A couple of days ago I put up a post criticizing the New York Times for having a double standard that praised "aggressive lesbians" who behaved in ways that the paper would find blameworthy in men.
I'd like to return a bit to the concept of "aggressive lesbians". I've been researching around a bit and find that here are lots of attempts to explain aggressive lesbians. That isn't so surprising as the issue clearly makes people uncomfortable and has done so for a long time. When the feminist crusade against pornography began back in the 1970s, for example, there was immediate and strong opposition from the lesbian feminist community. It's funny to go back and read how anti-porn feminists responded for they were clearly left squirming by this opposition from lesbians.
The basic problem here is a pretty simple one: "If problems such as violence in relationships, wage disparity and pornography are supposed to be exclusively the result of male oppression then how can it be that something that mirrors male-female relationships tends to spring up in a world that is exclusively female?" Getting men out of the picture should make all this stuff go away if men are, indeed, the cause.
The willful blindness this produces rapidly becomes evident as you read the explanations of why some women become "aggressive lesbians" for those explanations are always individualistic. The argument is that, deep down inside, some women really want or need to be this way to become self-realized. That formation is tautological and that should give us pause. Not because it is tautological but because the circle is so tight: Why does Frances want to be that way? Answer: Because she wants to be that way.
A more interesting question would be to look at the social development of the phenomenon. Here the question would be how do some lesbians develop this way. What is the interaction that produces it? You can almost create a Hegelian dialectic here. Two girls have a same sex encounter. One is more aggressive than the other. They both carry away memories and trained reflexes from the experience. Lather, rinse, repeat and eventually you have roles.
It would be more surprising if it weren't that way.
Imagine what it would be like to be an aggressive lesbian in a world where no women at all responded to aggressive sexuality. Her entire sexual experience would be based on fantasy. Could such a thing even happen?
The flip side of the issue, the effeminate gay man, is also worth considering. As I've mentioned before, no one, not even other effeminate gay men consider effeminate gay men particularly appealing. The personal ads always make the appeal for straight-looking and straight-acting men. So why would any man wanting to attract partners be anything but manly?
Well, consider the plight of the straight-looking, straight acting gay man in a world where every gay man was straight-looking and straight-acting. How does anyone know he's gay? That puts a bit of a crimp into your chances of finding partners doesn't it? Being visibly gay, whatever its downsides, lets every other gay man you meet know that you are a potential partner.
Most of our sexual behaviours develop based on success. Aggressive lesbians and effeminate gay men both exist because both types get partners. The existence of the two types carries lessons for men and women respectively. When we look for role models, men need a role model who not only succeeded as a human being but one who succeeded as a man. When women look for role models, men need a role model who not only succeeded as a human being but one who succeeded as a woman.
Living up to the roles expected of you increases your chance of success in life.
I'd like to return a bit to the concept of "aggressive lesbians". I've been researching around a bit and find that here are lots of attempts to explain aggressive lesbians. That isn't so surprising as the issue clearly makes people uncomfortable and has done so for a long time. When the feminist crusade against pornography began back in the 1970s, for example, there was immediate and strong opposition from the lesbian feminist community. It's funny to go back and read how anti-porn feminists responded for they were clearly left squirming by this opposition from lesbians.
The basic problem here is a pretty simple one: "If problems such as violence in relationships, wage disparity and pornography are supposed to be exclusively the result of male oppression then how can it be that something that mirrors male-female relationships tends to spring up in a world that is exclusively female?" Getting men out of the picture should make all this stuff go away if men are, indeed, the cause.
The willful blindness this produces rapidly becomes evident as you read the explanations of why some women become "aggressive lesbians" for those explanations are always individualistic. The argument is that, deep down inside, some women really want or need to be this way to become self-realized. That formation is tautological and that should give us pause. Not because it is tautological but because the circle is so tight: Why does Frances want to be that way? Answer: Because she wants to be that way.
A more interesting question would be to look at the social development of the phenomenon. Here the question would be how do some lesbians develop this way. What is the interaction that produces it? You can almost create a Hegelian dialectic here. Two girls have a same sex encounter. One is more aggressive than the other. They both carry away memories and trained reflexes from the experience. Lather, rinse, repeat and eventually you have roles.
It would be more surprising if it weren't that way.
Imagine what it would be like to be an aggressive lesbian in a world where no women at all responded to aggressive sexuality. Her entire sexual experience would be based on fantasy. Could such a thing even happen?
The flip side of the issue, the effeminate gay man, is also worth considering. As I've mentioned before, no one, not even other effeminate gay men consider effeminate gay men particularly appealing. The personal ads always make the appeal for straight-looking and straight-acting men. So why would any man wanting to attract partners be anything but manly?
Well, consider the plight of the straight-looking, straight acting gay man in a world where every gay man was straight-looking and straight-acting. How does anyone know he's gay? That puts a bit of a crimp into your chances of finding partners doesn't it? Being visibly gay, whatever its downsides, lets every other gay man you meet know that you are a potential partner.
Most of our sexual behaviours develop based on success. Aggressive lesbians and effeminate gay men both exist because both types get partners. The existence of the two types carries lessons for men and women respectively. When we look for role models, men need a role model who not only succeeded as a human being but one who succeeded as a man. When women look for role models, men need a role model who not only succeeded as a human being but one who succeeded as a woman.
Living up to the roles expected of you increases your chance of success in life.
This might explain why Marie Curie is so much better known than Emmy Noether.
ReplyDeleteI suspect there is something to that. When I was a kid, Marie Curie was more commonly known as Mme Curie. Curie visibly succeeded as a woman in ways that Noether did not. That may be unfair but lots of things in life are unfair.
ReplyDeleteThat said, mathematics is not the most glamorous field. Ask any random person to name great geniuses and you will get a long list of physicists, poets and politicians but rarely a mathematician. If the first name you get is a mathematician,then you are probably talking to a mathematician.