On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Eleanor Arnason wrote:
>I suspect that male dominance originated early in human history and
>derives from the kind of size dominance hierarchies that seem typical of
>many mammalian societies. I also suspect that male dominance now is
>cultural.
>
>Anyway, I think control of reproduction is THE big issue between men
>and women; and I wanted to create a society where women had
>absolute say in this area. But why did they have absolute say? Because
>-- like female hyenas -- they were larger than the males.
At 10:39 AM 9/16/97 +0400, Emrah Goker wrote:
>I am afraid your first suspection will not be justified --though there may
>be some clues-- until _homo sapiens sapiens_ develops the Time Machine
>(GOD SAVE SF CLICHES) or some really revolutionary methods are found
>in anthropology. Yet, shamefully, there are (at least here in Turkey) Muslim
>sects justifying the (especially physical) dominance of women by referring
>to the so-called fact that Allah had created them small, weak, and less
>intelligent, so they need protection. Using physical differences (e.g. size)
>for domination of women is, unfortunately, not buried deep in the early
>history of the humankind.
I also have reservations about the "size is dominance" theory when applied
to humans. As far as I know, there is no evidence at all for it, and some
against it. In my Sex Roles in Comparative Perspective class in college we
learned that -- taking yet another species as an example -- in chimpanzee
society a male's status is closely linked to only two things: 1. age and 2.
his mother's status. Not size. What this means in relation to humans is a
matter of debate. When I look at the world around me I see that a person's
parentage is the most telling influence on future economic and personal
success. And, as people age, they generally amass more contacts and
economic resources. (Much more the case for people who already have the
advantage of high-status parentage.) Then there is sex -- most men,
regardless of parentage, will benefit from advantages in the workplace that
women don't enjoy. (Do women still make $.65 to a man's dollar, or has that
ghastly disparity begun to close?) None of these things seem related to size.
If it comes down to physical confrontation, I think it's fairly
obvious that a little skill and/or some tools (i.e. a gun, a knife, even a
key) will easily overcome whatever advantage size confers. The dawn of tool
use in humans occurred so long ago that it seems silly to attribute our
current sex roles to some ancient wrestling match that women lost. Eleanor:
I loved your novel _Ring of Swords_. It was subtle, funny,
thought-provoking... and the power that the women wielded was very
interesting to me. I just would not have explained it in the way that you did.
Emrah also wrote:
>However, glorifying mystical experiences of femininity (in SF or in
>social-scientific literature) is also dangerous waters. A feminist school
>of thought must critically analyze sex, gender, and patriarchy; both
>masculinity _and_ femininity must be critically approached. OK, it is
>fantastic to read about a planet of androgyne humanoids (which is SF), or
>it is insight-giving to learn how "I am protecting the forest" becomes "I
>am part of the rain forest protecting myself. I am part of the rain forest
>recently emerged into thinking," which consequently leads us to the
>worship of Gaia the Goddess (which is social science)... However,
>metaphysics (for me) cannot construct an agenda of real life, of political
>struggle. We should not exaggerate what SF gives us.
I agree that idealizing womanly virtues has its dangers. The concept of
"Mother Earth" for example. The earth simply has no sex! Rather than trying
to subsume all that is life-giving, balanced, context-sensitive,
cooperative, etc. under the name of "woman" we might do better to free
ourselves of sex definitions altogether. But perhaps society must first
pass through the dialectical stage of negating manly virtues before we can
reach the synthesis of androgyny. (Except, according to Marx, we would then
start all over again, right? Incidentally, for an interesting SF critique
of Marxism, I recommend Maureen McHugh's _China Mountain Zhang_.)
Regarding SF's power to change "real life" -- I add my testimony to
the many I have read/heard that my behavior and opinions have been altered
many times in my life by the written word, some of it SF. Perhaps I was
predisposed to change in those ways and what I read merely pushed me along.
Regardless, I have been affected, sometimes in bad ways, sometimes in good
ways.
-- Janice
-----
Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT
http://homepages.together.net/~jdawley/jedhome.htm
Listening to: Radiohead, OK Computer; Tricky, Pre-Millennium Tension
"...the public and the private worlds are inseparably connected;
the tyrannies and servilities of the one are the tyrannies and
servilities of the other." Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:43 PDT