Gender

[Pathless]

Hi Juantoo. Thanks for the thoughtful response. A couple of questions and comments:

Originally Posted by Juantoo3

Now, as for the cultural roles we play, a great deal has to do with which specific culture we are referring to, what period of time, etc. The "classical Greece" mentioned above encouraged male to male "love," believing it served to strengthen the bonds even between soldiers on the battlefield. So there is some distortion, confusion, or at least something amiss with the stereotype being forwarded here about males and females.

In normative times in any culture, there are certain expectations put upon each gender by weight of social history and consensus. In exceptional times, gender roles can be blurred without consequence, such as women taking up arms in time of war, or men caring for children in the aftermath of a natural disaster. I think we also tend to confuse our current understanding, thinking modern examples serve to illustrate gender expectations across all cultures at all times. Not all cultures are patriarchal, and not all are "firm" in drawing gender role expectations. So we really need to clarify where we are coming from and not automatically presume that all other cultures mimic our own.

When I have used the word 'cultures' in this discussion I've been referring to the modern, western, patriarchal cultures to which most of us who frequent this website belong. From what I can tell, many (most?) people here tend to be British or American (at least in origin if not in residence). I suppose I should have made myself more clear. I did not mean 'cultures' to be inclusive of all cultures in time and space. There have been and continue to be cultures that have different attitudes towards gender and sex, and I am particularly interested in them.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

In the case of genuine hermaphrodites a case might be made for holding the innate psychology of both sexes at birth, but the parent's choice to raise a child as either / or serves to determine which gender role such a child would affiliate with.

Is this necessarily true that the parents' selection of gender/sex is determinative? What about the child's take on the issue? There have been cases where intersex/hermpahrodite people have been assigned one biological sex and later transitioned into the 'opposite' or otherwise been uncomfortable in their assigned sex. There are some pictures on this site (scroll down) that also show the fluidity of gender presentation of an intersex person in different stages in life.

One troubling thing about our cultures' treatment of these individuals is that we seem to need to 'fix' them or assign them one or another gender. Why not simply allow them to be? How difficult would it be for us to honor them as the human beings that they are, without the need to push them in one or another direction on the sex/gender spectrum?

Originally Posted by Juantoo3

... That is part of the beauty of being human, the range of colors on the palette of social expression...

Could not agree more!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Pathless!

Originally Posted by Pathless

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Thank you for your thoughtful questions.

Originally Posted by Pathless

When I have used the word 'cultures' in this discussion I've been referring to the modern, western, patriarchal cultures to which most of us who frequent this website belong. From what I can tell, many (most?) people here tend to be British or American (at least in origin if not in residence). I suppose I should have made myself more clear. I did not mean 'cultures' to be inclusive of all cultures in time and space. There have been and continue to be cultures that have different attitudes towards gender and sex, and I am particularly interested in them.

Perhaps, but is this not playing to the stereotype in order to criticise it? I believe in legal terms this would be considered "entrapment." This is not to say that such does not exist, but it hardly serves to further broadened understanding. It seems to me to further entrenching opposing views.

Culturally and historically, there are variations in what are considered normative behavior. There are cultures even now in which paternalist behavior is not the norm, and even now in which gender designations are not as firmly cemented. Yet, even in such "liberal" cultures, there are expectations placed on each gender. Native American traditions come quickly to mind, wherein gender roles might appear a bit blurred to an outsider, yet there are cultural expectations placed on each gender no less than in typical "western" cultures.

Originally Posted by Pathless

Is this necessarily true that the parents' selection of gender/sex is determinative? What about the child's take on the issue?

Of course the parents have a role, particularly the mother. It is particularly telling that one should wish the focus to be strictly on the individual at the expense of the parents, but this is not how things typically unfold. Initially, the child is infused with the parental values, particularly the maternal values. Morality, cultural stigmas, gender definitions, religious indoctrination, education, and so on are initiated by the parents. Without, the child is at a great disadvantage. For instance, a child would not learn to speak without some adult indoctrination.

Now, children do grow up and become adults, and to greater or lesser degree may or may not throw off their initial indoctrination, but the simple fact remains, the parents do provide the initial view the child will use to see the world, and the child will then modify that view from there, adding to or taking from. This is why we so often perpetuate our parents stereotypes and prejudices, sometimes without even realizing it.

Originally Posted by Pathless

There have been cases where intersex/hermpahrodite people have been assigned one biological sex and later transitioned into the 'opposite' or otherwise been uncomfortable in their assigned sex.

One troubling thing about our cultures' treatment of these individuals is that we seem to need to 'fix' them or assign them one or another gender. Why not simply allow them to be? How difficult would it be for us to honor them as the human beings that they are, without the need to push them in one or another direction on the sex/gender spectrum?

We must keep in mind that in the case of true hermaphrodites, it is an exceedingly rare occurence...arguments developed on their specific behalf have no bearing on others who politically desire individually and "selfishly" to align themselves with those with this rare medical condition. With this express caveat in mind, I think in Western cultures it is because we do generally have such "concrete" gender distinctions that parents make the choice to mold their child into one or the other gender. Later, as that child grows, learns of their condition, develops their sexuality, becomes exposed to varying trains of thought, may or may not be exposed to other cultures, etc., the child may choose to exchange their initial gender role for the other one. Again, this should be only for that child born with both sets of gender apparatus. In a culture such as some Native American traditions, the hermaphrodite was viewed as a blessing in and of themself, and was accorded an honorable place and role in society by virtue of anatomy. Similarly, an "effeminate" young man was not coerced into filling a traditional male role, and might choose to participate in more traditionally female activities. But let us not confuse issues here...such an effeminate male was not considered a "man" in the "manly" sense unless he participated in male activities such as war parties, stealing enemies horses and stealing or buying a wife.

It is difficult to compare modern western culture with a tribal culture such as the Native Americans...while on the one hand such a matriarchal society as the Native Americans would seem to hold an ideal cultural model to some modern dreamers and social activists, let us not forget how well matriarchal societies have fared overall historically...they tend to lose. Partriarchies, for all of their faults and shortcomings, have proved to be more evolutionarily successful. Further, matriarchies tend to be, how shall I put it?, militaristic. Far from the social ideal as painted typically by those dreamers that paint while wearing rose tinted shades. The typical Native American tribe conducted warfare on an entirely different level than the typical modern patristic culture, yet that tribal warfare was a yearly and ongoing affair.

I want to say more but I just had a minor emergency crop up. Hope to return soon.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Pathless!

Originally Posted by Pathless

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Thank you for your thoughtful questions.

Originally Posted by Pathless

When I have used the word 'cultures' in this discussion I've been referring to the modern, western, patriarchal cultures to which most of us who frequent this website belong. From what I can tell, many (most?) people here tend to be British or American (at least in origin if not in residence). I suppose I should have made myself more clear. I did not mean 'cultures' to be inclusive of all cultures in time and space. There have been and continue to be cultures that have different attitudes towards gender and sex, and I am particularly interested in them.

Perhaps, but is this not playing to the stereotype in order to criticise it? I believe in legal terms this would be considered "entrapment." This is not to say that such does not exist, but it hardly serves to further broadened understanding. It seems to me to further entrenching opposing views.

Culturally and historically, there are variations in what are considered normative behavior. There are cultures even now in which paternalist behavior is not the norm, and even now in which gender designations are not as firmly cemented. Yet, even in such "liberal" cultures, there are expectations placed on each gender. Native American traditions come quickly to mind, wherein gender roles might appear a bit blurred to an outsider, yet there are cultural expectations placed on each gender no less than in typical "western" cultures.

Originally Posted by Pathless

Is this necessarily true that the parents' selection of gender/sex is determinative? What about the child's take on the issue?

Of course the parents have a role, particularly the mother. It is particularly telling that one should wish the focus to be strictly on the individual at the expense of the parents, but this is not how things typically unfold. Initially, the child is infused with the parental values, particularly the maternal values. Morality, cultural stigmas, gender definitions, religious indoctrination, education, and so on are initiated by the parents. Without, the child is at a great disadvantage. For instance, a child would not learn to speak without some adult indoctrination.

Now, children do grow up and become adults, and to greater or lesser degree may or may not throw off their initial indoctrination, but the simple fact remains, the parents do provide the initial view the child will use to see the world, and the child will then modify that view from there, adding to or taking from. This is why we so often perpetuate our parents stereotypes and prejudices, sometimes without even realizing it.

Originally Posted by Pathless

There have been cases where intersex/hermpahrodite people have been assigned one biological sex and later transitioned into the 'opposite' or otherwise been uncomfortable in their assigned sex.

One troubling thing about our cultures' treatment of these individuals is that we seem to need to 'fix' them or assign them one or another gender. Why not simply allow them to be? How difficult would it be for us to honor them as the human beings that they are, without the need to push them in one or another direction on the sex/gender spectrum?

We must keep in mind that in the case of true hermaphrodites, it is an exceedingly rare occurence...arguments developed on their specific behalf have no bearing on others who politically desire individually and "selfishly" to align themselves with those with this rare medical condition. With this express caveat in mind, I think in Western cultures it is because we do generally have such "concrete" gender distinctions that parents make the choice to mold their child into one or the other gender. Later, as that child grows, learns of their condition, develops their sexuality, becomes exposed to varying trains of thought, may or may not be exposed to other cultures, etc., the child may choose to exchange their initial gender role for the other one. Again, this should be only for that child born with both sets of gender apparatus. In a culture such as some Native American traditions, the hermaphrodite was viewed as a blessing in and of themself, and was accorded an honorable place and role in society by virtue of anatomy. Similarly, an "effeminate" young man was not coerced into filling a traditional male role, and might choose to participate in more traditionally female activities. But let us not confuse issues here...such an effeminate male was not considered a "man" in the "manly" sense unless he participated in male activities such as war parties, stealing enemies horses and stealing or buying a wife.

It is difficult to compare modern western culture with a tribal culture such as the Native Americans...while on the one hand such a matriarchal society as the Native Americans would seem to hold an ideal cultural model to some modern dreamers and social activists, let us not forget how well matriarchal societies have fared overall historically...they tend to lose. Partriarchies, for all of their faults and shortcomings, have proved to be more evolutionarily successful. Further, matriarchies tend to be, how shall I put it?, militaristic. Far from the social ideal as painted typically by those dreamers that paint while wearing rose tinted shades. The typical Native American tribe conducted warfare on an entirely different level than the typical modern patristic culture, yet that tribal warfare was a yearly and ongoing affair.

I want to say more but I just had a minor emergency crop up. Hope to return soon.

[Pathless]

Well, juantoo3, that is certainly one way to choose to look at the issue. I choose to see it differently, in a way that is more aligned to my personal values. Yes, you could call it political. Everything everyone does is in that sense political. Yes, you may assume I have an agenda. Don't we all? And we will all pick and choose the evidence that best supports our personal values.

Rather than engage in endless debate, I suppose I'd rather energize myself by connecting with individuals who share similar values as myself. I don't consider myself close-minded for doing so; rather, I know what I value and because I feel it is valuable I advocate for it. I am certainly not a disinterested intellectual in most regards. I'm passionate about what I value. One of the things that I value very highly is an individual's ability to think for her- or himself, after taking in and reviewing different viewpoints--critical thinking. And I appreciate the challenge you present to me in that regard. So *sigh* let the debate continue:



Children and individuals grow up not only in families but also in communities of people, schools of their peers, and larger interconnected networks and societies. I don't think that children should be indoctrinated in dogmatic beliefs and styles of thinking by their parents. Instead, parents should encourage and empower their children to think independently and embrace the subjectivity and complexity of the world. Granted, this does not happen when a child is two, three, six, or even eleven. I think that from a developmental perspective, kids start to be capable of critical thinking and independent analysis around the teenage years--high school in particular in our western societies.

For parents to indoctrinate their children to be merely good followers of traditions, whether familial or societal, is in my opinion, a great disservice--not only to the individual child but to society as a whole. By not allowing a child to grow into their fullest expression and truth, by not allowing them to flower as an individual, instead pruning their individuality to fit the social mold, the flux of life is stunted. Some people may value society over the individual and say that individual suffering is necessary for the healthy functioning of the society. This may have been true at one point in time; now however, I do not think that we should be sacrificing individual genius for the status quo.

As far as Native American/Indian cultures, I think that historically we have projected our Western values onto these people and greatly misunderstood how they lived, worked, and played within the world. I also believe that the claims you, juantoo3, have made about the 'maternalistic' cultures being militaristic are quite outlandish and unfounded, and most likely gotten from sources viewing Indian tribal culture through Occidental lenses.

My thoughts...
Pathless

[flowperson]

Here's a little something from today's NYTimes that seems to apply. Nasty stuff !

flow...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/he...pagewanted=all

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Here's a little something from today's NYTimes that seems to apply. Nasty stuff !

flow...

OH MY GOODNESS

So the idea now is that 'you can only research a subject if you agree with us'. Good news for religions then. This is my fear, that western societies are becoming so bogged down in political correctness that your career can be ruined if you disagree with a minority group.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Pathless!

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I want to be certain my response is received in the spirit in which it is sent; that of brotherly love, compassion and friendly concern.

Originally Posted by Pathless

Well, juantoo3, that is certainly one way to choose to look at the issue. I choose to see it differently, in a way that is more aligned to my personal values. Yes, you could call it political. Everything everyone does is in that sense political. Yes, you may assume I have an agenda. Don't we all? And we will all pick and choose the evidence that best supports our personal values.

Rather than engage in endless debate, I suppose I'd rather energize myself by connecting with individuals who share similar values as myself. I don't consider myself close-minded for doing so; rather, I know what I value and because I feel it is valuable I advocate for it. I am certainly not a disinterested intellectual in most regards. I'm passionate about what I value. One of the things that I value very highly is an individual's ability to think for her- or himself, after taking in and reviewing different viewpoints--critical thinking. And I appreciate the challenge you present to me in that regard. So *sigh* let the debate continue:

You are obviously an intelligent person. Do you happen to notice where you contradict yourself? Had your opponent (a hard-line right–winger, for instance) said anything similar, would you not pounce on the discrepancy? Picking and choosing evidence is *not* critical thinking…it is the antithesis of critical thinking. Holding an agenda and aligning with likeminded persons is *not* being open-minded, it is the antithesis of open-mindedness. It is well to be passionate about the things you value, but it is also well to place such things where they belong rather than where we desire them to be.

I am a seeker of truth. I have a driving desire to see things as they are, or rather to see things as they are *naturally* intended to be. This is how I choose to observe the Divine.

I am a critical thinker, I look at *all* sides, not just those that openly agree with my prejudices and preconceptions. I form my values around what I see, rather than forming what I see around my values. I see both the beauty and the bestial in humanity and all of nature, rather than limiting my vision to those things that serve my selective appetite. There are two caveats that come to mind here: “if everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you jump too?” and “more is not necessarily better” (in other words, “average is not necessarily normal”). Even the terms “beauty” and “bestial” are relative and dependent on the eye of the beholder…nature itself simply *is*.

Originally Posted by Pathless

I am certainly not a disinterested intellectual in most regards.

This is wonderful to hear! Neither am I a disinterested intellectual in most regards. I have learned to set my personal interests aside long enough to entertain other visions and other viewpoints. In the end, one still must weigh each view against the others, the pros and the cons, and find the philosophical balance by which to guide one’s life. The difference being that truly critically thinking people are willing to entertain notions and concepts that range far and wide beyond their personal political interests and agendas, before (during and after) forming a guiding opinion.

Originally Posted by Pathless

Children and individuals grow up not only in families but also in communities of people, schools of their peers, and larger interconnected networks and societies.

I agree, but this evades the point. The child’s *very first* formulations are those of its mother. There is both a genetic and an epigenetic basis to this; it is somewhat “hard-wired” in this regard. One might even infer Jung’s Collective Consciousness. It is from this initial formulation that all other views are seen in the middle stages of development, until the child sees enough to formulate their own view.

Originally Posted by Pathless

I don't think that children should be indoctrinated in dogmatic beliefs and styles of thinking by their parents.

You are free to feel this way, but it evades the reality. One person is not responsible for every child born; therefore one opinion in this matter is irrelevant. I wonder if you have a child(ren), and if you would surrender your child’s initial upbringing to anyone else? It is a bit much to ask of any parent.

Of course, the alternative that closely resembles what you suggest is like that written of by Aldous Huxley in “Brave New World” wherein the government takes on the role of parent for all children…a very scary thought. It is a thought that makes Big Brother of Orwell’s “1984” pale in comparison. Individuality is erased for the benefit of the collective.

Originally Posted by Pathless

Instead, parents should encourage and empower their children to think independently and embrace the subjectivity and complexity of the world.

There are, more and more, (western, educated) parents that do this very thing. Not to say parents elsewhere do not, but a parent will be limited by what they understand of the world. A Pacific Island Native isn’t going to teach their child about the ways of modern free market economics….not because of prejudice per se, but out of legitimate ignorance. One cannot teach about what one is not aware of. No less a parent anywhere…without cultural understanding of how various societies in the world function, one cannot share these matters with one’s child. Instead, we are taught what our parents (often still relatively young and naïve themselves) believe through what limited views they hold.

Originally Posted by Pathless

Granted, this does not happen when a child is two, three, six, or even eleven. I think that from a developmental perspective, kids start to be capable of critical thinking and independent analysis around the teenage years--high school in particular in our western societies.

Teenagers start to be capable of critical thought? Perhaps. Yet, as I recall, it was during my teenage years that I was most entrenched in my prejudices and superstitions, and critical thought to me at that age was how well I could criticize and deride those I disagreed with. Bootcamp changed a lot of that.

Perhaps it is more important to teach a child *how* to think (for themselves), rather than what to think. It is a subtle and nuanced difference to be certain, but this would dispense with your position as well as those you seem to most disagree with.

Originally Posted by Pathless

For parents to indoctrinate their children to be merely good followers of traditions, whether familial or societal, is in my opinion, a great disservice--not only to the individual child but to society as a whole. By not allowing a child to grow into their fullest expression and truth, by not allowing them to flower as an individual, instead pruning their individuality to fit the social mold, the flux of life is stunted.

I do not see how social indoctrination is a disservice. The key ingredient as I see things now is morality, without which society is impossible. Without society, civilization is impossible. Take away social indoctrination, take away morality and there is no foundation for civilization.

Originally Posted by Pathless

Some people may value society over the individual and say that individual suffering is necessary for the healthy functioning of the society. This may have been true at one point in time; now however, I do not think that we should be sacrificing individual genius for the status quo.

True genius will shine regardless of socio-cultural model. Besides, genius seems to be about as common as genuine hermaphrodites. We end up with a quandary…greater good for the most people, or defend the rights of the minorities? Both positions have a role to play in social development, neither should have free reign. Without “greater good,” no public works projects could be accomplished. Without “minority rights” no social spiritual growth can be attained. Without the society, the individual is rendered effectively powerless. Let’s say I am a healer, you are a plumber, and she is a seamstress. I need a plumber to do my plumbing, you need a tailor to make your clothes, and she needs a physician to retain her health. We need each other. None of us, no matter how well intentioned or how well educated, can do everything. So yes, a collection of individuals doing their own thing is counter-productive to the thriving of our social species. Evolution has shown how much better we can thrive as social apes when we cooperate in some form or type of communal setting; i.e. society. (redundant as that may sound…)

Originally Posted by Pathless

As far as Native American/Indian cultures, I think that historically we have projected our Western values onto these people and greatly misunderstood how they lived, worked, and played within the world. I also believe that the claims you, juantoo3, have made about the 'maternalistic' cultures being militaristic are quite outlandish and unfounded, and most likely gotten from sources viewing Indian tribal culture through Occidental lenses.

It is true my mind is trained in the Occidental, Greek, Logical (critical thinking) tradition. And with that tradition of logic I see what is commonly misconstrued when considering what are typically called maternalist cultures. I wasn’t able the last time around to better develop my thoughts, so I will attempt to do so here…even though I already have in the past. In our modern “paternalist” society, war is occasional but fierce, distant (with modern weaponry), severe, and political. In a modern social setting there is even a stigma attached to being a soldier, one runs the risk of being called “baby killer” or getting spat upon by those very people enjoying the life one has chosen to bodily defend (how’s that for gratitude?).

By contrast (using logic as well as open eyes), in maternal societies there is a very strong warrior tradition. *Real* men in maternal societies are warriors, 24 / 7 / 365; not intermittently, not for political reasons. War is not as severe or distant; it is hand to hand, look your enemy in the eye and take his scalp…or at least touch him with your coup stick, which confers “great medicine.” War is not about politics, religion, or raw material resources; war is about economic resources such as wives and horses. More importantly, war is about personal honor. What’s more, the tribe encourages this as a culture and a society. This is true across Native American tribes as well as Celtic tribes (Queen Bodicea), and likely similar with variations among tribal cultures everywhere on Earth.

In short, paternalist culture = part time militarist attitude among some of the population

Maternalist culture = full time militarist attitude, of a mildly different form, among effectively the whole tribe

With due respect, any who see this differently are looking through tinted shades likely to support an agenda, rather than trying to see things as they really are. The warrior tradition is still alive and well throughout tribal cultures around the globe, even if it might be conveniently ignored while painting pictures of fuzzy bunnies in fields of posies and dancing naked in manicured forests in the light of the moon.

Paul Simon said it so well, “a man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest.” I might disregard something, but usually only after at least looking at it and considering. My agenda is truth: unadulterated, unfiltered, unrefined, apolitical truth. Some things are difficult to look at, but in truth are impossible to ignore.

BTW, my sincere apologies for the long delay in my responses. I recently moved, and in the process my home computer has died. This is being composed at work in between doing what I am getting paid to do. As a result, it has taken me two days to put this together, on top of not having any real access during the week. I appreciate this discussion, please forgive my tardiness in responding.

[Pathless]

Hi Juantoo. Thanks for the response, the delay is no problem. I think we need to agree to disagree, and then let it go, if possible.

Here are some comments to your responses. Since you kindly took the time to respond, I will do the same.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I am a seeker of truth. I have a driving desire to see things as they are, or rather to see things as they are *naturally* intended to be. This is how I choose to observe the Divine.

...Neither am I a disinterested intellectual in most regards. I have learned to set my personal interests aside long enough to entertain other visions and other viewpoints. In the end, one still must weigh each view against the others, the pros and the cons, and find the philosophical balance by which to guide one’s life. The difference being that truly critically thinking people are willing to entertain notions and concepts that range far and wide beyond their personal political interests and agendas, before (during and after) forming a guiding opinion.

I think critical thinking is a great tool. I believe I have said as much already. Critical thinking and logic are not necessarily the same. Feelings are important indications of truth, I believe. Perhaps truth is ultimately subjective after all... in my personal experience, when I disregard my emotions and feelings in favor of logical analysis, I am not a happy, well-functioning person. This is what I was referring to when I stated that I am not a disinterested academic intellectual type. For me, emotion is a key ingredient to critical thinking, probably moreso than logic. Logic is a tool, and a tricky one. It can be used, especially with some clever thought, to justify just about anything. I don't find it a good basis for morality.

You are free to feel this way, but it evades the reality. One person is not responsible for every child born; therefore one opinion in this matter is irrelevant. I wonder if you have a child(ren), and if you would surrender your child’s initial upbringing to anyone else? It is a bit much to ask of any parent.

Of course I wouldn't surrender the upbringing of my child (after he or she is born--none yet ) to a stranger. You must have misunderstood me. All I said was that children are influenced by everyone they come into contact with, not simply their mother or even both parents.

Of course, the alternative that closely resembles what you suggest is like that written of by Aldous Huxley in “Brave New World” wherein the government takes on the role of parent for all children…a very scary thought. It is a thought that makes Big Brother of Orwell’s “1984” pale in comparison. Individuality is erased for the benefit of the collective.

No. You definitely have misunderstood me. I would never advocate for any kind of tyranny like this.

Teenagers start to be capable of critical thought? Perhaps. Yet, as I recall, it was during my teenage years that I was most entrenched in my prejudices and superstitions, and critical thought to me at that age was how well I could criticize and deride those I disagreed with. Bootcamp changed a lot of that.

I guess we all develop differently, and our perceptions are colored by our experiences. We assume that others are like us, when they are not. Since I began critically thinking about issues that concerned me in high school, I take it for granted that everyone has this potential or opportunity. This may not be the case, and certainly even if they do, not everyone takes the opportunity to develop critical thinking. I do believe that, developmentally, the potential is there.

Perhaps it is more important to teach a child *how* to think (for themselves), rather than what to think.

Absolutely.

It is a subtle and nuanced difference to be certain, but this would dispense with your position as well as those you seem to most disagree with.

I wonder what you think my position is, and if I dogmatically cling to it? You may again assume too much. We are merely having a discussion in these forums. I am presenting ideas about gender and asking for others' opinions, perceptions, and perspectives. Of course I have my opinions, I have feelings about them, and I try to present those feelings and opinions to others--but I don't believe that I will always feel exactly as I do in the present moment, which you seem to assume that I do.

I do not see how social indoctrination is a disservice. The key ingredient as I see things now is morality, without which society is impossible. Without society, civilization is impossible. Take away social indoctrination, take away morality and there is no foundation for civilization.

I disagree with this. Any kind of indoctrination closes a developing mind. That is a disservice to the individual and the collective consciousness.

True genius will shine regardless of socio-cultural model. Besides, genius seems to be about as common as genuine hermaphrodites...

My bizzarre confidence in the divinity of humanity gives me the idea that each of us is a genius, but few ever get to fulfill their potential as such. If you ask me, this is because of indoctrination and inflexible ways of thinking. Entrenched ideas about gender, sexual morality, and the necessity of conformity are examples of this inflexible way of thinking.

My apologies, Juantoo. I may or may not respond to the rest of your post. Part of me would like to do a point-by-point response like you did, but these days such things don't bring me much happiness or stimulation. I don't really see the point of it, because I know that I am not going to change your mind, nor do I really want to. What I do want is some peace, and the ability to express my beliefs, just like anyone else.

Perhaps we can continue this discussion in a spirit of brotherly love and compassion, although I don't suppose there is much reason for either of us to really be concerned with the others well being. I know that you are on the right path for you, and me for me. That's about all I need to know.

Peace,
P

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Here's a little something from today's NYTimes that seems to apply. Nasty stuff !

flow...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/he...pagewanted=all

Seems men can make bad bitches

[Pathless]

Here is a useful link that relates to the OP and the topic of berdaches in Native American/Indian cultures.

[flowperson]

Thanks for the link Pathless...very informative. I wonder how far back this two-spirit-human-as-shaman thingy goes. You know that Native American shamanism originated, most likely, with the indigenous tribes of Central Asia 20-30,000 years ago . Have you run across any tidbits that lead us back that far ? I haven't noticed any in my readings, but it would make sense to me. I only know that many world-wide traditional cultures held that the greatest spirit in the most ancient time was that of the androgyne.

flow....

[wil]

Reading thru the two spirit native american information what I read was all related to male in female roles...

Was it then as it is today? Lesbians or women in relationships more acceptable than men in relationships with men?

I may be making an assumption, but by what I read and perceive when it comes to homosexuality it really doesn't matter which of the heterosexual gender you speak there is a larger acceptance of women 'breaking the rules' than men.

And if you just look at history we'll accept the Joan of Arc's and Annie Oaklies more readily than... You see I can't even name a male figure of the past that was notoriously acting in a female role. Many that are discussed today as homosexual DaVinci, Lincoln, Shakespeare....many outright deny and are appalled you would say such a thing....

So maybe there is somewhere in those links speaking of female shamans, war leaders, chiefs, etc...but I missed it.

[Snoopy]

I voted Rainbow Alliance

(note the Alliance!)


s.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by wil

Reading thru the two spirit native american information what I read was all related to male in female roles...

Was it then as it is today? Lesbians or women in relationships more acceptable than men in relationships with men?

I may be making an assumption, but by what I read and perceive when it comes to homosexuality it really doesn't matter which of the heterosexual gender you speak there is a larger acceptance of women 'breaking the rules' than men.

And if you just look at history we'll accept the Joan of Arc's and Annie Oaklies more readily than... You see I can't even name a male figure of the past that was notoriously acting in a female role. Many that are discussed today as homosexual DaVinci, Lincoln, Shakespeare....many outright deny and are appalled you would say such a thing....

So maybe there is somewhere in those links speaking of female shamans, war leaders, chiefs, etc...but I missed it.

The book I am reading on this subject, The Spirit and the Flesh, focuses on the berdache, and defines this term as "males who manifest some degree of effeminate behavior." (p. 142). I was a bit surprised myself to read that the researcher has concluded that most of these berdaches were homosexual, and that a heterosexual berdache would be rare if not an outright contradiction.

Interestingly, the author, Walter L Williams, quotes ethnographer C. Daryll Forde as reporting: "Casual secret homosexuality among both women and men is well known. The latter is probably more common. This is not considered objectionable." (p. 92)

Also in this book, there is a chapter entitled Amazons of America: Female Gender Variance, which I am looking forward to reading. Since the book mostly focuses on the berdache role, and since that role is a "male-female" gender attributed to biological males, I don't have much information currently about gender variance among biological females in these cultures, although I have come across mentions of female hunters and shamans. Also, according to this source, the general attitude held by Indians towards gender variance is one of "God made them that way, so we respect that." The attitude towards homosexuality is also quite open, and male-male sexual relations are reported by Williams as quite common and normalized in many tribes.

Thanks,
P.

• A short excerpt from The Spirit and the Flesh
• And here's another book that looks interesting, which focuses on both womanly men and manly women: Men as Women, Women as Men
• This is a