Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dr. Strangemonkey" data-source="post: 653579" data-attributes="member: 6533">mmmm, performativity.....Sounds cool to me, though I do think there is room for very general discussions of Aristotle/Shakespeare and Homer/Dante.&nbsp; What are you working on in Berkeley's grad program, if you don't mind my asking?&nbsp; 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:&nbsp; firstly, the gender sex distinction is a bit broader than I previosly implied.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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!'&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dr. Strangemonkey, post: 653579, member: 6533"] [b]mmmm, performativity.....[/b] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification