Contents of G:
Gated
Community: (see Lifestyle
Enclave)
What is ãgenderä? In our world the answer seems so obvious: gender
defines human beings as belonging to one of two distinct identities: male or
female. In almost all individuals this identity can be determined by an
anatomical appraisal; but gender goes well beyond physiology, describing a host
of social and behavioral traits which supercede the obvious anatomical, hormonal
and reproductive differences between men and women. Of critical importance is
the question: ãWhat accounts for the observable gender differences between men
and women?ä. Some would say biology, implying that those born male (possessing
the XY chromosome pair) are innately different from those born female
(possessing the XX chromosome pair). Others would argue that socialization
creates gender, that the roles of a ãmanä or a ãwomanä are learned
behaviors.
Clearly neither explanation stands alone as a sufficient answer to the
ãwhere does gender come from?ä question. The real question comes down to
assigning relative degrees of influence to the twin gender-creating forces:
biology and society. If you really consider our popular conception, at least
within the United States, it is clear that biology rules our understanding of
gender. Our society sees women and men as innately different, and it is easy to
see why; from a very early age boys and girls display very different behavioral
patterns. From the inside of the world we have created, it is very hard to
imagine that these prevalent gender differences could arise from any source
other than genetics; there must be some ãhard-wiredä difference between
those born male and those born female.
We are off the mark. We have difficulty stepping back from our own
creation; an objective view of our gendered world is unattainable. Our
experiment in gender is far from controlled, as too many variables affect the
way in which seemingly ãdistinctä categories of ãmanä and ãwomanä
are created. A simple thought experiment illustrates this dilemma:
When
is it most difficult to identify the gender of a human being? During infancy of
course! Unless the parent has taken some ãprecautionä to dress his or her
child in traditionally-gender-identifiable clothing, the infant is almost
impossible to classify as boy or girl. This becomes apparent when one encounters
a cute little youngster dressed in yellow or green. Without the usual
color-coding, the child becomes an ãitä. Great awkwardness can prevail as
you attempt to determine the childâs name... you can not call him or her an
ãitä, but if you mistakenly ask a boyâs father ãwhat is her name?ä,
you are likely to offend. Considering the potential for these situations, it is
not surprising that so many parents dress their baby boys in blue and their baby
girls in pink; even if you have no bias towards one gender, proper gender
identification is socially essential.
Given
these conditions, how can we claim that innate differences are even given a
chance to manifest themselves as the sole determinant of gender? Socialization
to gender begins at an infantâs first interaction with his or her parent, and
extends for a lifetime of social interaction.
Gender is socially constructed. The biological differences between men
and women are relatively insignificant; how our society frames these differences
makes them highly significant. The fact that we see the reproductive and
hormonal differences between men and women as highly significant is a function
of society, not biology. Our myopic obsession with biological differences
obscures the far greater biological similarity of all human beings. In reality,
even the creation of a man-woman dichotomy, where only two groups exist, is
inaccurate. Gender, as a manifestation of various characteristics, occurs along
a continuum, with many individuals unable to fit conveniently into one category
or another. The sharp male-female divide we feel is the result of ideas, not
immutable male-female tendencies.
Obviously gender is tangible, and we cannot just ãwishä it away by
saying that it has a very flimsy biological basis. Similarly, we cannot erase
the years of socialization which have led us all to believe so strongly in the
biological reality of gender. But in realizing that we learn gender, we gain the
power to reject the validity of gender as an intrinsic, identifiable quality of
all human beings. Doing so will foster acceptance for and understanding of the
range of ãgenderedä behaviors which exist in overlapping continuum among
those born XX and those born XY. Eventually we can modify the society which
forces us all to fit into either/or categories of male and female, woman and
man.
Listening to the news, you would think that everyone was doing just
great. The ãbooming economyä is the hot topic, and there are plenty of
experts lined up to tell us that this is an unprecedented time in American
history. Along with these misleading generalizations come a series of lies about
the young people in this country. Assertions like ãthe young people of this
country have never known hard timesä are not just wrong, but betray the
prevailing intent behind all this self-congratulatory economic back-slapping: we
are mortgaging our future for present ãunprecedented economic euphoriaä:
Young
people have now replaced elders as the sector of the population most likely to
be poor. A higher proportion of children live in areas of concentrated poverty
today than at any time since the Great Depression. The growth of such areas of
condensed, undiluted poverty has paralleled the growth in youthful violence,
which suggests that part of what we call the crisis of youth may in fact be a
crisis of class. 10
All
the lamenting about the ãincreasing pathology of teensä and the ãapathy of
the younger generationä is disingenuous. It is not just that an unprecedented
percentage of the poor are now children; even supposedly ãwell-offä children
suffer from under-funded schools and a lack of substantive programs for youth.
And it does not take a genius to see where all this ãeconomic boomä is
coming from: the older generations are ãliving wellä now by selling off
(euphemism: ãprivatizingä) our public inheritance (land, institutions, the
airwaves, etc.) while accumulating ever-increasing public debt. The young will
be the ones who lose by this equation.
There is no doubt that some of the younger generation is enjoying a small
portion of the benefits which have trickled down in this current economy, but do
not be fooled by the few Gen Xers you see driving fancy cars. Our ability to buy
the things that really matter - health care, a home - have decreased steadily in
the past few decades.
We claim we can name but these categories collect variant forms and then
we call them the same. How lame.
That which was yelled at Countdown to Putsch during one performance of an
Argument at ABC-NO-RIO. A humorous statement, but perhaps tardy, as
two of us are already there.
Perhaps that which makes the particular guitar used in Countdown to Putsch most undesirable to most, is that which makes it most desirable as a part of The Countdown to Putsch Collection. We work with what we have and (soy) milk it to the utmost. (see Short on Funds)