Re: Division and Illusion (was Re: Qv2)




Yowie wrote:
<chris.editrix@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142625562.875512.193150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>

I am concerned though that in going from denying gender differences to
again considering them foundational, we are losing the precious ground
in the middle.

I have no answers. But I wonder if the lack of women in this NG, apart
from reflecting generic Usenet demographics, isn't owing to the
dominant male metaphors, worldview, and style of discourse.

I'm a female poster here, if that helps. I just haven't posted much over the
last month or so because nothing in particular has attracted my attention
enoguh to make me want to reply.... until now. :-)

The politics of gender is an interesting one, but one we as human beings can
never examine without our own biases in place.

So the trick it to put the biases aside--or to try on different ones,
to give a nod to gaming.

Let's call it point-of-view for awhile. Seems less divisive<g>.

(the following is a condensed version)


differences we now find so frustrating and mind-boggling used to have some
evolutionary purpose to keep the species going, and that current western
society is far removed from the lifestyle to which our biology dictates.

I would postulate that our
biology is more suited to the model of a few dominant males that went out to
hunt, and a 'harem' of women and the resulting children left behind in the
caves.

The men, on the other hand, being a mainly hunting party,
had to have a leader who was good at what he did, and would be obeyed
without question otherwise a hunting party would be anarchy. He had to
structure his 'army' so that the hunting (and any fighting) worked well,
and, as such, beign the dominat male, got 'breeding rights'. Younger males
could try to upsurp him by battling with him, thus ensuring only the
fittest, strongest and smartest were made leader, and indeed, sired the
children. This is pretty mucht he way it works for chimps, gorillas, and
other 'higher' apes, I can't see why it doesn't apply to us as well.
of course, we don't use this model of society
any more, and our biology often betrays us.

It's a fascinating conundrum. I think recent genetic research has show
that there's much illusion in the breeding alpha male concept. There's
a lot of DNA diversity in primate offspring: seems that "unsanctioned"
breeding is widespread and, my guess, helps keep the group viable
through the wonders (and maybe pleasures) of hybrid vigor.

So what is this illusion all about? Does it come from looking at things
through the glass of life as we know and understand it?

Or is illusion a necessary glue for social organization?

I keep thinking about the political and social structures in which I
live: workplace, various communities, even home, and I wonder about our
eagerness to hand over authority and power to someone. It's usually
some "big guy," however you define "big." (Or "guy," for that matter.)

However the leader gets there, we need to ascribe his position to
heightened merit. And we're back then to creating illusions.

What I love about the community of f/Friends is how hard we strive to
change the lens.


The differences between 'male behaviour' and 'female behaviour' makes far
more sense, IMHO, taken from that point of view, rather than trying to look
at our biology through the lense of 'modern' society.

YMMV.

I don't think it varies all that much. I'm just growing cynical about
spending more time on the whys than on trying to find better ways to
behave and interact now, perhaps despite the reasons why.

Thank you much for the discussion! You helped me make a little less
fuzzy, at least in my own mind, something that's been nudging me.

Christine

.