Hi all,
Geez, another thread that slipped under my radar this past month!
Cool replies, all. Thanks.
Georgia, you've obviously never given any of this some serious thought, eh!
(Kidding! I'm just kidding!
)
The reason I wanted to bring feminism into the picture is that one of the women I admire most (my ex's mother) is a feminist--and radically so--who has a serious "essentialist" bent. We used to get into way heavy discussions because of this bent (she knows I'm a CD, by the way). She's an "essentialist," in that she believes that there are fundamental and essential differences between women and men and that those very differences inevitably lead to irreconcilable and incompatible outlooks onto society and onto the world itself.
In her view, just the fact that testosterone courses through my body increases, for example, the likelihood that I'll commit, at some point in my life, a violent offense. Just the fact that I was born with XY chromosomes and with a penis between my legs increases, she says, the likelihood that I'll get a higher wage for equal work.
I don't like this kind of thinking. Although I'll concede that it's possible to generalize sex-based and gender-based characteristics (and I tend to do this, myself), the exceptions are just too numerous for me to swallow this kind of essentialism without a grimace. Maybe "sex is destiny" for the old guard but, these days? I don't think so. There's just too much of who we are--as both men and women (and, more pointedly, as both masculine and feminine persons)--that's a product of both our brains and of the social customs we grew up with, rather than just of our endocrine glands and genetic makeup, to make me believe there's no possibility of the sexes treading common ground.
This woman believes there will only be and end to war and conflict and violence once the male half of the species has been removed from the picture (and, yes, she follows very closely the current research in parthenogenetic techniques). Remove the men? You'd have a war right there on your hands, I told her.
In the 1970's, Thomas Berger wrote a novel called
A Regiment Of Women. It's a fluffy but fun to read piece of fiction that, I imagine, was written in a satirical vein to "goose" feminists. It depicts a society in every way exactly like our own, except for the fact that gender roles are completely reversed. Men are the "pretty playthings" and "housewives" of women (who control the economy and hold the reins of political power) and they dress the part, too (Charlie, the novel's main protagonist, is a lowly secretary and his boss--a woman--insists he wear the sexiest skirts and heels possible). There's no longer any war in this society (however, men are still required to "do their social duty" by reporting to institutional "milking farms"--and I'll leave the details to the imagination). Men are required to have breasts in order to fill out their bras (yes, surgical implants) and I won't even talk about what a visit to the (of course, female) doctor's or therapist's office entails.
The point, though, is that this is one example--even if only a fanciful one--of where essentialism can lead to. To lay down in concrete and forever highlight the assumed differences between men and women (regardless of who's locked into this or that gender role) doesn't--and cannot--lead to a society that espouses even its own ideals of harmony and social justice. There's always more that unites us than separates us; the sexes are more complementary than they are "opposite."
I find that too many feminists wish to sweep men out of the picture with the back of their hand. Pretty much as men have done to women for the past couple of millenia. I just think this kind of "tit-for-tatness" is a bit childish and unproductive. This thing about our CD'ing because we want to emulate women might be a wee bit simplistic, too. Maybe, in a way, we're "bridge-builders" between the sexes. And I don't mean just male heterosexual crossdressers, no; I mean any person--male or female--whose identity is gender-variant. I know that feminists (especially those with a bone to pick... cf. Janice Raymond's
The Transsexual Empire) will not take kindly to this idea. Neither will most people who view men and women as being--essentially--two distinct breeds (cf. your own comment, Georgia, about the "Neanderthalette" in you bristling at the perceived invasion of territory crossdressing males are guilty of).
Anyway, as always, I find this a fascinating topic, one sure to generate at least a little bit of heat. And a little bit of heat between men and women is always good, no?
Love,
CJ
This is just what's going through my head. Why? Because I'm continuously confronted with the fact of my non-female feminism by the women who are my conversation partners in this matter (and, yes, many of them are feminists--adhering to a "qualified feminism," much like Georgia above).
Your post was an absolutely wonderful!!!
