My retort to Ann Weatherall

I apologize in advance if the argument that will be outlined within this letter comes across as unprompted or undeserved but after attending your Psych 121 lecture on gender, I feel incensed to the point where I must express a profound disagreement. Of the various topics put forward in the lectures such as Gender identity, domestic violence towards women and the disadvantages of woman before and after the second wave of Feminism, not a single one left me not in disagreement or at least feeling that the whole story had not been told. It is for this reason that I am sending you this e-mail as I feel university lectures shouldn't amount to bias, brainwashing in favour of one subjective perspective. (In the second lecture, I felt that the other side was addressed more but still in a somewhat biased manner).

(Note that the section on Reimer and gender identity was written before the second lecture, in which Reimer was mentioned. I will add however, that if gender identities outside of male and female do exist, then this is sheer proof that gender is not merely socially constructed as these minorities often choose to defy the constructions given and behave in a manner more related to their own nature, I.e. as biological exceptions to the norm. I have also made some additions in response to the second lecture in your thoughts on the Reimer case and in regards to gender reassignment .)

Although throughout the entire lecture you seemed to stop just short of directly saying that gender was merely socially constructed, every example or opinion you put forward implied as much. A more objective presentation of the issue might have mentioned the case of David Reimer, whom you are probably familiar with. Regardless, to strengthen my argument for its own sake and for anyone else who sees this letter, I will briefly describe his life. Born a male, Reimer's genitals were destroyed at birth by accident. As a result, he was raised as a girl by the name of Brenda (Or Joan?, he's been referred to as both Joan and Brenda) unaware of the origins of his gender. As you will see in the link underneath this paragraph, “At age 2, Brenda angrily tore off her dresses. She refused to play with dolls and would beat up her brother and seize his toy cars and guns.” Brenda/David also repeatedly told his parents that he felt like a boy and by age 14 began to revert back to his original sex after his parents finally told him the truth. David later said of the revelation that "Suddenly it all made sense why I felt the way I did. I wasn't some sort of weirdo. I wasn't crazy." This case is proof in of itself, that gender cannot merely be treated as a social construct.

http://www.slate.com/id/2101678/

I will add here that Reimer's reassignment was the first to be attempted on a developmentally normal child. It is also important to mention that Money also ensured that Reimer received regular doses of estrogen. Needless to say he was obviously insecure in his own theory and that even if the case had been a success it would not have been proof of gender being a social construction, Whatever the result might be for hermaphrodites and in the Dominican case that you also mentioned, I do not find these to be credible examples for assessing whether gender is socially constructed for all humans or not, as these examples involve people who were not developmentally regular or in the case of willing transgenders, already inclined to an exception rather than a norm. For that reason, I think that applying Androgyny or attempting to stamp out common gender identity traits will result in a society of miserable David Reimers and the possible death of heterosexual attraction. In short, I would not want androgyny to be applied to heterosexual's because I'm not gay or bisexual for that matter.

Even if those cited in the Dominican case manage to achieve some quality of life living as the opposite sex, it does not mean they think or perceive the world exactly as the opposite sex would. Whilst there are many similarities in the male and female brain, science suggests that there are some essential and minor differences and it is believed that these a biological rather than cultural. One important difference according to Simon Baron-Cohen is that whilst men tend to analyse and construct, women tend to emphasize. Also, find me another species in which gender roles and differences can both be reduced to merely social constructs. In my opinion, its an insult to both men and women to reduce our differences to merely being products of a superstructure. Gender and sex may be two different things but one is very much dependent on the other rather than the two existing on separate plains altogether.

http://www.biorationalinstitute.com/shownews.php?nid=342

Of course, as you said in the lecture, some people identify with a certain gender regardless of what genitals they are born with but these people are truly a minority, not the majority. Furthermore, I not only believe that biological foundations for gender exist but that they are entirely necessary for the survival of mankind. Without separate characteristics to define males and females, how could heterosexual attraction persist? This also touches on an important element of Feminist hypocrisy, dismissing gender as nothing more than a social construct but vehemently defending homosexuals because “They were born that way.” It is probably true that some characteristics deemed attractive are the product of media, trends and social conditioning for example, straightened hair on females (Or males for that matter!) but heterosexual attraction persisted well before this type of social conditioning so not all characteristics needed for not just sex but mere attraction can be the result of a social construction. Hence, it is arguable that gender identities have at least some solid foundation in biology and that it is sheer folly to try and understand the issue from a merely social perspective.

In one of the links posted below this paragraph you will see the results of a study that examines the effect that dominant behaviour has on heterosexual attraction. Although one study found that gender had no role in how successful the dominant behaviour was, the general conclusion was that males who behaved dominantly were more attractive to females. One of the studies even reported that females found a male who behaved in a dominant way more attractive but not more likeable which suggests that this kind of attraction has its roots in biology rather than just a social plane. The second link is to an article that describe both physical traits and also occupations that males and females find attractive in each other. It is also worth mentioning that the cross-cultural elements of this study found that men all across the world look for similar traits in women, suggesting again that gender traits are more than just a mere stereotype.

Incidentally, Barnaby Dixon's human evolution and sexuality class at Vic did a similar study in regards to whether females found socially dominant males more attractive, which concluded with similar results.

http://land-of-angels.com/py1/sadalla-etal-1987.pdf

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1722

Note that everything I have raised above, has been done with the purpose of giving counter argument to what I saw as an incredibly one sided point of view on your behalf. I will not dwell much longer on this particular topic as I feel I have said what is necessary and want to shift the focus to other parts of your lecture but I will make a couple more points that I believe deserve some thought:

1.In regards to the baby experiment videoed in the lecture, this kind of colour coding clearly has its origins in common sense as much as anything else. Since most newborn babies tend to look pretty similar to each other, it makes perfect sense to associate the two genders with different colours so that they can be identified easily. A social and cultural construction though this might be, it has its root in common sense and anyone who isn't willing to adhere to it should be prepared to face the “Is it a boy or a girl?” question a lot more than those who are!

2. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong or demeaning about the role of a housewife. It is every bit as essential in a family as the role of a breadwinner. Should you trust someone you viewed as stupid, mentally unstable or with drug/alcohol addictions to raise the next generation? We have licenses for driving cars, surely some devotion and proper rearing is required when it comes to raising our children? There is a common delusion present in todays society that high earners are making inherent contributions to everyone elses lives, maybe that is the cause of feminist contempt towards the female homemaker?

3. I have noticed that this campus has a women's right officer, as do most in one form or another. Surely this should be replaced by a gender equality officer or something of the sort? I already know of one American campus, in which the women's rights officer can be connected to misandric views via a facebook page, surely this is a role that should address the needs and problems of men and women?

4.During the lecture I recall that you seemed to view today's world as being more “progressive” than that of the past. You are entitled to your opinion on this and I won't try and change it, nor will I write some big rant on the failures of progress but I will try and point out the vanity of this idea in the context of gender roles with two short questions:

A. Would you really expect that in a society like Ancient Egypt or feudal France for that matter, in which the economy is almost (if not entirely) devoted to the primary sector, that women would be just as expected to work? Of course not, men are far more biologically suited to this sort of work than women for reasons that should be obvious to a five year old.

B. How many women nowadays have the choice to be stay at home mums if they wanted to? If Feminism has won freedom and not duel wage slavery for most women then how come so many families cannot afford to have one parent stay at home?

C. In relation to point B, second wave Feminism was hugely intertwined with Marxism, take Simone De Beauvoir as a prime example. Now remember that in the Soviet Union, females were often encouraged to breed children that could be raised by the state for the good of the state. Given that those under the dictatorship of the proletariat were more or less expected to live for the state, it makes sense that the dissolution of normal family structure occur, especially given that Marx and Engels both viewed family as a Bourgeoisie institution. Hence, we can see a underlying motive in a seemingly noble movement that really has nothing to do with equality for women but is more about advancing a collective political agenda.

5. You were careful to acknowledge that a distinction between sex and gender exists and rightfully so. Your defitnition of what constitutes one or the other however, seems flawed and you often seem unaware of the interrelation between the two. For example, I recall you exclaiming that you'd like to more androgny in a future society, you then preceded to give the example of a bearded woman. Surely you are aware that excessive amounts of facial hair in woman qualifies as a disease known as hirsutism because it generally signifies abnormal hormone variation. This qualifies facial hair (at least in vast quantities) as generally being a clear sex difference rather than the result of a social construction.

I will now move on to the second part of my argument. At one point during the lecture you brought up a statistic which claimed that 90% of domestic violence was directed at women. I am unsure as to where you obtained this figure because it seems to totally conflict with what I have found. Even if this statistic is correct, it does not tell the whole story. A study in Britain found that in 2008/9 men were around twice as likely to be the victims of violent crime than women were. Research from the USA suggests that in violent heterosexual relationships, the woman was the perpetrator in around 70% of cases. I also wonder how much the trivialization of female violence against males results in statistics like this being distorted seeing that a woman can nowadays legitimately end an argument with a man by slapping him or pouring a drink over him.

Source 1:Walker A., Flatley J., Kershaw C., Moon D. (2009) Crime in England and Wales 2008/09. Volume 1: Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime.

Source 2:Whitaker D.J., Haileyesus T., Swahn M., Saltzman L.S. (2007) Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health 97(5): 941-94

Contrary to what you have said or implied about woman still being in a disadvantaged state to man, Misandry is rife in today's society which I will now prove with both links and argument. The first link below is to a young teenage girls group in regards to how they think a boy should treat his girlfriend and vice versa. I will now copy across the statements I think are most relevant to proving just what an accepted norm the Misandrist mindset has become: “2. Be aware of all your girlfriends guy friends, brothers, fathers, or anything. They are protective. Every single male friend we have will kick your ass if you end up hurting her. . . 4. If she slapped you hard, you probably deserved it. . . . 8. If a guy is bothering your girlfriend, its your right to beat the sh!t out of him. . . 10. Never ever slap her, even if it's just in a joking way. Even if she swats you first, and says, "Oh, you're so dumb" or something, never make any gestures back."

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4034500&id=514766405#!/pages/102-Things-A-Guy-Should-Know-About-Girlss/211241098463?v=info&ref=t

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2464384

The women mentioned in the story above managed to avoid jail. Could you really see the same thing happening if the genders had been reversed?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/21/california.betty.broderick.parole/index.html

If a man was to shoot his ex wife and her new younger partner in bed would the court watchers split into two groups of “supporters” and “bashers?” Of course not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7429007/Sex-with-drunken-women-could-be-rape-review-to-signal.html

If this isn't Misandry being applied to law then I don't know what is...

In the study about dominance and heterosexuality that I referenced, a conclusion was reached by those involved that it made more sense for males to seek out as many willing sexual partners whilst females were better off to have less partners as to not end up with more offspring than they can take care of. This might explain your perceived double standard in terms of women and men being viewed differently in terms of promiscuity with solid biological foundations. In my opinion there is nothing demeaning whatsoever about the role of a housewife unless the dependence of a housewife's family on her for survival is viewed as demeaning.

If you want to talk about real double standards, then you could have mentioned the American Constitution in regards to the male only military draft which is still in place within the U.S and within some countries in Europe. In fact, in course of of history haven't men generally had things worse than women? Chinese foot binding may not be a pleasant thing to endure but surely staying at home and banging the milkman is a far less an oppressed state then going off to war to be blown up by shrapnel. Although it is true that a small handful of feminist groups have taken issue with this, most have not. You don't think that the reason that this double standard goes for the most part unnoticed has anything to with the fact that almost everyone is subconciously okay with this because its plain as can be that men are more suited to military requirements? Sometimes a reliance on common sense rather than psuedo-intellectual feminist/marxist frameworks can go a long way.

Women are also much more likely to gain custody of children regardless of their worth as parents (resulting in a fair few tragedies in of itself) and as proven in some of the links above, generally less likely to be the victims of violent crime. Also, who do you think is generally looked upon as worse, a female adult who has a consensual relationship with an under age boy or vice versa? Men may earn a disproportionate amount of money compared to women but women SPEND far more of what is earned on themselves and mostly on wants whilst men tend to stick to needs.

I apologize for the length of this argument although I could have gone on longer and felt the need to give a relatively detailed counter argument to what was said in the gender lectures.

Regards.
Will Braddell.

The secular origins and nature of the U.S.

The view of America as constituting a legitimately spiritual nation could only come from a total misunderstanding, more likely than not born of a superficial or face value analysis and a limited historical scope. It is my intention here to show that the seeds of secularism had been sowed in Europe long before the emergence of the U.S nation and that the birth of the state in question is in reality, the manifestation of the ideals present in 17th century Liberalism. As this is not an academic essay intended for university evaluation I will not dwell on an introduction any further but devote the extra space to the task I have set.

That the French Revolution and overthrow of King Louis XVI occurred only two years after the formation of the U.S. Constitution is of paramount importance to understanding the sign of the times. One would scour the U.S Bill of Rights in vain for anything concerning religion and the only mentions of it in the constitution pertains to the prohibition of congress from establishing a religion or from breaching the freedom of the individual in religious practice. What is undeniably present in both the articles cited is the heavy influence of the secular, enlightenment ideas that eventually spread throughout Europe in the 18th century, manifesting itself in the emphasis placed on individual freedom, democratic mob rule (arguably being the first real Democracy in fact) as well as private property and inalienable civic rights. This influence further shows itself in the American Dream placing individualism and private property as of the utmost importance whilst again making no reference to religion or even spirituality.

The founding fathers were a curious mix of religious views, including Deism and Freemansonry. As a result, the view that America is a Christian nation is simply unhistorical, at least as far as the structure of the state itself is concerned. That Calvinism has perhaps been the most widespread form of Christianity in the U.S. is significant in itself. In his book, Revolt Against The Modern World, Evola explains that this along with all Protestant doctrine is an essential reduction of Christianity to simple moralism. A Siegfried described Calvinism as "the view according to which the true cell of the social organism is not the individual but the community in which wealth is regarded , in ones mind as well as others', as a sign of divine election." This almost plutocratic intepretation of Christianity has nothing in common with the general acknowledgement by the Catholic Church of the kings divine right and presents the removal of any qualitive hierachy, something incompatable with most traditions, let alone Christianity. Democracy is for this reason, more or less inherently hand in hand with secularism. The notion of Divine authority being maintained through anything other than Aristocracy would simply have been absurd in Medieval Europe, any credible historian would acknowledge this.

The emergence of Creationism in America could have only emerged amid a secular backdrop. Historically, this can be placed alongside the entry of Newtowian physics as a "scientific" (or perhaps pseduo-scientific in the case of I.D, regardless of anyones view on Evolution) attempt to justify God, the essential opposite of religion. This argument is further boosted by the fact that Newton's work occured in a build up to the Age of Enlightment, a time of immense secularization in Europe. THe meaning of this should escape no one.

To show the advent of secularism in Europe, I will construct a brief timeline depicting its outbreak.

*1215: Signing of the Magna Carta in England, the weakening and arguably the rationalizing of the King's sovereignty.

*1642: Civil war breaks out in England, ending in the defeat of Royalist forces in 1651 and the execution of Charles I followed by Cromwell establishing the English Commonwealth. This eventually fails and England ends up with a merely consitutional monarchy.

*1648 Peace of Westphalia. A series of treaties with a result ultimately unfavourable to the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III and a denial of his Absolute authority. As a result, Catholicism lost power and states involved won the right to determine whether to adopt Catholicism or Lutherism/Protestantism. This could be seen as the beginning of the decline of Christianity in Europe.

(These examples have mostly focused on the secularization or rationalization of divine authority).

*1651 Proto-Liberal Thomas Hobbes writes Leviathan which amongst other things, establishes the philosophical view known as Materialism which puts forth the view that all that exists is matter, eliminating the possiblity of metaphysical entities including the Christian God.

*1762 Rousseau writes The Social Contract. This book puts forth the idea that society is formed due to an individuals need to compromise some degree of freedom in order to advance their own self interest, as opposed to any leader having divine authority.

(This could be seen as an important step in the developmemt of Liberalism).

*1776 American congress declares that "All men are equal and endowed with inalienable rights."

(Emergence of secular Liberal, humanitarian ideology in America's creation).

*1789 George Washington takes office and establishes a Bill of Rights based on Liberal ideology.

*1789 French Revolution, execution of the monarchy, Reign of Terror in which thousands are killed, establishment of a republic.

*1788 Secular American constitution ratified.

*1791 American Bill of Rights is published with no mention of religion.

When seen relative to the unfurling of European history, America can only be seen as a secular nation with a residual layer of Christian moralism (having briefly explained the role of Protestantism in reducing Christianity).