Tuesday, July 14, 2009

"Swedish parents keep 2-year-old's gender secret"

This is interesting:
We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”
And it's not cruel to bring a child into the world with a purple stamp on their forehead?
the parents were quoted saying their decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction.
And androgyny isn't a social construction?
"I believe that the self-confidence and personality that Pop has shaped will remain for a lifetime," said Pop's mother.
You bet it will.

If gender is a social construction and not a biological one, why would it be necessary to "keep it a secret"? What is there to be kept secret?

12 comments:

  1. " If gender is a social construction and not a biological one, why would it be necessary to "keep it a secret"? What is there to be kept secret?"

    Gender roles are "socially constructed" in the sense that society arbitrarily assigns a certain social role on the basis of differences in biological sex. Thus, keeping Pop's biological sex a secret will keep society from imposing one role over the other, enabling Pop to avoid the shackles of society. E.g.,

    "Male aggressiveness"
    and my favorite,
    "PMS"

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can't tell whether to take you seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  3. the distinction between "biological sex" and "man made societal roles based arbitrarily on biological sex" is a coherent one. Thus, on the supposition that gender roles are social constructs in some cases, keeping the biological sex "a secret" would mitigate the effects of such conditioning.

    I don't agree that gender roles are purely social constructs (in the very strong sense that they're entirely arbitrary). But, if some gender roles are such, I can see the use in keeping Pop's biological sex a secret.

    On a side note, I've personally argued with a feminist who adamantly insisted that there is no physiological basis qua the female biological makeup for PMS. She said that "white 'men'" invented the condition so that our patriarchal society can cast doubt on women's ability to be responsible in important social positions (e.g., holding a public office). She also claimed that a lot of woman, in a subtle act of self-depreciation, unwittingly use the "PMS" excuse, perpetuating sexism.

    I thought she was nuts (her boyfriend did too). This isn't to say I think that PMS is a reason to questions women's ability to be responsible. I think it's a unfortunate fact of life, and "males" typically have their own issues that cloud their reason as well. But, not to use Pop as a means to an end, if Pop is biologically female, and "she" grows up to suffer no PMS symptoms, such a crazy hypothesis might be corroborated. I'm interested to see what happens!

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sub-side point. See here for the case of the PMSing fish!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't think our views are far from each other concerning sex and gender.

    I guess the issue I take with Pop's parents' approach is that they are still constructing a gender for Pop. It's just an androgynous one instead of a masculine or feminine one. You can't transcend these categories altogether. Notice how they gave Pop male and female clothes, as well as male and female toys. They weren't able to give Pop non-gender-associated clothes and toys.

    Why are these sets of clothes and toys associated with each gender? Because of societal constructions. But if society has or were to have androgynous children's apparel, what makes Pop's parents think that such apparel wouldn't be androgynous on account of societal constructs, or that such apparel transcends gender altogether?

    It's also not clear that, though societies may construct gender roles and expectations on top of biological sex, that there aren't basic, natural, or God-given gender roles and expectations that supervene on biological sex.

    It's also apparent that, while I conflated gender and sex in my post, so did Pop's parents. They talk of keeping Pop's gender a secret (not of keeping Pop's sex a secret). I am just meeting them where they're at.

    ReplyDelete
  7. “I don't think our views are far from each other concerning sex and gender.”

    Me neither.

    “I guess the issue I take with Pop's parents' approach is that they are still constructing a gender for Pop. It's just an androgynous one instead of a masculine or feminine one. You can't transcend these categories altogether.”

    Hmmm.

    Let F = that which, by convention, is considered “feminine” or “proper for females.”

    Let M = that which, by convention, is considered “masculine” or “proper for males.”

    Let B = that which is male by biological sex.

    Let G = that which is female by biological sex.

    What’s novel about their approach is that they’re refusing to follow conventions that say “match G’s with F type toys and things and match B’s with M type toys and things” and instead saying “whether Pop is B or G, we will give Pop M and F types things.” In one sense, this certainly is not transcending anything, since they’re still using M’s and F’s. But this lack of transcending in this sense is trivial, since Pop’s parents will probably say that what goes for M type things, as opposed to F type things, is completely arbitrary. So insofar as they are using, by convention, M and F type things, they’re refusing to see such things as “M” and “F”, in the substantive sense, at all.


    “Notice how they gave Pop male and female clothes, as well as male and female toys. They weren't able to give Pop non-gender-associated clothes and toys.

Why are these sets of clothes and toys associated with each gender? Because of societal constructions. But if society has or were to have androgynous children's apparel, what makes Pop's parents think that such apparel wouldn't be androgynous on account of societal constructs, or that such apparel transcends gender altogether?”

    Again, to make their position coherent at all, they would have to say the following. Our society, by convention, matches B’s with M things, and G’s with F things. Because of this, when some B or G has a mixture of M and F things, we say that B or G are androgynous. But since what counts as androgynous depends upon the rule following of matching G’s with F things and B’s with M things, if we stopped following these mores, ‘androgyny’ would be meaningless. So, surely Pop, by conventional standards, is ‘androgynous’, but what goes for androgynous in the first place is entirely arbitrary—viz., there is nothing that is “androgynous”, F-like, nor M-like, simpliciter.

    “It's also not clear that, though societies may construct gender roles and expectations on top of biological sex, that there aren't basic, natural, or God-given gender roles and expectations that supervene on biological sex.”

    Hmm. I think this is right. Though, I don’t know what gender roles are basic. That is, I’d be hard pressed to come up with what roles are wholly (naturally) appropriate to B’s as opposed to G’s. Perhaps what counts as “being motherly” seems naturally appropriate to G’s.

    
”It's also apparent that, while I conflated gender and sex in my post, so did Pop's parents. They talk of keeping Pop's gender a secret (not of keeping Pop's sex a secret). I am just meeting them where they're at.”

    Fair enough. I’m just trying to keep them from being an easy target.

    Aside: I think there is an actual property called “femininity”, and its compliment, “masculinity”. I’m agnostic as to what roles or functions supervene on each (except maybe a few). As to what characterizes each, in terms of things like “graceful” or “aggressive” or “soft”, etc., I don’t think there is any. That is, I think “femininity” and “masculinity” are primitive. They cannot be defined.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think you make some good points and you've made me think in new ways about this. I still think our actual views on sex and gender are largely congruent. It seems like our main difference has to do with whether Pop's parental paradigm is a good one or not.

    "What’s novel about their approach is that they’re refusing to follow conventions".

    I'm not denying the novelty of it. And to be fair, I admit that there may be occasion for refusing to follow certain GF and BM conventions.

    I'm denying that it has been well established as a good child-rearing paradigm. Do you disagree?

    "I think there is an actual property called “femininity”, and its compliment, “masculinity”."

    "Though, I don’t know what gender roles are basic."

    Right; me too. But I don't think Pop's parents, as represented in the article, have established that culturally constructed gender roles (those above and beyond whatever natural notions of masculinity, femininity, and gender roles exist) are harmful or that it isn't more harmful to flout them.

    If M's don't necessarily go with B's or with G's, then what's the harm in B's playing with and dressing in M's? Isn't intentionally mixing M's and F's to attempt to achieve androgyny implicitly agreeing that their is natural masculinity in M's and natural femininity in F's?

    "I’m just trying to keep them from being an easy target."

    I can see that and I wonder why? They haven't presented any compelling case in support of their philosophy (that's been reported by the press and that I know of), yet they seem to have no problem accepting all the attention and propagating their paradigm. I think that in doing so they thereby submit their view to critique by the public. This is me critiquing them. And I still doubt your defense of them is sincere. Seems like you're just using this as occasion to opine on sex and gender (about which I don't think you and I significantly disagree).

    Will you raise your children this way?

    ReplyDelete
  9. “I think you make some good points and you've made me think in new ways about this. I still think our actual views on sex and gender are largely congruent.”

    Me too.


    “It seems like our main difference has to do with whether Pop's parental paradigm is a good one or not.”

    “I'm denying that it has been well established as a good child-rearing paradigm.”

    I agree with you. I think Pop’s parents, pending a robust and definitive defense, ought to be construed as a type of child abuse.

    “But I don't think Pop's parents, as represented in the article, have established that culturally constructed gender roles (those above and beyond whatever natural notions of masculinity, femininity, and gender roles exist) are harmful or that it isn't more harmful to flout them.”

    Agreed.

    
”If M's don't necessarily go with B's or with G's, then what's the harm in B's playing with and dressing in M's?”

    Good point.

    “Isn't intentionally mixing M's and F's to attempt to achieve androgyny implicitly agreeing that their is natural masculinity in M's and natural femininity in F's?”

    No. Not if they think M and F are purely anatural.

    
"I’m just trying to keep them from being an easy target."

I can see that and I wonder why?”
    Because if I’ve found it really hard to defend traditional views in convincing ways to the feminists I’ve met. I wanted you to partake in the suffering.

    “They haven't presented any compelling case in support of their philosophy (that's been reported by the press and that I know of), yet they seem to have no problem accepting all the attention and propagating their paradigm. I think that in doing so they thereby submit their view to critique by the public. This is me critiquing them.”

    Agreed!

    “And I still doubt your defense of them is sincere.”

    Hahaha.

    Will you raise your children this way?

    Hell the F no. If I do, I give you permission to shoot me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Someone needs to sick the feminists on this guy.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.