for you are different names for & fine distinctions of snow?  Are they as
>practically meaningful to you as they are to residents of Aomori, Japan?  I
>suppose that you don't take this "social/discursive" construction business
>too seriously when your polemical urge masters your brains.
>
>Yoshie
>
>
>
>