eirikur@amber.DEC (Eirikur Hallgrimsson) (07/10/84)
From what a lot of people are saying these days, I get the impression
that many think that sex roles are simple stuff--costumes, physical and
emotional, and a little posturing. Like, maybe we could make them go away if
we yanked the trappings, and waited a couple of generations. I used to
believe this, and it *may* be true, but sex roles *evolved*, in the cultural
sense, and like most things that 'jest grew' they're horribly complicated,
and very well adapted.
I don't think that they can be wished (or legislated) out of existence.
Because they serve a need. Culture abhors a vacuum. (Shava Nerad, where are
you?) Courtship, (or a replacement protocol) has to happen. Kids have to be
born, and wear designer jeans, watch too much tv, eat junk food, etc, (or
your local period/regional variants) and then raise kids themselves. This
*has* to happen. (Dag Hammarskjold said something on the order of 'What has
to happen is going to happen.' I'll extend that to saying that there will be
a means.)
Anyway, the point of this article is that sex roles are deep-rooted,
primary parts of humanity, (we have been discussing how hard it can be to
buck them!). They have to work in the general case. What if sex roles only
worked for a given sub-population? One generation later, their descendants
would be the only population. Hence, they work. They're ill fitting, and
hurt a lot these days, though. Maybe we can grow them so that they better
fit the us of now. Cultural bonzai doesn't have a good track record, so I
suspect that they won't ever be what we want them to be (even if we could
agree). They'll just fit us better, (and be more fit--pun semi-intended).
Deep rooted, I say. For example, and more relevant to net.motss--I
haven't ever seen a gay or lesbian relationship that did not *most of the
time* exhibit differential 'sex roles.' They may swap or submerge, but from
what I've seen, they surface daily. They're so solidly a part of us that
they persist when they're not relevant.
Comments?
Eirikur Hallgrimsson
Mon 9-Jul-1984 17:13 Marlborough uncorrected time.sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (07/10/84)
Deep rooted, I say. For example, and more relevant to
net.motss--I haven't ever seen a gay or lesbian relationship that
did not *most of the time* exhibit differential 'sex roles.' They
may swap or submerge, but from what I've seen, they surface
daily. They're so solidly a part of us that they persist when
they're not relevant. Comments?
Provocative, but I'm a little unclear on what you are trying to say:
Gay and lesbian people are also ruled to some extent by sex roles (not
surprising) OR that gay relationships display a male/female role polarity
(definitely disputable.) Can you expand on this?
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPArrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (07/10/84)
Just a comment: the effects of cultural categories & socialization are profound; only some of it is visible or conscious. But there's a danger in making a geiven set of sex roles (or sex roles at all) too important or unchangeable: they vary greatly form society to society. For example, gender role behavior among the Burmese is nearly the exact opposite of what it is in North America: women do most heavy daily chores, are dominant, aggressive, decisive; men are more emotional, quarrelsome, gossipy, generally what a gringo would consider "effeminate". In much of India and China culturally determined personality diffe- rences based on gender are matters of status, i.e. a social postion's rights & obligations, rather than of role, a set of behaviors. Males are dominant, but for many social levels in either country, appropriate male behavior involves much that would be considered outrageous in North America: men holding hands, other displays of affection, lack of aggression, often a complete lack of anything remotely resembling "machismo" (a much abused word). There are people who have been raised in one of these cultures & in say North America: I doubt they're all horribly mangled, conflicted, etc. as a result. Roles CAN change even within a given individual's life; they can even be consciously altered, though this is often very difficult. We can acknowledge the often profound effects of culture without making a fetish of a specific culture's forms. (By the way, I disagree that gender role differences lurk either at the margin or in the heart of every gay relationship. Eirikur's perception could be a result of the specific people he's known or of a fuzzily-defined idea of "gender role".) "Is there sex after death?" Ron Rizzo
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/12/84)
> Anyway, the point of this article is that sex roles are deep-rooted, > primary parts of humanity, (we have been discussing how hard it can be to > buck them!). They have to work in the general case. What if sex roles only > worked for a given sub-population? One generation later, their descendants > would be the only population. Hence, they work. They're ill fitting, and > hurt a lot these days, though. > > I haven't ever seen a gay or lesbian relationship that did not *most of the > time* exhibit differential 'sex roles.' They may swap or submerge, but from > what I've seen, they surface daily. They're so solidly a part of us that > they persist when they're not relevant. > Eirikur Hallgrimsson This assumes only one set of sex roles, involving two people, one male & one female, with fixed societally prescribed roles. A society where the roles are more important than the people who have to fulfill them strikes me as rather ridiculous. People having relationships in which the relators relate only in fixed predetermined ways is the surest way to stifle individuality. It's akin to the "roles" described in transactional analysis---parent, child, adult. The roles don't imply that only particular people get to live them out based on their having been labelled as "parent", "child", etc. (I'm not a big fan of transactional analysis precisely because it *labels* the roles and idnetifies them with particular types of people.) Roles of "husband" and "wife" fit under the same umbrella. Why is anyone, in any type or relationship (heterosexual/homosexual) somehow expected to live out a particular role? Why is anyone expected to live out any such role, and why are people in relationships expected to take on such pre-ordained complimentary/contrary/antipodal roles? -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr