From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 31 1999 - 12:00:30 MST
Kathryn Aegis wrote:
> >... cultures are very hard to change.
>
>I'm also surprised that you would contend that cultures are
>hard to change, seeing as we live in the American culture,
>which thrives on rapid change. Looking back over the past
>twenty years, there has been an astounding amount of change
>in gender roles and gender relations, ...
Solar flares are very hard for us to change, and yet they
change all the time. Contradiction? No, it is just that
the interventions we can now muster are tiny compared to the
other processes involved. Similarly, the fact that cultures
can change rapidly doesn't say that we can do much by
deliberately trying to change our culture. The size of
the deliberate influence may be small compared to the
other processes involved.
Once we can change our genes, however, we can each
deliberately choose to change them, unless of course our
local culture intervenes greatly in such decisions.
> >"... 3. It is bad for culture to create differences not in our genes.
> > Therefore, we should eliminate/reduce culturally-constructed gender."
>
>No, I don't mean that, and I don't think Lorber does either.
>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'. ... Like a tribal leader who tells
>campfire stories of a giant rampaging leopard against which
>the tribe must unite. ... gender roles act like that leopard.
>Keep the women united against the men, and vice versa. ... 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.
Genetically-constructed gender roles are also used in large
part to control human lives. So genes aren't obviously better.
Before we change our genes much, we would do well to understand
the evolutionary functions (if any) those genes performed. Many
of those functions are in the service of goals we admire (such as
avoiding death), and so random changes risk serious losses. Other
functions serve goals we admire less, and so once we understand
this we can feel freer to make changes. Finally, other genes
represent random accidents, which we may feel even freer to change.
The same applies to culture. Culture serves many functions, some
of which we may admire and others of which we may not. But until
we understand which parts of culture serve which functions, and
which parts are random accidents, we should be cautious about making
deliberate changes.
So regarding culturally encoded gender roles, I don't see how I can
be for them or against them, until I better understand what functions
they serve. And as you admit, you don't understand their functions.
Yes, many parts of culture constrain individual behavior. And if this
was their only or ultimate function, that would seem bad. But that
seems pretty hard to believe.
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:14 MST