temple prostitution
- Thread starter tleilaxu
- Start date
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
mmmm, performativity.....
Sounds cool to me, though I do think there is room for very general discussions of Aristotle/Shakespeare and Homer/Dante. What are you working on in Berkeley's grad program, if you don't mind my asking? I wish you luck in leaving your hated critics behind, several of my rhetoric books will be ashes when I pass my comps.
Any I had two realizations: firstly, the gender sex distinction is a bit broader than I previosly implied. The reading I posted is the reading I'm most familiar with, but I realized that I have also seen gender, or terms that could be translated into gender today, used to distinguish between sex as an embodied characteristic and the behaviors of sexes as abstracted, generalized, or inherent through some means other than the biological concepts. So basically anytime you want to talk about men being men or women being women without being constrained to the strictly biological you could use gender. Ugh, horrible memories of 18th century behavior primers and arguments with people over the 'essential' differences between men and women.
The other is that threads like this are really what make ENWorld worthwhile for me. I just finished reading my digest from a listserve in which a fairly heavy topic came up and immediately dissolved into a shouting match between proponents of 'relativism' and 'they're evil!'
Not to say that that sort of thing doesn't occasionally happen here and that I haven't occasionally contributed, but at least threads like this with a variety of constrained well formed arguments over an unusual and fairly heavy topic have a better than average chance of actually getting off the ground and being cool.
Wayside said:
Sounds cool to me, though I do think there is room for very general discussions of Aristotle/Shakespeare and Homer/Dante. What are you working on in Berkeley's grad program, if you don't mind my asking? I wish you luck in leaving your hated critics behind, several of my rhetoric books will be ashes when I pass my comps.
Any I had two realizations: firstly, the gender sex distinction is a bit broader than I previosly implied. The reading I posted is the reading I'm most familiar with, but I realized that I have also seen gender, or terms that could be translated into gender today, used to distinguish between sex as an embodied characteristic and the behaviors of sexes as abstracted, generalized, or inherent through some means other than the biological concepts. So basically anytime you want to talk about men being men or women being women without being constrained to the strictly biological you could use gender. Ugh, horrible memories of 18th century behavior primers and arguments with people over the 'essential' differences between men and women.
The other is that threads like this are really what make ENWorld worthwhile for me. I just finished reading my digest from a listserve in which a fairly heavy topic came up and immediately dissolved into a shouting match between proponents of 'relativism' and 'they're evil!'
Not to say that that sort of thing doesn't occasionally happen here and that I haven't occasionally contributed, but at least threads like this with a variety of constrained well formed arguments over an unusual and fairly heavy topic have a better than average chance of actually getting off the ground and being cool.
Last edited:
again quickly
As I am weding through this I think a few other things need clarification.
Sex is a strictly biological term. It refernces genitalia, hormone frequency, breast function, body size, etc. It is determined gentically. Male and Female are the predominant sexual types. However, there are intermediary sexes that are not commonly found though not so a rare as to be statistically unobservable.
Gender is a cultural construction of an identity and the roles that identity has etc. It is greatly variable. In america there are two generally recognized genders - male/female (though this is changing) - whereas other cultures have numerous geders ( iread one has 13 but can not find nor remember the reference at the moment)
davis
As I am weding through this I think a few other things need clarification.
Sex is a strictly biological term. It refernces genitalia, hormone frequency, breast function, body size, etc. It is determined gentically. Male and Female are the predominant sexual types. However, there are intermediary sexes that are not commonly found though not so a rare as to be statistically unobservable.
Gender is a cultural construction of an identity and the roles that identity has etc. It is greatly variable. In america there are two generally recognized genders - male/female (though this is changing) - whereas other cultures have numerous geders ( iread one has 13 but can not find nor remember the reference at the moment)
davis
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
Re: again quickly
I've heard some not totally unconvincing arguments that there are seperate genders in America for married men and women then there are for single and marriegable men and women. Or at least that there once were.
Inzae said:
I've heard some not totally unconvincing arguments that there are seperate genders in America for married men and women then there are for single and marriegable men and women. Or at least that there once were.
Re: mmmm, performativity.....
Sure, generally. I mean Roman Theater descended from Greek and, while Dante never read Homer, Vergil did and Vergil was Dante's model so.. but I mean reading Hamlet in terms of the Poetics, things like that.
I wasn't actually in the grad program, I was just a motivated undergrad (motivated by boredom
). After my freshman year I started taking grad classes in the English/Comp Lit. departments, so aside from all that pre req. hooey they shove down our throats I actually got some quality thinking done. Assuming I apply to grad school my focus gravitates toward pretty rigorous philosophical approaches to aethetics and art theory (poetry mostly), which means basically everything from theory of meaning to, unfortunately (sort of, it has its good points) gender theory. I am easily seduced by good writers though, so I've always preferred people like F. H. Bradley, Santayana and Merleau-Ponty over the big names.
It's funny how words come to be and then come to be used. 'Heterosexual' is not as old as 'homosexual' and seems to have appeared solely as a counter. Before the latter concept came into question there was no need for a word to describe the former at all. Pretty hillarious if you ask me.
Seriously. I think the people here are (mostly) secure enough not to mind varying opinions, and even come on the boards to expose themselves to these things, which is great. And when some little snaffu's do come up, like Snoweel and Dragongirl's here, they tend to be resolved pretty amicably in short order. Good stuff.
Dr. Strangemonkey said:
Sure, generally. I mean Roman Theater descended from Greek and, while Dante never read Homer, Vergil did and Vergil was Dante's model so.. but I mean reading Hamlet in terms of the Poetics, things like that.
I wasn't actually in the grad program, I was just a motivated undergrad (motivated by boredom
). After my freshman year I started taking grad classes in the English/Comp Lit. departments, so aside from all that pre req. hooey they shove down our throats I actually got some quality thinking done. Assuming I apply to grad school my focus gravitates toward pretty rigorous philosophical approaches to aethetics and art theory (poetry mostly), which means basically everything from theory of meaning to, unfortunately (sort of, it has its good points) gender theory. I am easily seduced by good writers though, so I've always preferred people like F. H. Bradley, Santayana and Merleau-Ponty over the big names.It's funny how words come to be and then come to be used. 'Heterosexual' is not as old as 'homosexual' and seems to have appeared solely as a counter. Before the latter concept came into question there was no need for a word to describe the former at all. Pretty hillarious if you ask me.
Seriously. I think the people here are (mostly) secure enough not to mind varying opinions, and even come on the boards to expose themselves to these things, which is great. And when some little snaffu's do come up, like Snoweel and Dragongirl's here, they tend to be resolved pretty amicably in short order. Good stuff.
yes
I have read the something similar to that (it has really been a long time since I have muddled through these issues). It becomes somewhat difficult to dissect it .
But consider. Males, once they reach late teens, fall into two catagorie (not necessarily predominat, but categories nevertheless) bachelor and husband (B first) . What is expected of a B. is much different that what is expected of a husband. These are two different roles all together. Most importantly in staus change and responsibilities/expectations. So they can be considered gender disfferences (that is the arg that comes to mind though I think I am forgetting something very important here)
Same goes for women.
But I think the designation male/female overrides that of husband/wife - though this is ebateable.
Also, the up and coming gender distinction in the US are Homosexual and Lesbian. As the activities/beliefs etc are becoming more recognized and accepted, they are increasingly being considered seperate gender categories.
All this is manipulated too. Consider this. About the late 1870s it was decided that males, at birth, who had a penis length of less than 1 inch, were not considered viable males. The penis was removed. This activity was not widespread until the 1950s when it became a dominant activity in birthing stations around the US. It is still practised today. The children, considered sexual anamolies, are then labelled as females.
davis
I have read the something similar to that (it has really been a long time since I have muddled through these issues). It becomes somewhat difficult to dissect it .
But consider. Males, once they reach late teens, fall into two catagorie (not necessarily predominat, but categories nevertheless) bachelor and husband (B first) . What is expected of a B. is much different that what is expected of a husband. These are two different roles all together. Most importantly in staus change and responsibilities/expectations. So they can be considered gender disfferences (that is the arg that comes to mind though I think I am forgetting something very important here)
Same goes for women.
But I think the designation male/female overrides that of husband/wife - though this is ebateable.
Also, the up and coming gender distinction in the US are Homosexual and Lesbian. As the activities/beliefs etc are becoming more recognized and accepted, they are increasingly being considered seperate gender categories.
All this is manipulated too. Consider this. About the late 1870s it was decided that males, at birth, who had a penis length of less than 1 inch, were not considered viable males. The penis was removed. This activity was not widespread until the 1950s when it became a dominant activity in birthing stations around the US. It is still practised today. The children, considered sexual anamolies, are then labelled as females.
davis
Last edited:
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
I don't know much about the specific practices of sex 'fixing' in the US, but they are there, more common than anyone would like to believe, and there have been some 'unusual' results. This could easily be a friend of friend thing, but I knew someone who did childcare for a baby that had not been 'fixed' but evidently needed to be. There was a series of autobiographical books by a man who had been fixed as a girl, later went for a sex change operation, and became very upset about having to go through childhood as a girl in the first place.
Can't for the life of me remember the titles.
I like Merleau-Ponty. My undergrad university, the University of Dallas, had a strong phenomenology component in both the philosophy and psychology departments. Psych really pushed this existential-phenomenological approach which involved reading a fair amount of Merleau-Ponty, not really my thing, but the papers were great to read. The philosophy department was also strong on medieval and classical so I got lectured on nice connections between Merleau-Ponty and Augustine and Aquinas. Generally involved lots of graphs.
Good job scamming yer way into the grad classes. Had a friend of a friend who went to Berkeley as an undergrad and just got lost in the masses. There was much sadness.
Can't for the life of me remember the titles.
I like Merleau-Ponty. My undergrad university, the University of Dallas, had a strong phenomenology component in both the philosophy and psychology departments. Psych really pushed this existential-phenomenological approach which involved reading a fair amount of Merleau-Ponty, not really my thing, but the papers were great to read. The philosophy department was also strong on medieval and classical so I got lectured on nice connections between Merleau-Ponty and Augustine and Aquinas. Generally involved lots of graphs.
Good job scamming yer way into the grad classes. Had a friend of a friend who went to Berkeley as an undergrad and just got lost in the masses. There was much sadness.
Similar Threads
