So, coming to the end of Brit Lit, Professor Peavoy decided to up the reading assignments and include a couple golden oldies: Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest. I knew what to expect when reading each text, but I didn’t expect to find such striking similarities between the texts themselves. Both texts, very near the surface, express a really strong anxiety over selfing.
Obviously, Dr. Jekyll has issues with his concept of self. I did see that one coming, at least. But even Jekyll’s conception of identity was surprising. “I hazard the guess,” he says, “that man will be ultimately known for a mere polity of multifarious, incongruous and independent denizens.” Dr. Jekyll’s explanation for his experiments is that he couldn’t never reconcile himself to the duplicity of his own character. He was ashamed of his duplicity, though he claims there was nothing truly shameful in the other side of himself, that he was simply to proud to let those interests of his be shown. And so he kept those interests hidden, satisfying them only in secret, and instead acting publicly as Dr. Jekyll. This “statement of the case” emphasizes the performativity of Jekyll’s identity. By choosing to perform only one aspect of his identity, Jekyll claims, he drove further apart the various parts of himself, and his experiment and potion allows him to finalize their separation. As Jekyll he can perform his “good” self and as Hyde, his “bad” self. This variableness of identity is ultimately punished within the text, as it probably deserves to be. Dr. Jekyll does use his other identity to trample children and beat old men to death. His ability to change his self is attributed to an impurity in one of his main ingredients, metaphorically tying it to the impurity of his pursuits, and of the divided nature of himself. He dies because of his experiments and his performances.
The treatment of split personalities is definitely the point of the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde character, and by extension the novella. I found this focus to be strengthened by the reappearance of doubling in other characters in the story, specifically, Mr. Utterson and Mr. Guest. Mr. Guest, fittingly, makes only one appearance in the text, really. He shows up in the section labeled, “Incident of the Letter” (wouldn’t Lacan be drooling for a title like that?) as Mr. Utterson dwells on a letter that Dr. Jekyll supposedly received from Mr. Hyde. When introducing the character of Mr. Guest, who is Mr. Utterson’s head clerk (Mr. Utterson is Dr. Jekyll’s lawyer and the main character of the novella in many ways), the narrator explains that “There was no man from who he [Mr. Utterson] kept fewer secrets…and he was not always sure that he kept as many as he meant.” Mr. Guest enters and leaves the story without being given any really character apart from that defined by his relation to Mr. Utterson. Their conversation is characterized by complete agreement and complete lack of emotion. They discuss Sir Danvers’s murder as though it were the weather. All that Mr. Guest supplies is the reinforcement of Mr. Utterson’s own thoughts as well as the voicing of those thoughts that Mr. Utterson has seemingly repressed. The relationship between Mr. Utterson and Mr. Guest seems, in some ways, like the relationship between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. They seem to have access to the same pool of thoughts, be of the same opinions, the only difference being that Mr. Utterson and Dr. Jekyll both deny certain thoughts/acts that the other of the pair is willing to bring up and bring out. I find the doubling of Mr. Utterson and Mr. Guest in Robert Louis Stevenson’s purely utilitarian use of the character Mr. Guest, and think that this doubling importantly supports and strengthens the anxiety over identity expressed in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
As I said, I was more surprised to find this unusual treatment of identity in The Importance of Being Earnest. Within the first act, both Algernon and Jack reveal their Bunburying. Bunburying, a neologism of Algernon’s, is the use of an invented person in order to get away with doing whatever you want. Algernon invented Bunbury, an invalid, so that he can get out of any unpleasant obligation in order to pay a visit to Bunbury. Jack, however, takes his Bunburying further. He invented a younger brother Ernest, so that he can leave the country and his ward, Cecily, in order to go up to the city and do whatever he likes. In the city, though, he assumes the name Ernest so that he can act in ways that, morally, are not appropriate for the guardian of a young ward. To a lesser and more realistic degree, Jack does exactly what Dr. Jekyll does. Without the aid of a color-changing chemical concoction, he changes his identity and can behave, as Ernest, in ways that Jack could not behave. For Jack, too, identity is a performance. It is, though, a performance with material results. He wants to reveal his Bunburying and his real name (Jack) to Gwendolyn once she accepts his proposal of marriage, but it turns out, she only wants to marry someone named Ernest; should could never marry someone named Jack.
Algernon, too, gets in on this secret identity business, leading Cecily to believe that he is Jack’s younger brother Ernest. He proposes to Cecily and it turns out that she also could only ever marry a man named Ernest, never a man named Algernon. Confusion and humor follows inevitably, as Algernon and Jack plays various roles and the fiancés Gwendolyn and Cecily meet and the “truth” comes out.
One thing that interests me about the portrayal of identity in both Stevenson’s novella and Wilde’s play is the way in which the excess of personality and identity of a few characters depends on the lack of personality and identity of others. Gwendolyn and Cecily, for example, may as well be the exact same person. They repeat each other’s lines verbatim. They have no real distinguishing character traits. They simply fill the role of mildly clever, somewhat feisty fiancé. Women in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are even more unfortunate. They are either unspeaking victims or weeping servants. In both works, the depictions of servants also highlight the identity of the main male characters. Both Poole (Dr. Jekyll’s butler) and Lane (Algernon’s butler) are somewhat prominent characters, but they really are really only flat and functional. Wilde treats this topic explicitly, though dismissively, with Algernon’s own explicitly dismissive treatment of Lane. Lane mentions something about his past marriage and Algernon tells him that he really has no interest in hearing about Lane’s life. It is only the upper-class white males of both works that are allowed to explore their own characters.
And about the “truth” that is revealed at the end of The Importance of Being Earnest. (I guess I should have warned that there’d be spoilers before now. Well there will continue to be.) It turns out Jack was actually Ernest all along. He never knew who his parents were, and it turns out his father and namesake was Ernest Moncrieff. General Moncrieff is also the father of Algernon, so Jack/Ernest also wasn’t lying when he claimed to have a brother. At his core, then, Jack is one unified and (unintentionally) “honest” man. Though Wilde plays with multiple personalities, the story ends with this performance resolved. The “traditional” view of identity is not really questioned. Everything is back where it belongs and nothing has changed, except for a name. And really, what’s in a name?
Stevenson seems to commit a bit more to the play of multiple identities and the flexibility of these identities. I don’t know, though, what I think about the ultimate outcome of the story. Does Dr. Jekyll’s death reinforce the view that a person’s identity is fixed and singular, though possibly hybrid, or does it support Dr. Jekyll’s own view that we are each inhabited by “multifarious, incongruous, and independent denizens”? Since Dr. Jekyll does get the last word on the subject, maybe we, as readers, are meant to agree with him and understand that, though we are “compound” in our nature, it’s better to hold it all together than to let it tear you apart like Dr. Jekyll.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Susan Boyle's 'Coming Out'
All this talk about sexuality and choice, but what does it mean to be asexual in so highly sexed a society as ours? I really despise those ‘Got Talent?’ shows, but I couldn’t help feeling completely paralyzed by Susan Boyle’s performance on “Britain’s Got Talent.” She’s been an international sensation, but not just because of her beautiful voice. Susan Boyle, at 47, walked on stage to an emotional flogging. Catcalling and boo-ing when she walked on stage, audience members showed absolute derision at her less than conventional aspiring singer appearance. Simon was more snarky than usual, showing exasperation when Susan explained her solitary lifestyle and to the perverse delight of the crowd, gave a little shimmy. And then she took up the microphone, and in a very powerful (yet overly dramatized moment) Susan Boyle began to look very attractive to media moguls and youtube viewers everywhere, and it wasn’t just because of her voice. Susan Boyle is 47 and has never been kissed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY
We live in a world where people (women especially) are perceived as being broken, dysfunctional, or neurotic for being undersexed. It is a kind of “double bind” (Sedgwick 913). In the text, "Epistemology of the Closet", Eve Sedgwick addresses the causes and consequences of sexual-identification. Yet what about those who choose, or are born asexual? The fact that ‘sexual’ is the root of all terms of to describe orientation, is for approximately 60 million self-described asexuals, harmful. This is yet another aspect to the ‘double-bind’ of sexual terminology that forces persons to devalue their “truth” (913) on the basis of choice in sexual subjectivity. She writes, “I would suggest that an understanding of their irresolvable instability has been continually available, and has continually lent discursive authority, to antigay as well as to gay cultural forces of this century” (913). It is a sad fact, that sexual-objectification is so determinative of a woman’s worth under the voyeuristic male gaze.
Whether or not it was Susan’s choice to remain celibate is taken for granted based on her looks. Western media denotes individual worth on the basis of sexual appeal. Women who become public figures are judged by standards of prudery. In our society it is assumed that abstinence or celibacy is a deliberate rejection of sexuality for religious, medical, or pathological reasons. But if sexuality is a spectrum –why is asexuality considered so defective? Intrigued, I did a little research and found an article from the ‘National Religious Vocation Conference’ where it was declared if a person isn’t sexual, ‘they aren’t a person’ because sexuality is a ‘gift’ from God and therefore a fundamental part of human identity. Although the conception is that not having sex is a choice, then those who don’t have sex are treated as virtually nonexistent, inhuman.
Women are publicly persecuted for repressing their sex drives—and taking out their pent up emotion in the workplace, for instance. Hilary Clinton is a case study of how this works in reverse—stoicism and equanimity can also undercut your fan base. For what other purpose does Cosmopolitan sell so many copies of ‘101 sex tips to enhance your self-esteem!’? The answer is pretty clear in Adrienne Rich’s text, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Women must market their sexual attractiveness to men. Men have control over women’s sexuality because sex is power. Hence the flood of letters sent to women’s magazines where women and some men complain of the discrimination they feel in a society that renders them invisible. Yet I think Rich’s text doesn’t explain the number of male asexuals. They too, of course, seek emotional friendships and romantic desires rather than erotic ones. Many asexual/autoerotic/homoromantic/heteroromantic persons come out to their family and friends, declaring their orientation to be as valid as being straight or gay. Perhaps we ought to be rethinking a compulsory sexuality in broader terms—if celebrity sensationalism indicates anything it is that both the repression and expression of sexuality are both forms of public persecution.
And it isn’t just men, either. Women can be very harsh critics of other women. Take this popular blog posting for instance:
“The idea of keeping her in her original state is sentimental and selfish. Is she supposed to bolster your self esteem? One of her attributes is that she’s never been kissed. (She’s 47!) Should she retain her virginity along with her bushy eyebrows so that TV viewers can feel warm and squishy?”
I found this post very hard to read, because this woman’s objectification of the talented Susan Boyle felt like a mutually self-derisive project. This woman, a self-described professor of law, attributed Susan Boyle’s celibacy to her religious devotion, and brain damage. She said she could benefit from a show like “What Not to Wear” and “Extreme Makeover.” These shows are so explicitly abrasive to women, contestants are verbally assaulted for not conforming to the dress-code standards in the workplace. The contestant is always broken down, beaten into submission. And the shows always end on an emotional high-note, where the less-than-perfect people, who snap out of their emotional repression, ‘come out’ to society a new, happy person. Again, women who have ‘let themselves go’ are ‘hiding from themselves’ as though celibacy is so taboo in society that one must mask it.
I also find it infuriating that whether or not Susan should undergo a Hollywood makeover in order to ‘clean up’ her bushy eyebrows has fueled a publicity campaign. A recent NYT article offered this interesting tidbit on the extreme “not so young and not so beautiful” prejudice: “Amanda Holden (Britain’s Got Talent judge), artfully put together and seemingly unable to move her face to register surprise—said that Miss Boyle should resist submitting to a Hollywood-style makeover.” She purportedly reasoned, “the minute we turn her into a glamourpuss is when it’s spoilt.” Where does objectification end for women? Either she is supposed to get a makeover and fail to conform to the hypersexual, pop-star persona, or she doesn’t and is patronized not despite her virginity but because of it. Is this the “it” that would “spoilt?” Sanctifying her ‘dowdiness’ in this entertainment industry is equivalent to heretical stoning. Even though Susan Boyle’s life story is attractive in every other way, when it comes to surface appearances and sexuality, in this misogynist culture, she cannot win.
Note: It seems Susan did get a makeover according to the NYT, describing her new look as “wooden” when she appeared as a guest on “the Early Show.”
We live in a world where people (women especially) are perceived as being broken, dysfunctional, or neurotic for being undersexed. It is a kind of “double bind” (Sedgwick 913). In the text, "Epistemology of the Closet", Eve Sedgwick addresses the causes and consequences of sexual-identification. Yet what about those who choose, or are born asexual? The fact that ‘sexual’ is the root of all terms of to describe orientation, is for approximately 60 million self-described asexuals, harmful. This is yet another aspect to the ‘double-bind’ of sexual terminology that forces persons to devalue their “truth” (913) on the basis of choice in sexual subjectivity. She writes, “I would suggest that an understanding of their irresolvable instability has been continually available, and has continually lent discursive authority, to antigay as well as to gay cultural forces of this century” (913). It is a sad fact, that sexual-objectification is so determinative of a woman’s worth under the voyeuristic male gaze.
Whether or not it was Susan’s choice to remain celibate is taken for granted based on her looks. Western media denotes individual worth on the basis of sexual appeal. Women who become public figures are judged by standards of prudery. In our society it is assumed that abstinence or celibacy is a deliberate rejection of sexuality for religious, medical, or pathological reasons. But if sexuality is a spectrum –why is asexuality considered so defective? Intrigued, I did a little research and found an article from the ‘National Religious Vocation Conference’ where it was declared if a person isn’t sexual, ‘they aren’t a person’ because sexuality is a ‘gift’ from God and therefore a fundamental part of human identity. Although the conception is that not having sex is a choice, then those who don’t have sex are treated as virtually nonexistent, inhuman.
Women are publicly persecuted for repressing their sex drives—and taking out their pent up emotion in the workplace, for instance. Hilary Clinton is a case study of how this works in reverse—stoicism and equanimity can also undercut your fan base. For what other purpose does Cosmopolitan sell so many copies of ‘101 sex tips to enhance your self-esteem!’? The answer is pretty clear in Adrienne Rich’s text, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Women must market their sexual attractiveness to men. Men have control over women’s sexuality because sex is power. Hence the flood of letters sent to women’s magazines where women and some men complain of the discrimination they feel in a society that renders them invisible. Yet I think Rich’s text doesn’t explain the number of male asexuals. They too, of course, seek emotional friendships and romantic desires rather than erotic ones. Many asexual/autoerotic/homoromantic/heteroromantic persons come out to their family and friends, declaring their orientation to be as valid as being straight or gay. Perhaps we ought to be rethinking a compulsory sexuality in broader terms—if celebrity sensationalism indicates anything it is that both the repression and expression of sexuality are both forms of public persecution.
And it isn’t just men, either. Women can be very harsh critics of other women. Take this popular blog posting for instance:
“The idea of keeping her in her original state is sentimental and selfish. Is she supposed to bolster your self esteem? One of her attributes is that she’s never been kissed. (She’s 47!) Should she retain her virginity along with her bushy eyebrows so that TV viewers can feel warm and squishy?”
I found this post very hard to read, because this woman’s objectification of the talented Susan Boyle felt like a mutually self-derisive project. This woman, a self-described professor of law, attributed Susan Boyle’s celibacy to her religious devotion, and brain damage. She said she could benefit from a show like “What Not to Wear” and “Extreme Makeover.” These shows are so explicitly abrasive to women, contestants are verbally assaulted for not conforming to the dress-code standards in the workplace. The contestant is always broken down, beaten into submission. And the shows always end on an emotional high-note, where the less-than-perfect people, who snap out of their emotional repression, ‘come out’ to society a new, happy person. Again, women who have ‘let themselves go’ are ‘hiding from themselves’ as though celibacy is so taboo in society that one must mask it.
I also find it infuriating that whether or not Susan should undergo a Hollywood makeover in order to ‘clean up’ her bushy eyebrows has fueled a publicity campaign. A recent NYT article offered this interesting tidbit on the extreme “not so young and not so beautiful” prejudice: “Amanda Holden (Britain’s Got Talent judge), artfully put together and seemingly unable to move her face to register surprise—said that Miss Boyle should resist submitting to a Hollywood-style makeover.” She purportedly reasoned, “the minute we turn her into a glamourpuss is when it’s spoilt.” Where does objectification end for women? Either she is supposed to get a makeover and fail to conform to the hypersexual, pop-star persona, or she doesn’t and is patronized not despite her virginity but because of it. Is this the “it” that would “spoilt?” Sanctifying her ‘dowdiness’ in this entertainment industry is equivalent to heretical stoning. Even though Susan Boyle’s life story is attractive in every other way, when it comes to surface appearances and sexuality, in this misogynist culture, she cannot win.
Note: It seems Susan did get a makeover according to the NYT, describing her new look as “wooden” when she appeared as a guest on “the Early Show.”
Friday, May 1, 2009
Girls, boys, and chimpanzees
I would like to open this post with a few defensive remarks, that may, perhaps, forestall the angry mob that will probably show up to throw me off of Scripps.
First off, I am, in fact, a real live feminist. I have worked for feminist organizations, I am a card-carrying member of a few more. I have public appeared as a contraception superhero in the pursuit of women’s rights—and that meant a plastic cape, in July, in Georgia. It was over 100 degrees. Let no one doubt my commitment to equal rights for the fairer sex.
Second, natural does not equal good, nor does unnatural equal bad. Humans do all sorts of fantastically unnatural things all the time, like flying, that I approve of. Creatures in the natural world regularly do things, like murdering their step-children,that I think are a poor model for human behavior.
That said, I was absolutely shocked at the number of people who, in response to our readings on gender theory said they couldn’t understand why humanity decided to divide along “arbitrary” gender lines, male and female, rather than, say, by eye color.
May I offer the following answer: Duh. It is because people, like the vast majority of vertebrates, come in males and females. There is a very, very simple reason for that: sexual dimorphism works.
This requires a bit of background: Imagine, for a moment, that you are God, and in the process of designing the humble rabbit. (This is not how evolution works, or course, but work with me). You have two basic options for reproduction: sexual or asexual. Curious, you decide to try both out. You make two species, absolutely identical except for their mode of reproduction, and drop two of each on a field. Let’s call them SexBunnies and CloneBunnies.
For the sake of simplicity of math, let’s say you haven’t got around to inventing carnivores yet, the field can hold exactly 200 rabbits, and they can reproduce 2 rabbits per pregnancy, once a month. You set them down in mid-December (you haven’t got around to inventing seasons yet either).
January comes along, and the set of SexBunnies has a pair bouncing baby bunny, that the female carried. The CloneBunnies, on the other hand, don’t have to find mates, so they both get to have a pair of baby bunnies! There are now 4 SexBunnies, and 6 CloneBunnies By February, expect 4 new SexBunnies—and 12 more CloneBunnies. Come April, the field will be nearly full—with 32 SexBunnies, and 162 CloneBunnies.
So why do animals sexually reproduce at all, if it is so much less efficient? Because sexual reproduction has several huge advantages, like increased genetic variation, so that when Bunny Pox hits your field, there is a higher chance that a few of your SexBunnies are naturally resistant. However, another huge advantage is sexual dimorphism leads to efficient distribution of labor between the two sexes.
You see this distribution among tons of animals. In many species, especially among birds, males and females look entirely different (though boys tend to be the pretty ones). In communal, food-sharing societies, like that of primates, there tend to be different roles for males and females.
So why is it that humans have sexual dimorphism? Because it works. Because seven million years ago, when the first anthropomorphic primates of the Hominini tribe evolved, life was hard. Really, really f***ing hard. Difficult in a way that modern humans, who have antibiotics and refrigeration and buildings and wheeled vehicles and agriculture and domestic animals and weapons and fire cannot even begin to imagine. Most of the bipedal primates died off. For a long time, Homo Sapiens teetered on the brink of extinction—at several points, there may have been less than a thousand members of our species. Thue hunter-gatherer lifestyle is one of ceaseless work and constant near-starvation.
So why is that men tend to be stronger and taller than women? Because all that muscle mass is difficult to maintain, and it takes tons of calories. If your entire species is muscled like that, everyone dies of hunger. If only half of the species has it, you need less food, and have a better chance of surviving—so men became the hunters. Why is it that women are traditionally in charge of childcare? Because we have uteruses and produce breastmilk—it isn’t as if we could leave the baby at home with our husbands and a bottle of formula. Pulling even a small percentage of your labor force of the vital work of food production to carry and raise children is dangerous—so only half the species tends to do it, and not all at the same time.
There are actual, real, measurable, biological difference between men and women and those differences exist for a reason—and that reason is not some vast conspiracy to make people with breasts feel bad. It is because sexual division of labor creates increased survival rates, so evolution selected for it—to this day, men tend to better at spatial-awareness tasks and women tend to have a better sense of taste (in food, not fashion) because men hunted and women gathered.
Note that I said tend. Of course, there have always been variations. We reproduce sexually, we produce varied offspring—that is one of our strengths as a species, in terms of survival rates. It is also fairly clear that some things, like which sex gets to wear pointy shoes, are totally meaningless cultural constructions. Other constructions of male-female difference, though, cultural or not, exist because they worked.
The world is different now. I don’t need the special advantages of maleness to be an accountant or a surgeon or a programmer. (For that matter, wouldn’t actually need these advantages to be hunters—I am sure there were a few prehistoric girls that grew up eschew childrearing and hunt mammoths, but I am talking about maximum efficiency here). Men don’t need estrogen to be able to rear babies or teach preschool or be nurses. For the very first time in human history—in the history of primates, really—sexual equity can actually increase the chances of our species surviving. That is really, really awesome. Amazing! Astounding! A true testament to infinity diversity of life!
Nevertheless, pretending that there are no differences between men and women (and for that men transgendered individuals—they probably serve a useful evolutionary purpose too), or that these differences have no biological basis is intellectually dishonest, and probably ultimately unhelpful. In my opinion, it is also morally questionable.
I should be able to make a real moral/ethical argument that I, as a human being, simply on the basis of my humanity, deserve the same rights and responsibilities as a man, regardless of the fact that the average man can do more pull-ups than me. I should not need to make recourse to the silly argument that I only can do less pull-ups because I am a helpless victim of cultural conditioning that taught me that pull-ups weren’t feminine. Yes, that cultural pressure probably does exist, but it ought to be irrelevant to my argument. Similarly, I can make a decent argument that we shouldn’t kill each other without needing to make recourse to the bible.
In short, men and women are different—but that doesn’t need to matter. Accept it, marvel at it, and move on. Don’t pretend it isn’t real!
I will now await the angry mob.
Oh, and while I am pissing people off anyway, only captive bonobo chimpanzees regularly have sex for fun and live in "peaceful", female-dominated societies, probably because they are bored and slightly crazy. In the wild, they are even more violent than regular chimps. Leave the poor bonobos out of it.
First off, I am, in fact, a real live feminist. I have worked for feminist organizations, I am a card-carrying member of a few more. I have public appeared as a contraception superhero in the pursuit of women’s rights—and that meant a plastic cape, in July, in Georgia. It was over 100 degrees. Let no one doubt my commitment to equal rights for the fairer sex.
Second, natural does not equal good, nor does unnatural equal bad. Humans do all sorts of fantastically unnatural things all the time, like flying, that I approve of. Creatures in the natural world regularly do things, like murdering their step-children,that I think are a poor model for human behavior.
That said, I was absolutely shocked at the number of people who, in response to our readings on gender theory said they couldn’t understand why humanity decided to divide along “arbitrary” gender lines, male and female, rather than, say, by eye color.
May I offer the following answer: Duh. It is because people, like the vast majority of vertebrates, come in males and females. There is a very, very simple reason for that: sexual dimorphism works.
This requires a bit of background: Imagine, for a moment, that you are God, and in the process of designing the humble rabbit. (This is not how evolution works, or course, but work with me). You have two basic options for reproduction: sexual or asexual. Curious, you decide to try both out. You make two species, absolutely identical except for their mode of reproduction, and drop two of each on a field. Let’s call them SexBunnies and CloneBunnies.
For the sake of simplicity of math, let’s say you haven’t got around to inventing carnivores yet, the field can hold exactly 200 rabbits, and they can reproduce 2 rabbits per pregnancy, once a month. You set them down in mid-December (you haven’t got around to inventing seasons yet either).
January comes along, and the set of SexBunnies has a pair bouncing baby bunny, that the female carried. The CloneBunnies, on the other hand, don’t have to find mates, so they both get to have a pair of baby bunnies! There are now 4 SexBunnies, and 6 CloneBunnies By February, expect 4 new SexBunnies—and 12 more CloneBunnies. Come April, the field will be nearly full—with 32 SexBunnies, and 162 CloneBunnies.
So why do animals sexually reproduce at all, if it is so much less efficient? Because sexual reproduction has several huge advantages, like increased genetic variation, so that when Bunny Pox hits your field, there is a higher chance that a few of your SexBunnies are naturally resistant. However, another huge advantage is sexual dimorphism leads to efficient distribution of labor between the two sexes.
You see this distribution among tons of animals. In many species, especially among birds, males and females look entirely different (though boys tend to be the pretty ones). In communal, food-sharing societies, like that of primates, there tend to be different roles for males and females.
So why is it that humans have sexual dimorphism? Because it works. Because seven million years ago, when the first anthropomorphic primates of the Hominini tribe evolved, life was hard. Really, really f***ing hard. Difficult in a way that modern humans, who have antibiotics and refrigeration and buildings and wheeled vehicles and agriculture and domestic animals and weapons and fire cannot even begin to imagine. Most of the bipedal primates died off. For a long time, Homo Sapiens teetered on the brink of extinction—at several points, there may have been less than a thousand members of our species. Thue hunter-gatherer lifestyle is one of ceaseless work and constant near-starvation.
So why is that men tend to be stronger and taller than women? Because all that muscle mass is difficult to maintain, and it takes tons of calories. If your entire species is muscled like that, everyone dies of hunger. If only half of the species has it, you need less food, and have a better chance of surviving—so men became the hunters. Why is it that women are traditionally in charge of childcare? Because we have uteruses and produce breastmilk—it isn’t as if we could leave the baby at home with our husbands and a bottle of formula. Pulling even a small percentage of your labor force of the vital work of food production to carry and raise children is dangerous—so only half the species tends to do it, and not all at the same time.
There are actual, real, measurable, biological difference between men and women and those differences exist for a reason—and that reason is not some vast conspiracy to make people with breasts feel bad. It is because sexual division of labor creates increased survival rates, so evolution selected for it—to this day, men tend to better at spatial-awareness tasks and women tend to have a better sense of taste (in food, not fashion) because men hunted and women gathered.
Note that I said tend. Of course, there have always been variations. We reproduce sexually, we produce varied offspring—that is one of our strengths as a species, in terms of survival rates. It is also fairly clear that some things, like which sex gets to wear pointy shoes, are totally meaningless cultural constructions. Other constructions of male-female difference, though, cultural or not, exist because they worked.
The world is different now. I don’t need the special advantages of maleness to be an accountant or a surgeon or a programmer. (For that matter, wouldn’t actually need these advantages to be hunters—I am sure there were a few prehistoric girls that grew up eschew childrearing and hunt mammoths, but I am talking about maximum efficiency here). Men don’t need estrogen to be able to rear babies or teach preschool or be nurses. For the very first time in human history—in the history of primates, really—sexual equity can actually increase the chances of our species surviving. That is really, really awesome. Amazing! Astounding! A true testament to infinity diversity of life!
Nevertheless, pretending that there are no differences between men and women (and for that men transgendered individuals—they probably serve a useful evolutionary purpose too), or that these differences have no biological basis is intellectually dishonest, and probably ultimately unhelpful. In my opinion, it is also morally questionable.
I should be able to make a real moral/ethical argument that I, as a human being, simply on the basis of my humanity, deserve the same rights and responsibilities as a man, regardless of the fact that the average man can do more pull-ups than me. I should not need to make recourse to the silly argument that I only can do less pull-ups because I am a helpless victim of cultural conditioning that taught me that pull-ups weren’t feminine. Yes, that cultural pressure probably does exist, but it ought to be irrelevant to my argument. Similarly, I can make a decent argument that we shouldn’t kill each other without needing to make recourse to the bible.
In short, men and women are different—but that doesn’t need to matter. Accept it, marvel at it, and move on. Don’t pretend it isn’t real!
I will now await the angry mob.
Oh, and while I am pissing people off anyway, only captive bonobo chimpanzees regularly have sex for fun and live in "peaceful", female-dominated societies, probably because they are bored and slightly crazy. In the wild, they are even more violent than regular chimps. Leave the poor bonobos out of it.
Michelle in the Media
Michelle in the Media
Any woman strong enough to stick by their husband’s side throughout a presidential campaign deserves respect. However, Michelle Obama is an exemplary role model in many other obvious ways. Having graduated from Princeton cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts it amazes me that all I hear about in the news regarding this First Lady are her outfit choices. Furthering her education, Michelle went on to finish Harvard Law School allowing her to be only the third First Lady with a postgraduate degree. Being a woman with hopes of becoming a lawyer, I truly feel Michelle Obama’s academic and career accomplishments gave me the respect I have for her as opposed to her daring, sleeveless choices. I feel that the underlying sexist undertones of American society are stripping Michelle Obama of the appreciation she deserves. Further, she should not have to be portrayed as intellectually inferior to avoid intimidating the public. Here, Michelle Obama is being penalized for her abilities. On a larger scale, it seems as if the media is serving as an oppressor to all black women allowing “the oppressors [to] maintain their position and evade responsibility for their own actions” (Lorde, 115).
Featuring Michelle Obama on countless magazine covers is no doubt an honor, but the featured articles and chosen pictures embrace this “institutionalized rejection of difference” (Lorde, 15) as pointed out by Audre Lorde. On the cover of Vogue magazine, Michelle Obama sits beautifully in a magenta sleeveless dress. Intrigued by the caption “THE FIRST LADY THE WORLD HAS BEEN WAITING FOR” I eagerly buy my copy. After having read the article I found myself disgusted at the aspects of Michelle’s life selected for the piece. Her Jason Wu designed dress is discussed in detail, as are her plans to be a better mom and housewife for the Whitehouse, but her plans for the future are briskly addressed. This is rejecting Michelle’s academic accomplishments and position of power because the United States is not yet ready to believe that black women are capable of succeeding just as white or black men are. Why can we not be motivated by others success? Why is this racism, “the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over all others and thereby the right to dominance” (Lorde, 115) what sells magazines?
What I wish I would have found inside of this article, or any article within a magazine targeted for young and impressionable women, would address Michelle’s journey. Understanding her past is key because “too often, we pour the energy needed for recognizing and exploring difference into pretending those differences are insurmountable barriers, or that they do not exist at all” (Lorde, 115). Thus, most people would rather remain ignorant of Michelle’s past struggles due to race, gender, class, etc as opposed to gaining a deeper understanding. She is not part of this “mythical norm” which “is usually defined as white, thin, male, young, heterosexual, christian, and financially secure,” (Lorde, 116) and I feel that women could learn so much from her if these healthy deviations were examined and discussed.
Overall, we need to learn from each other. We do not have to be the same, we simply have to appreciate where everyone has been and gain as many perspectives as possible. More shared knowledge promotes understanding and will aid in our course of positive social change. But we cannot keep focusing on Michelle’s material beauty, because “it is not our differences which separate women, but our reluctance to recognize those differences and to deal effectively with the distortions which have resulted from the ignoring and misnaming of those differences.” (Lorde, 122). I am aware that Vogue is a fashion magazine, and that the article was obligated to address something pertaining to its origin. My issue comes from the recurring theme of Michelle’s stereotypically “womanly” assets always being emphasized, from her clothing to her housekeeping techniques, when this woman is smarter than well over half of our population.
Any woman strong enough to stick by their husband’s side throughout a presidential campaign deserves respect. However, Michelle Obama is an exemplary role model in many other obvious ways. Having graduated from Princeton cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts it amazes me that all I hear about in the news regarding this First Lady are her outfit choices. Furthering her education, Michelle went on to finish Harvard Law School allowing her to be only the third First Lady with a postgraduate degree. Being a woman with hopes of becoming a lawyer, I truly feel Michelle Obama’s academic and career accomplishments gave me the respect I have for her as opposed to her daring, sleeveless choices. I feel that the underlying sexist undertones of American society are stripping Michelle Obama of the appreciation she deserves. Further, she should not have to be portrayed as intellectually inferior to avoid intimidating the public. Here, Michelle Obama is being penalized for her abilities. On a larger scale, it seems as if the media is serving as an oppressor to all black women allowing “the oppressors [to] maintain their position and evade responsibility for their own actions” (Lorde, 115).
Featuring Michelle Obama on countless magazine covers is no doubt an honor, but the featured articles and chosen pictures embrace this “institutionalized rejection of difference” (Lorde, 15) as pointed out by Audre Lorde. On the cover of Vogue magazine, Michelle Obama sits beautifully in a magenta sleeveless dress. Intrigued by the caption “THE FIRST LADY THE WORLD HAS BEEN WAITING FOR” I eagerly buy my copy. After having read the article I found myself disgusted at the aspects of Michelle’s life selected for the piece. Her Jason Wu designed dress is discussed in detail, as are her plans to be a better mom and housewife for the Whitehouse, but her plans for the future are briskly addressed. This is rejecting Michelle’s academic accomplishments and position of power because the United States is not yet ready to believe that black women are capable of succeeding just as white or black men are. Why can we not be motivated by others success? Why is this racism, “the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over all others and thereby the right to dominance” (Lorde, 115) what sells magazines?
What I wish I would have found inside of this article, or any article within a magazine targeted for young and impressionable women, would address Michelle’s journey. Understanding her past is key because “too often, we pour the energy needed for recognizing and exploring difference into pretending those differences are insurmountable barriers, or that they do not exist at all” (Lorde, 115). Thus, most people would rather remain ignorant of Michelle’s past struggles due to race, gender, class, etc as opposed to gaining a deeper understanding. She is not part of this “mythical norm” which “is usually defined as white, thin, male, young, heterosexual, christian, and financially secure,” (Lorde, 116) and I feel that women could learn so much from her if these healthy deviations were examined and discussed.
Overall, we need to learn from each other. We do not have to be the same, we simply have to appreciate where everyone has been and gain as many perspectives as possible. More shared knowledge promotes understanding and will aid in our course of positive social change. But we cannot keep focusing on Michelle’s material beauty, because “it is not our differences which separate women, but our reluctance to recognize those differences and to deal effectively with the distortions which have resulted from the ignoring and misnaming of those differences.” (Lorde, 122). I am aware that Vogue is a fashion magazine, and that the article was obligated to address something pertaining to its origin. My issue comes from the recurring theme of Michelle’s stereotypically “womanly” assets always being emphasized, from her clothing to her housekeeping techniques, when this woman is smarter than well over half of our population.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Pearl Harbor and 9/11
In Audre Lord’s 1984 essay “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference,” Lorde first opens her work by exposing the western European’s mindset. She argues that much western European history has conditioned humans to think of human characteristics or differences in terms of a binary oppositions: superior/inferior, good/bad, up/down. Therefore, age, race, class, sex, and sexual preference are also thought of in those terms. The youth, Caucasian, rich, and heterosexual are usually placed in the position of superiority, while the elderly, non-Caucasian, poor, and homosexual are placed in the position of inferiority. This binary mode of thinking, therefore, leads to the many “isms” that exist in society, such as ageism, racism, and sexism. Hence, she argues that the “isms” are essentially the same, that they are created from the same root. Lorde states that:
Racism [is] the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over all others and thereby the right to dominance. Sexism, the belief in the inherent superiority of one sex over the other and thereby the right to dominance. Ageism. Heterosexism. Elitism. Classism. (Lorde, 885).
Therefore, a feminism fighting sexism is, in a sense, fighting the same battle as a homosexual fighting heterosexism: they are both fighting against oppression. Because the oppressed are all fighting the same battle, it seems logical that they would unite to ease or alleviate oppression. However, this does not happen because, as Lorde states, “Those of us who stand outside that power often identify one way in which we are different, and we assume that to be the primary cause of all oppressing, forgetting other distortions around difference, some o which we ourselves may be practicing.” (Lorde, 885) Therefore, she argues that the oppressed do not unite mainly for two reasons: (1.) humans have a tendency to want to be in the “superior” group and (2) the majority of the oppressed do not realize that they are fighting the same battle. Hence, many oppressed women (oppressed in terms of sexism) are oppressors themselves (in terms of ageism, racism, heterosexism…). Hence, Lorde argues that all oppressions are the same and that we should not practice or tolerate oppression. Unfortunately, many people do not realize Lorde’s point and oppression continues throughout history. Two main period of conspicuous oppression can be seen in the aftermath of the attack of Pearl Harbor and the aftermath of 9/11.
In December 7th, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, precipitating WWI. After the attack, war hysterias took over Americans, and Congress pressured President Roosevelt to sign Executive Order 9066, which led to the internment of approximately 120,000 people of Japanese descent. The justification for Executive Order 9066 was that the people of Japanese descent were more likely to be spies for the Japanese. However, most of the people of Japanese descent placed in the internment camps were Japanese Americans, two-thirds of whom were kids. Therefore, in these times, the Japanese were marginalized and viewed as “inferiors” or “bad”. However, three years later, in 1944, Proclamation 21 was passed, which led to the release from thousands of Japanese from internment camps. The Americans have realized their mistakes in marginalizing the Japanese without proof.
The mistreatment of the Japanese parallels the mistreatment of the Arabs and Muslims post 9/11. In Louis Cainkar’s Homeland Insecurity: The Arab American and Muslim American Experience After 9l11, Cainkar explores the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11. For her book, she conducted more than a hundred interviews of Middle Eastern Americans and concluded that, in the aftermath of 9/11, Arab men were more vulnerable to hate crime attacks and that hijab (or headscarf) wearing Muslim women were more susceptible to sexual assaults; their hijabs were considered as anti-American symbols. Not only were the Muslims more susceptible to hate crimes, but laws were also turned against them. Arabs and Muslims were more closely inspected by federal and local authority in case they might be spies for the terrorists.
In both the post Pearl Harbor and post 9/11 case, a specific group were marginalized and oppressed. And in both cases, the laws adapted themselves to reflect the oppressive environment of the time: the laws were molded to reinforce the oppression.
In the case of Pearl Harbor, the people of Japanese descent were marginalized and scorned. However, Americans did eventually learn the wrongdoings and passed Proclamation 21. Unfortunately, history repeated itself, and in the aftermath of 9/11, Muslims became the marginalized and oppressed group. Had Americans realized that the oppression and wrongdoings given to the Japanese in 1941 were the same kind of oppression and wrongdoings given to the Muslims in 2001, maybe history would not have repeated itself. Had Lorde’s point or message, that all “isms” or oppressions are the same, been more prevalent, then maybe oppression would greatly lessens.
Racism [is] the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over all others and thereby the right to dominance. Sexism, the belief in the inherent superiority of one sex over the other and thereby the right to dominance. Ageism. Heterosexism. Elitism. Classism. (Lorde, 885).
Therefore, a feminism fighting sexism is, in a sense, fighting the same battle as a homosexual fighting heterosexism: they are both fighting against oppression. Because the oppressed are all fighting the same battle, it seems logical that they would unite to ease or alleviate oppression. However, this does not happen because, as Lorde states, “Those of us who stand outside that power often identify one way in which we are different, and we assume that to be the primary cause of all oppressing, forgetting other distortions around difference, some o which we ourselves may be practicing.” (Lorde, 885) Therefore, she argues that the oppressed do not unite mainly for two reasons: (1.) humans have a tendency to want to be in the “superior” group and (2) the majority of the oppressed do not realize that they are fighting the same battle. Hence, many oppressed women (oppressed in terms of sexism) are oppressors themselves (in terms of ageism, racism, heterosexism…). Hence, Lorde argues that all oppressions are the same and that we should not practice or tolerate oppression. Unfortunately, many people do not realize Lorde’s point and oppression continues throughout history. Two main period of conspicuous oppression can be seen in the aftermath of the attack of Pearl Harbor and the aftermath of 9/11.
In December 7th, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, precipitating WWI. After the attack, war hysterias took over Americans, and Congress pressured President Roosevelt to sign Executive Order 9066, which led to the internment of approximately 120,000 people of Japanese descent. The justification for Executive Order 9066 was that the people of Japanese descent were more likely to be spies for the Japanese. However, most of the people of Japanese descent placed in the internment camps were Japanese Americans, two-thirds of whom were kids. Therefore, in these times, the Japanese were marginalized and viewed as “inferiors” or “bad”. However, three years later, in 1944, Proclamation 21 was passed, which led to the release from thousands of Japanese from internment camps. The Americans have realized their mistakes in marginalizing the Japanese without proof.
The mistreatment of the Japanese parallels the mistreatment of the Arabs and Muslims post 9/11. In Louis Cainkar’s Homeland Insecurity: The Arab American and Muslim American Experience After 9l11, Cainkar explores the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11. For her book, she conducted more than a hundred interviews of Middle Eastern Americans and concluded that, in the aftermath of 9/11, Arab men were more vulnerable to hate crime attacks and that hijab (or headscarf) wearing Muslim women were more susceptible to sexual assaults; their hijabs were considered as anti-American symbols. Not only were the Muslims more susceptible to hate crimes, but laws were also turned against them. Arabs and Muslims were more closely inspected by federal and local authority in case they might be spies for the terrorists.
In both the post Pearl Harbor and post 9/11 case, a specific group were marginalized and oppressed. And in both cases, the laws adapted themselves to reflect the oppressive environment of the time: the laws were molded to reinforce the oppression.
In the case of Pearl Harbor, the people of Japanese descent were marginalized and scorned. However, Americans did eventually learn the wrongdoings and passed Proclamation 21. Unfortunately, history repeated itself, and in the aftermath of 9/11, Muslims became the marginalized and oppressed group. Had Americans realized that the oppression and wrongdoings given to the Japanese in 1941 were the same kind of oppression and wrongdoings given to the Muslims in 2001, maybe history would not have repeated itself. Had Lorde’s point or message, that all “isms” or oppressions are the same, been more prevalent, then maybe oppression would greatly lessens.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Ravaging Agricultural Rhizomes
In a seemingly abstract but symbolically relevant way, the terminology used by Deleuze and Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus reminded me a lot of a documentary I recently watched called "The Future of Food", so I’m going to explore that connection a little bit. The film is about the agricultural industry, a topic that I normally find intensely boring, but the implications of it were too vast not to hook me.Deleuze and Guattari explain Structuralism in horticultural terms, with the simplified concept of a tree and its root. The root refers to and grows into the tree, just as an idea is generated from a pre-existing form, from its root. This notion of a unified underlying structure, an order, is challenged by Post-Structuralism, which instead of seeing an idea or book as a root, sees it as a rhizome. A rhizome is like crabgrass: an expansive and complex root system that cannot be ruptured, because it has no singular point of importance or origin. It is an endless and almost unstoppable web of paths with no beginning, end or center. The rhizome is thus also anti-genealogy (to use another plant metaphor) since it undermines the unified notion of a family tree, or traceable, simplified hereditary genetics.
Agriculture, seed hybridization and crop genetics reminds me of the rhizome concept, in that both are always changing in ways that human beings can hardly keep track of. The Future of Food addresses the rather radical notion of patenting genetically modified plants. The individual or corporation that patents a genetically modified piece of corn then own the rights to its all of its offspring and genetic offshoots. First of all, the idea that someone can own a living organism, a strain of corn of a genetically modified mouse, is in itself a questionable legal notion. Secondly, the idea of claiming ownership to a strain of corn is pretty ridiculous, since crops and plants are constantly evolving from generation to generation, and plant breeds intermingle almost unstoppably; tracking them is nearly impossible.
The film chronicles how a small farmer ended up being sued by a big seed corporation called Monsanto, because his soy crop intermingled with their seeds. The farmer never intended for this to happen, but he wasn’t surprised that it did. Winds often carry seeds many miles to other farms (the farmer happened to be downwind of Monsanto land)—not to mention that several Monsanto trucks carrying seeds passed the farmer’s land regularly, and their tops weren’t always fully covered. However, because the farmer’s crop was mixed with the patented Monsanto strain, he needed to toss out his entire seed and start afresh—battling Monsanto in court cost him his entire retirement. The notion that every ensuing generation of the farmer’s seed would belong to Monsanto is absurd, since each generation would be a completely genetically unique strain. But Monsanto somehow legally owned the genetic material of every generation that intermingled with their genetically modified seed—the idea of even tracing this legal ownership becomes almost too intricate to wrap your head around.
The fact is, plant seeds and breeds constantly intermingle, whether or not farmers want them to. And this isn’t a bad thing, hybridization is how vegetable and fruit variation occurs, why food diversity exists in the first place. The unified notion of agriculture as a collection of single strains that can be patented and owned is almost Structuralist in its notion of ownership and territorialization. But the reality of a healthy crop is a complex rhizome-like intermingling of seeds, which results in ever-dynamic genetic mutation and variation. The notion of reducing a crop to a singular, perfectly juicy and bug-resistant gene is a dream, and potentially a nightmare: if the entire supply of vegetables was provided by one company, which used a single genetically patented seed, what would happen if that strain got a disease? Variation in our fruits and vegetables is what prevents things like the Potato Famine in Ireland; the nation was dependent on that singular strain of potato, and when it was exposed to disease, the crop failure wiped out nearly a third of the Irish population. Variation, diversity, hybridization and genetic rhizomes are necessary to keep our agriculture robust. The Structuralist notion of singularity and ownership is stunting, and even permanently damaging, our agricultural industry.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Role Models?
Today I was looking at movies on Amazon and they had a list of “Empowered Women Movies”. I was curious to see what they put on the list and among the top three were “Laura Croft: Tomb Raider”, and “Basic Instinct”. Granted the first on the list was “Thelma & Louise” which I think is a more valid choice, but I could not believe that the other two were considered “empowering”. Needless to say, I need to rant about this and I think Adrienne Rich’s “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” will allow me to do so somewhat academically.
Starting with Tomb Raider, I unfortunately saw this movie and the plot is terrible. Of course it made a lot of money anyway because it relies solely on Angelina Jolie in booty shorts. Am I supposed to feel “empowered” by a ten-minute shower scene? Although many argue that Jolie is a strong female character because she can shoot a gun, I believe the fact that the absence of any coherent plot demonstrates how blatantly the creators of this film relied on sexualizing her (as if she wasn’t sexy enough). Looking over the “characteristics of male power” it seems like this film is a modern day version of number 7 “cramp their creativeness” (5). The plot is embarrassing, and her outfits are just distracting. Can anyone be taken seriously in combat boots and hot pants? Encouraging women to look to this film for support, as indication that there are strong women out there is just sad.
“Basic Instinct” is even worse. This film centers on a bi-sexual woman named Catherine who is suspected of murder. She is portrayed as cold, manipulative, and extremely sexual. This film is the perfect example of compulsory heterosexuality. Catherine has a female lover (who is also psycho and tries to kill someone but fails), who is killed, which leads her to pursue the lead male (detective) instead. This demonstrates the idea that “heterosexual romance has been represented as the great female adventure, duty, and fulfillment” (14). The film couldn’t continue with two women together for long, one had to die so that the other could discover the true ‘adventure’.
In the last scene of the film Catherine and the detective who has been pursuing her are making love and he starts to talk about getting married and having children. As he does this she reaches under her bed for an ice pick (her weapon of choice), but stops as he changes his mind and tells her that he doesn’t want her to feel pressured. Of course, the woman that isn’t interested in marriage, and who is sexually attracted to women is a psychopathic killer. Rich states, “If we think of heterosexuality as the ‘natural’ emotional and sensual inclination for women, lives such as these are seen as deviant, as pathological, or as emotionally and sensually deprived” (13). An unfeeling killer is pretty deviant, especially one that is hypersexual, flashing her interrogator in the famous leg-uncrossing scene. This ending scene pretty blatantly lets the audience know what type of ‘person’ abhors marriage: the deviant, malicious, manipulative woman.
As if these films weren’t bad enough on their own, they are on a list of empowering films for women. The women appear to be in a position of power within the film, however in reality they are being used in order to create ‘norms’ of sexuality for the female viewers. If anything, these films categorize women, limiting their power by classifying them. Beyond this, their appearance on this list demonstrates just how integrated these thoughts of women are within our society, and how they are not only accepted, but also are supposed models for women. We are meant to internalize this, and that is a huge problem. I love Amazon, but I don’t think I’ll be taking their advice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)