(no subject)

[which_chick]

Hell. Here's an article by Steven Pinker in The New Republic. It reminds me of a joke I heard once...



The joke, so that you know, is that God originally created Adam and Eve with matching genitalia and let it go at that until one of his angels (Michael? Gabriel? Someone.) pointed out that really, wouldn't it be better if the humans had Tab A and Slot B like the other mammals, for reproductive purposes. God thought on that a bit and he said "You're right. Give the dumb one a cunt."

When I reference a joke in regard to matters of gender? It's probably that one.

I really, really, really don't like that joke. Lots. And yet it sticks in my mind. It wouldn't work the other way, you know. And that tells us something. I certainly hope that it's not telling us that I'm one of the dumb ones with a cunt but I've got a degree in literature and I got pretty good grades pursuing that degree, quite a few of them from men, and the reading I keep getting is that I'm one of the dumb ones with a cunt.

Yippee.

Long term readers know that this is an issue in my world that will not die. Sometimes I ignore it for quite a while by talking about brassicas or anime or whatever, but I will come back to it like a dog returning to its vomit, to devour the topic I so recently disgorged (I love that word, btw), with the same amount of relish and enthusiasm you see from Fido while watching him eat his barf. I imagine Fido and I are about the same amount of fun to watch in our endeavors, but at least with me, you don't have the sweet reek of dog vomit in the air.

Anyway, Mr. Pinker, who grasps that wanting doesn't make things so, suggests that there may be some solid genetic and biochemical reasons that could explain part of the observed gender imbalances in the world. He's actually pretty restrained and careful and scientifically justified on the subject. He also tells us that At some point in the history of the modern women's movement, the belief that men and women are psychologically indistinguishable became sacred. -- and I think he's got a point here. I mentioned something along those lines in an email to fooliv a couple of months back -- if I can find it in my mail, I'll excerpt it here for you. Pinker sees the problem at hand as one of taboo -- (A)nyone who so much as raises the question of innate sex differences is seen as "not getting it" when it comes to equality between the sexes. The tragedy is that this mentality of taboo needlessly puts a laudable cause on a collision course with the findings of science and the spirit of free inquiry. And, yknow, I think he's got a point there, too. It's all very sensible stuff, done carefully and gently and as tastefully as can be.

And still, I cannot discuss this rationally... because in the end, it comes down to "Give the dumb one a cunt."

Damn it.

I don't WANT to be the dumb one.
(Wanting doesn't make things so.)

Comments

[electroweak.livejournal.com]

A societal belief in the full and complete equivalence and interchangeability (as opposed to simple equality) of men and women is a big problem in the soft sciences. It's less of a problem in the real sciences (yes, I know, snarky of me to call it that), and ezpecially in disciplines where knowing the difference between men and women is vital, like medicine. In medicine, it is a long-established fact that there are indeed differences among people, including in their psychological makeup. Nurses, for example, are trained in how to deal with the differing physical and emotional paths women and men take in recovering from an illness.

On the flip side, having society believe that men and women are exactly the same (except in the whole who-gives-birth thing, which is proving intractable) slowly forces people to accept the ethical requirement of the equality of all people. In order to move towards that yet-unreached goal, I am perfectly willing to accept that some folks in the soft sciences and liberal arts might spend the next century or so confused. That's okay. We pay them to be confused. :)

More directly on topic, I've never heard that joke before - and I find it crude beyond belief and not even funny - so I suspect that we can say society is advancing, at least a little.

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that there are soft sciences and 'real' sciences -- it's not that snarky in my book. I think there are some serious issues in the soft sciences, many of which stem from a willful disregard for the facts and a terrible fondness for thinking that wanting makes things so. Stuff isn't true just because we want it to be.

Part of my problem, I think, is that I'm still fighting over what equality is, what it should be for diverse peoples. It's hard for me to get a good handle on equality of opportunity -- and apparently I'm not the only one, because we're still measuring equality of opportunity by equality of OUTCOME. That's one. Another is how much accomodation should there be for the whole having-of-babies thing? Not, y'know, that I'm going to do that, but it's an issue. I don't know that women should have to choose between having kids and having a career, but kids need someone to care for them and that takes buckets of time. (There may be hope on this front -- recent reports from the field suggest that the current crop of dads are putting in more time and shouldering more of the load. Probably that's a good thing. Children are supposed to be rewarding... and if that's so, they should be rewarding for mothers AND for fathers.)

Also, I'm not a real big fan of affirmative action for minorities... do I really want to start pushing that for women? The whole thing sours the accomplishments of any member of the group... if SOME women start getting jobs just because they're women, then the job qualifications of ALL women become suspect. Do I have the job because I can do it, or do I have the job so that my company can fill a quota?

I'm still working on it.