From: Robert Owen (rowen@technologist.com)
Date: Thu Dec 30 1999 - 20:31:09 MST
Kathryn Aegis wrote:
> But I would say that culturally-constructed gender roles are
> used by societies to control human lives to an inordinate
> degree, and that is what should be minimized. This 'battle of
> the sexes' is a social control mechanism, used to keep both
> men and women in their appointed roles by creating a fictitious
> 'other' or 'enemy'.
If we assume that perhaps "society" is a bit too general a term
for this analysis, then may I ask [1] what is feared would occur
if this mode of social control were terminated, or, conversely,
who stood to benefit in the first place by instituting social
control by means of mutually exclusive gender definitions; [2]
how does the deliberate induction of mutual antagonism between
those who play these roles serve the interests of the initiators
and in what way does the implicit instability of role-relations
thus defined enhance the manageability of a population?
> Political science and international studies students talk about
> the 'leopard game'.
Which was the motivation behind the deliberate contrivance
of a "cold war" and a mendacious "imminent threat" to both
nations.
> Well, gender roles act like that leopard. Keep the women united
> against the men, and vice versa. Use fear and insecurity: tell
> the men they're going girly and soft, tell the women that they
> are dyky and ugly. I've never been able to figure out the end
> purpose, unless the theory of patriarchy covers it. But it's a
> cycle we are capable of breaking.
Either a patriarchal or matriarchal origin presupposes the pre-
existence of the distinction as well as the [political] rivalry.
Again, in more specific terms, what elite or covert managerial
class created, publicized and reinforced the use of the controll-
ing stereotypes you mention.
In general, who, Kathryn benefits from promoting the process
described by Jung in which each biologically defined individual
represses all contrasexual psychological characteristics which
then integrate themselves into the autonomous complexes
of "anima" and "animus" which, once projected, cause such
gross distortions in the mutual perception and apperception
of the gender groups thus created.
Who believes our particular culture did need, and to some
extent continues to need, this conditioning process in order
to remain cohesive while serving their interests? This is
much more obscure to me that the scapegoating and the
demonization that does, frequently, promote international
group animosity, competition and strife as a means of
enhancing cooperation, including that between the sexes,
reflexive patriotism (and matriotism), subordination of indivi-
dual to group interests and acceptance of paramilitary leader-
ship and even quasi-martial law within the reference group?
In times of war, such manipulation of public opinion and affect
does strengthen the authority of a centralized government
which is, perhaps, a good thing if the threat is genuine.
Who, Kathryn, profits from "the battle of the sexes" or the
enforcement of rigid, mutually exclusive gender roles. I
really don't believe I do. Do you? Then if not us, who?
Happy New Year,
Bob
=======================
Robert M. Owen
Director
The Orion Institute
57 W. Morgan Street
Brevard, NC 28712-3659 USA
=======================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:13 MST