I have to agree. I didn't see LHOD as a feminist book either. I think the only significant element would be that of Genly's perceptions. Initially he's uncomfortable with Estraven, trying to see him as either male or female and neither feeling right. By the end of the book, he no longer struggles trying to identify the people of Winter but instead feels awkward with the maleness and femaleness of his ship's crew.

As far as no war, they obviously are familiar with the concept of forays. When Karhide raids one of the Orgoreyn towns, it is not presented as something new or unknown. Given the treatment at the Orgoreyn voluntary farms, cruelty is obviously not a foreign concept either.

LHOD does indeed feel much more like a first contact story. Ganly is trying to influence them to join the galactic society. He struggles trying to learn their ways and customs and in many ways is very naive. He's used by many in their political struggles against each other and in the end finally seems to reach his goal. (Simplified I know but I don't have the energy this morning to go into further detail.)

I haven't read all of the books in the Hainish books, but telepathy does play a more significant role in City of Illusions and we get a little more of the picture of the galactic environment, though it is not directly shown.

"I found the concept of shifgrethor confusing"
You are not the only one. I think I'll start a topic to discuss it explicitly.

This does have some of the characteristics of a first contact story. But, for me, it did not feel like one. Yes, Genly struggled to find out about the world. However, the drama, if you will, hinged more on the political conflicts on Winter than it did on Ganly's level of ignorance. I think the fact that the main character was somewhat ancillary to the action may have led to my boredom. In Contact or 2001, the protagonists' discoveries and actions have the potential for immense consequences to humanity. Here, Genly can't get a handle on a backwater human planet where he can speak the language. Realistic, I suppose. Inspirational, not really.

I guess part of what makes a great book is the topics it takes on, and the fact that you can read it again with entirely different focus each time. I appreciate that you mentioned sex and gender, religion, war, first contact, and you can read it just for any of those, but I can still think of other themes of equal importance.

For me, some of the most moving and fascinating passages were those about the nature of patriotism.

It was very interesting to read your thoughts Kernos, and I agree with much of what you said.

Though "We are told that the Gethens have never warred, and many have postulated this was due to the lack of gender, but this I think wishful thinking on the part of radical feminists." - it did actually say in the book that this was what Genly thought, or I should say, he was telling us this, but Le Guin certainly avoided making any strong stand on this or any other points of the novel.

As to the book itself, I agree with Thomas (if I understood him correctly) - it's not an inspirational story.

In fact, when you do start looking closely at it - as you've done - there's very little in it. It's lack of a clear point bothers me and I didn't see it as a strength. It just didn't make me "think", because it wasn't, for me, terribly thought-provoking in any new way.

Random, I'm curious what your definition of "feminist" is. I think there's a huge difference between radical feminism and feminism. If the genders in a book are not unequal, then I think of the book as being feminist. By just examining questions of gender in an open and intelligent way, this book is feminist in my opinion.

Kernos wrote: "Kelly wrote:"By just examining questions of gender in an open and intelligent way, this book is feminist in my opinion."

Or masculist or just human, for that matter.
"

I think this is what I was trying to get at. If we call this book feminist, we would have to call it masculist as well, and in my mind neither apply because the book isn't about women or men. It is about humans.

The point isn't seeing genders as equal or unequal, about their positive or negative sides, social roles vs biological roles, or anything else like that. Its not about seeing women as equal to men, its about not seeing gender at all. Its the mental voyage Ganly takes through the book from trying to put his two gender mental map onto this world to seeing the world and it's people as just people, as just human with no gender involved.

Could it be feminist by virtue of the writer as well? Is the act of writing a book about a society without gender hierarchy in itself a feminist act? I would think so.

Sarah Pi wrote: "Could it be feminist by virtue of the writer as well? Is the act of writing a book about a society without gender hierarchy in itself a feminist act? I would think so. "

I tend to think of it more as a book that came out in a period of history where people really wanted to see progressive feminist books. It portrays a society that isn't influenced by masculine dominance so hence it must be feminist.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with feminism. I do think the book has been mislabeled. The public's expectations and desires are a gender mental map slapped on top, one just like Ganly struggled with at the start of the book.

Something I thought I should add....Just because I don't see the book as feminist doesn't mean I don't find it an interesting social experiment or even socially progressive. These do not equate to feminist any more than they would equate to masculinist.

Feminism was a response to the accepted world order where men were superior and women inferior. It sought to even the playing field, to say that men and women were equal. Just because the root of feminism means women, doesn't mean "women-centric." (It's rather an unfortunate choice.) It means, "women are equal." "Masculism" is as absurd as talking about equal rights for whites--it is already the status quo as men and whites are the ones in power. (That is not to say that I don't believe men have issues and difficulties that women don't... I do think men face some of the same difficulties now that women began dealing with 30 years ago: how do I be strong and sensitive at the same time? But this is solely talking about human rights.)

So a story that discusses gender issues in a way that makes looks at both genders equally is, by definition, feminist. Now this book is different in that it's talking about a third gender, but I think it fits the bill.

Kelly wrote: "So a story that discusses gender issues in a way that makes looks at both genders equally is, by definition, feminist. "

But there is only one gender in this society. How can you show equality when there is only one? It isn't a third gender, its the only gender.

There are the perverts, and the second area Ganly went to (can't remember its name off hand) there was an expressed sentiment against perverts. Though we did not see enough to know if that was limited to that area and if that was more because it was different than because of a perceived inequality because of the consistent gender.

The use of masculism was meant to be absurd. In this context, feminism is also absurd.

I'm with Kelly on this one. I don't think the book has to be ABOUT feminism (or a society that includes females) to be a feminist book. The way that gender is approached by the author and by the main character is in itself a feminist examination of gender. Look at the fact that on Gethen anyone can theoretically have children born of their own body, and how that renders a different sort of equality than we can ever achieve. In my opinion, if the author forces the reader to contemplate those questions, it is a feminist book.

Thanks, Sarah.

There are really three genders in the book, I think. The androgynous state people are in most of the time, then during the sexual state, they become either female or male. It's the ultimate example of where the two sexes are equal because the rest of the time, they are all the same. I did say this book is different but the egalitarian look at gender, the investigation of gender, as Sarah Pi says, is inheritantly feminist in my opinion. I do not think saying this book is feminist is absurd at all.

There is such a thing as masculism, part of the "men's right's" movement. Since I wasn't being absurd, I didn't want to assume you were.

Merriam Webster:

"Masculinist": an advocate of male superiority or dominance

Feminist: (main entry: feminism)

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Kernos, there are male feminists, ya know. It's not an oxymoron.

Kelly wrote: "There are really three genders in the book, I think. The androgynous state people are in most of the time, then during the sexual state, they become either female or male. It's the ultimate example of where the two sexes are equal because the rest of the time, they are all the same."

You're looking at character behavior as if they saw things from our frame of reference and not their own. Whoever provides the egg and carries the baby is "female" and whoever provides the sperm is "male". But in a society where everyone can provide the sperm, where everyone can provide the egg and carry the child, why would they see these as separate roles?

Try looking at it this way. Imagine there is an alien species that we have just met today. Approximately only one half of the population is capable of breaking down food from raw materials into nutrients a body can absorb. They are also very creative but not extremely intelligent. They are physically weak and so unable to perform many of the tasks needed for survival. They are referred to as Anars.

The second half of the species is unable to break down raw foods on their own. They must depend upon the capabilities of the weaker half to give them the broken down food so they can eat. They are not creative individuals, but they are quite intelligent. They are referred to as Anarals.

So, here we have a species divided in two. Neither can really survive without the other. Because of the obvious differences between the two, each side tends to deal with different roles. Since they are robust, the Anarals have historically done the physical work. Since they are intelligent they are very capable implementing ideas into reality. They don't, however, have the creativity necessary to come up with new ideas, to know how to apply their knowledge.

The Anars are very creative. They can come of with the creative ideas necessary to solve problems but they don't have the abilities necessary to apply or implement those ideas. They are also the artists, poets, and dancers. They can express emotion in ways the Anarals can hardly imagine. Through their art, at Anars give the Anarals a way to express themselves that they struggle to do on their own.

Anarals have, in the past, dominated their society. Tradition has made it so it is the Anar's job to stay in the home, breaking down nutrients for the family, teaching the young Anars how to do the same, and providing for their family's emotional nurture.

However, this is not necessary. Their society actually benefits from both Anars and Anarals working together, combining their intelligence and creativity. With modern conveniences, it is no longer necessary for Anars to spend all of their time processing nourishment for their families. At the same time, it is no longer necessary for the Anarals to devote all of their time on the production of nourishment, though those are two aspects that are vital for their species survival.

So, today these people have met humans for the first time. They think, wow, here is a species who is intelligent, creative, strong, and physically independent. Such a great example of Aroid equality. A person can choose to perform a traditional Anar role whenever they like and no one even considers thinking of them less for it!

Kernos wrote: "I consider the idea that gender equality, gender investigation etc is inherently feminist to be a radical statement and underscores much that is negative about the feminist movement: that only fema..."

Exactly what feminism is about. You assume I mean only females are feminists. I already said the name is unfortunate and does not accurately describe what it is. I said feminism is concerned that BOTH genders are equal meaning men get to be nurses and women get to be doctors. Men get to be stay-at-home moms and women get to be the breadwinners.

Thank you Sarah and Brooke.

Random,

I think that's a great example. I'm not sure how it's arguing with me. I would add that the humans can also perform a typical Anaral role without a problem. Absolutely a feminist way of thinking in my mind and by the definition as Sarah pointed out.

Kelly wrote: "I think that's a great example. I'm not sure how it's arguing with me. I would add that the humans can also perform a typical Anaral role without a problem. Absolutely a feminist way of thinking in my mind and by the definition as Sarah pointed out."

I hate to repeat myself, but how can there be equality when there is no difference to begin with? As humans we can't not experience Aroid equality. Has any human out there ever been considered lesser just because they can digest a lettuce leaf?

No, it isn't a feminist way of thinking because the various Aroid prejudices have absolutely nothing to do with sex. It is like saying anyone who argues for racial rights and equality is a feminist. Anyone who thinks that other human races are lesser must then be sexist.

The OED agrees with Kernos' definition of feminism; however, it regards "masculism" as an obsolete synonym of "masculinism", which it defines as, "Advocacy of the rights of men; adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, etc., regarded as typical of men; (more generally) anti-feminism, machismo." I don't think that debating these definitions will ultimately get us anywhere, however, especially considering that they've changed since Le Guin wrote The Left Hand of Darkness (as have any gender equality movements).

Semantics aside, the fact remains that historically, societies have been male-dominated. Any attempts toward establishing gender equality must necessarily include feminism then. Hence, while the The Left Hand of Darkness is not only a feminist text, it includes feminist themes among its themes of gender equality. Its portrayal of a gender neutral society encourages readers to think about the concept of gender in a way that challenges their socialized notions; this is the initial goal of any movement toward gender equality, feminism included.

Its portrayal of a gender neutral society encourages readers to think about the concept of gender in a way that challenges their socialized notions; this is the initial goal of any movement toward gender equality, feminism included.

WELL SAID!! That is entirely on point to my understanding of the text and its context. I like Ben.

Kernos wrote: "No I don't assume that at all and take umbrage at others deciding what I assume..."

Because that's what you said: feminism is about females being concerned with their rights: "underscores much that is negative about the feminist movement: that only females have equality concerns related to their gender." The implication is very clear that feminism assumes that only women have concerns about their gender and are not concerned with men's issues. Which is ludicrous as I pointed out. However, the term "men's rights" is as offensive as "white rights." Those in power are not downtrodden. They have issues but it's not the same.

Random said: "how can there be equality when there is no difference to begin with?" By making a society of people who are the same, we are forced to examine our own ideas of gender which is inherently feminist.

I think I should just let Ben fight my battles from now on because he is so much better at stating what I am trying to say. Thank you Ben!

Kernos, you are the only one who keeps saying that only women are concerned with gender equality, perhaps you are arguing with someone who isn't in the room?

Everyone's rights are important - of course they are! However, over history, many groups have struggled to be afforded the same rights as the baseline, dominant group (usually white, straight men). Social justice movements have come out of the efforts of these minority groups to be treated the same as the baseline. Usually when a societal structure oppresses one group, everyone is screwed over somehow, but those who have more privilege are generally less willing to rock the status quo because society tells them they already have it good. For men who do challenge the norm and try to free themselves from what masculinity in the patriarchial society demands from them - that's good! Lots of them exist. And they often identify as feminists.

If my wife ever demanded equal rights, it would be a step down... Not happening.
;-)

I think the difficulty here is that you are clearly operating from significantly different definitions of feminism. So you are talking at cross purposes.

I had a hard time imagining what the people of winter actually looked like. Although the author justified using he rather then it or she, I had a REALLY hard time not imagining a planet populated full of men.

The way I see it, we should call what we believe to be feminism, equalnism. While it is true that some people and some places still treat women like they are lower then the males, it is also true that in some places and some people will tease a male for liking to cook, clean or do housework. I think this book was a perfect example of a world without female and male roles. Then again, this book also seems to be saying that the only way that we can blow away these stereotypes is to become both genders.

Maxi wrote: "Then again, this book also seems to be saying that the only way that we can blow away these stereotypes is to become both genders."

No, The Left Hand of Darkness is saying that one way to dispose of gender stereotypes is to eliminate the concept of gender roles through hermaphroditism. It never argues that this is the only way to achieve gender equality, mostly because it doesn't discuss any alternatives. The book isn't a prescription for gender equality so much as a look at the ramifications of a hermaphroditic society, one of which, as you observed, is necessarily the elimination of gender roles.

Agreed. I'd also say that the book really confronts gender roles through Genly. By placing Genly in a situation where he has a strong motivation to unlearn his habitual patterns of gender thinking the book can explore how fundamental the duality of gender is to the way we organize our world view, how hard that whole raft of concepts is to disconnect from, and also how seeing the world in those terms does create a particular set of blind spots.

If the book was about a hermaphroditic society from the point of view of one of the members of that society then the questions of gender duality wouldn't arise in the same way.

BunWat wrote: "Agreed. I'd also say that the book really confronts gender roles through Genly."

Good point. It's also worth noting that we actually get two takes on gender roles, firstly through Genly--with whom we identify--and then from the perspective of Estraven. This parallelism becomes the most pronounced once they're alone on the ice sheet together and the perspectives begin switching back and forth as they continue their journey. Even while Genly is finally adapting to the idea that his companion has no fixed gender, Estraven is trying to understand the bizarre and sometimes misinterpreted actions of Genly.

While it is true that some people and some places still treat women like they are lower then the males, it is also true that in some places and some people will tease a male for liking to cook, clean or do housework.

Maxi, those two ideas are part of the same thing. Men get teased for doing "women's work" because it's seen as beneath them, and acting like a woman is a negative thing. It's like when a guy gets emotional about something and his friends punch him in the arm and say, "Don't be such a girl." What's pretty explicit there is that "being a girl" is not a positive thing.

But of course we know that limiting men like that is BS - men have feelings and should be able to express them as well as groom and cook for themselves without being teased. It's all interrelated and that's why a lot of men who think being told "don't be such a girl" is BS identify as feminists.

I think the hermaphroditic society could be similar to the real life feminist push to remove gendered labels of things - the personal characteristics of being nuturing and passive and quiet would no longer be "feminine" and being aggressive and loud and violent would no longer be "masculine" - you'd just have all these characteristics that some people have and others don't. It's possible that LeGuin didn't intend her hermaphrodites to be a metaphor for this at all, but I think it could fit.

Part of what interests me about Left Hand is that its more than gender issues of social justice, important as they may be. Because we are a two gendered species we tend to think in twos - this or that, dark or light, big or little - yin/yang. But what if gender is a temporary and passing thing? Do you still divide the world of things into twos? What if we were a species with three genders? Would we divide everything into threes?

Brooke I agree that the pressure to differentiate into two separate pigeonholes is very limiting for both sexes. And that traditionally masculine behaviors and activities still carry higher status. In an odd way it can now be easier for women to step out of their gender box - women can wear pants, few men dare to wear dresses. Since I'm already a girl I don't lose status by acting like one. Whereas a boy acting like a girl does lose status. So paradoxically I get a bigger range of behavioral choices. Of course that's a recent development and largely due to the women's movement.

This interesting discussion is reminding me of another book that discusses sex, gender, in a very different but thought-provoking way. Especially at the end of the book which posits a chance to change humanity to one of 4 (or 5?) different ways of reproduction in order to change permanently the power imbalance. Every time I read it, I find myself wondering which choice I would make for humanity if I were doing the choosing.

Has anyone else out there read Sheri Tepper's Gibbon's Decline and Fall?

BunWat wrote: "Because we are a two gendered species we tend to think in twos"

I agree that sexual dimorphism largely contributes to our perception of the world through dualism. Although I'd like to say that, owing to the myriad of other binaries in the world, dualism would still arise in some form, this hasn't seemed to happen on Gethen. In fact, perhaps that's why the Gethenians developed the concept of shifgrethor. It seems to obviate explicit lying, perhaps because the Gethenians don't see truth value in terms of a binary "true/false." The Handarrata seem to have taken this concept of a lack of dualism (I'm not certain it's monism, though) to its philosophical extreme.

"In an odd way it can now be easier for women to step out of their gender box - women can wear pants, few men dare to wear dresses."

Even when restricted to "masculine" or "feminine" clothing, men tend to have less selection within the former category than women do in the latter. Traditional formal wear for a man is some sort of suit, culminating in the black-and-white tuxedo; women, while traditionally expected to wear dresses, can choose from a wide variety of dress styles.

MB wrote: "Has anyone else out there read Sheri Tepper's Gibbon's Decline and Fall?"

No, but I have now added it to the top of my to-read shelf, which is now large enough that if it weren't digital, it would topple to the floor and cause no end of chaos. Thank goodness for Goodreads.

Ben, you'll have to let me know what you think. It has a very feminist slant (as do all Tepper's books) and, I'd say, a anti-republican/right-wing agenda. So be warned.

But it's worth reading through to the end due to the scenario of choosing to change humanity genetically to eliminate sexual/power differentials based on biological reproduction. I find myself thinking about it a lot. It's affected how I think about our world.

For instance, if we changed sexes like some fish, how would that affect our civilizations, religion, and politics?

Even when restricted to "masculine" or "feminine" clothing, men tend to have less selection within the former category than women do in the latter.

I think high status behavior tends to be more restrictive. Put a foot wrong and you lose status. When you aint got none to start with, who cares if you put a foot wrong? So long as you don't trespass on the high status turf of course.

I have tried to read Decline and Fall three times now and something always comes up to interrupt me and then the book has to go back to the libes. Its starting to get weird, especially since I have read a LOT of other Tepper books. So why does this one elude me?

BunWat, I can see why you'd have trouble finishing it. It is weirder, and maybe more dated (?), than some of her other books. It's kind of like a spin-off of The Handmaid's Tale and a diatribe against right-wing Republicanism with elements of fantasy. But, again, if you can read it through to the end. The way she posits that the imbalance of power in civilisation/religion/politics between men and women throughout history may come down to our biology is a really interesting concept.

If we could change that, what else would/could change? Fascinating thought!

Well my impression of Tepper has been that as her career has gone on she's less and less interested in dressing up the ideology. Honestly I tend to prefer her earlier work. Even though I agree with some of her ideology I still feel like the balance is off - write a polemic or write a story but don't write a polemic in a story disguise. The Margarets felt like she was just going through the motions of storytelling.

I still like her writing though. So I hope its just something she's working through, and eventually she'll regain her balance.

Kernos wrote: "What other SF-Fan novels or series take on gender?"

I recently read Glory Season, by David Brin, where parthenogenesis (through cloning) has significantly altered gender roles.

Bunwat, I agree, "The Margarets" was disappointing. It was too big of a story broken into too many little bits. It was scattered and confusing. I have re-read it at least 3 times and still find it annoying. Maybe it should have been a trilogy???

My favorites of hers are those from Grass to The Companions. Sadly enough, I put Margaret's failures down to Tepper's age and was hoping that it wouldn't be the last from her. I find her books fascinating in her world-building, and extremely thought-provoking. I re-read them every year or so.

Okay people, sorry for high-jacking the thread. I hadn't posted about Left Hand of Darkness because I read it a long time ago and didn't want to re-read. But your discussions have been fascinating and that reminded me of Tepper, hence my question.

And thanks for the suggestions! I get some great recs from this group!

Ben wrote: "Kernos wrote: "What other SF-Fan novels or series take on gender?"

There are all the winners of the James Tiptree, Jr. Award, which is given to the work of science fiction or fantasy published in one year which best explores or expands gender roles.
http://www.tiptree.org/index.php?see=awa...

Which Tiptree award was won by The Left Hand of Darkness in 1969. I was just thinking of Motherlines and Walk to the End of the World which were winners in 1978 and 1974 respectively.

Retrospectively, I think, Bun? The Award itself wasn't around back then.

Ben -- you could also read the excellent biography of Tiptree, James Tiptree, Jr. The Double Life of Alice B. Sheldon. It's not fiction, but it's a well written and fascinating book.

Retrospectively and respectively. Motherlines and Walk won retrospective awards for their respective years of publication. Say that three times and spin around fast.

Master of None wasn't particularly enlightening, but it answers Kernos' question.

BunWat wrote: "Retrospectively and respectively. Motherlines and Walk won retrospective awards for their respective years of publication. Say that three times and spin around fast. "

My head is already spinning. :)

Hee hee!!

Kernos, either I am not understanding you or you just said biology is destiny. Surely not?

BunWat wrote: "Kernos, either I am not understanding you or you just said biology is destiny. Surely not? "

Absolutely not. Actually I can't comprehend how you could get that from what Kernos said.

There are two aspects to human gender. One is biology and the other is social. Many social role differences originate from early biological necessities.

Physically men and women are different. Nothing we do or say will change this and it harms us to try to force this as otherwise. For example, women are designed to bare and nurture children. At birth a mass of hormones are released into a mothers system to help assure she will bond emotionally to her child, an utterly helpless child that absolutely cannot survive without her constant attention.

The male, however, is biologically designed to on average be stronger and have more stamina. These were traits necessary for a mother since the the roles she must play from biology required someone to be there to protect and provide. Things she would be unable or or have a lot of difficulty to do on her own when trying to care for children. Both of these put together give a newborn child the best chance of surviving and perpetuating the species, which on the purely biological side of things is the entire point.

From these ancient roles, dictated by biology, social roles and expectations developed. In today's modern world, other than the basics of reproduction, these secondary needs and expectations are no longer necessary.

So, getting back to the point, when we talk about men and women and equality we are actually talking about two different aspects, the biological and the social.

When we look at the biological, men and women are different. This difference is a good thing. If we look at equality we say that they are different but of equal value.

Socially, however, there isn't much difference between men and women. The idea that women are less intelligent, less capable, and passive is as invalid as saying men are cold, unemotional, intelligent, and strictly aggressive.

LeGuin doesn't deal with the biological side of things at all. She only deals with the social side of things through Ganly's expectations when he tries to attribute a behavior to a specific gender or when he tries to think of a person as one gender or the other.

"I think it wrong to ignore biology in our society. Males and females are different. placing value judgements on those differences, or rôles demanded by those differences....causes conflict"

Those would be the words that led me to ask the question. You will note that it was a question. I was entirely prepared to hear that Kernos had meant some other thing by those words.

Precisely what are "the roles demanded by those differences"? What are the societal roles for which either gender is biologically unsuited? I cannot think of a single example.

Yes humans have some gender differences. For example, on average men are taller and stronger than women. However, not all men are taller or stronger than all women. It is entirely possible, indeed it is fairly easy to find an individual woman who is both taller and stronger than an individual man. There is considerable overlap in this quality.

Furthermore the difference in height and strength is not that great. It would be quite a quest to find a man or a woman who is as tall as a giraffe, or as strong as a gorilla. Human height and strength operate within a narrow band and within that narrow band males tend to skew toward one end and females toward the other.

Most gender differences follow this pattern. To say that such minor differences necessitate different social roles is absurd. Should a tall female athelete be passed over for a job involving physical strength in favor of a short sedentary guy because "men are stronger?" Of course not. That would be absurd.

The only exclusive traits between the sexes are in our reproductive behavior. There are no women who produce sperm. There are no men who breast feed. Yes in that one case there is a real difference instead of an average tendency with a lot of overlap. But so what? What difference of social role does that difference imply?

Are you saying that because men do not bear children or lactate that they therefore cannot or should not be nurturing caretaking parents? That care of infants or young children is only for women? Again, that is demonstrably absurd.

As you say, "In today's modern world, other than the basics of reproduction, these secondary needs and expectations are no longer necessary." Yes. This is true.

You also say, "Physically men and women are different. Nothing we do or say will change this and it harms us to try to force this as otherwise." I don't get it. You say there is no need for men and women to have different roles, but that would be harmful to force men and women to pretend that they are not different. Uh? What is it that is being forced? I don't get it.

BunWat wrote: "Those would be the words that led me to ask the question. You will note that it was a question. I was entirely prepared to hear that Kernos had meant some other thing by those words.

Quite simply he was saying men and women are physically different. There is nothing wrong with this. The problem comes about when we put differing values on those differences, that one is better or worse than the other instead of different but of equal value.

Precisely what are "the roles demanded by those differences"? What are the societal roles for which either gender is biologically unsuited? I cannot think of a single example.

Twenty thousand years ago a pregnant woman was quite unsuited to hunt a buffalo with primitive tools. A man was very unsuited to feed a nursing infant. These are biological roles. Social roles mostly come about because something has "always been done this way". Hence, you get an early correlation to the physical. However, these social roles tend to change until they are no longer really based upon the original biological needs that initiated them.

The only exclusive traits between the sexes are in our reproductive behavior. There are no women who produce sperm. There are no men who breast feed. Yes in that one case there is a real difference instead of an average tendency with a lot of overlap. But so what? What difference of social role does that difference imply?

I never said these physical differences had anything to do with social differences other than perhaps an ancient correlation from necessity. In fact my argument was that there are two distinct factors when discussing human gender.

Furthermore the difference in height and strength is not that great. It would be quite a quest to find a man or a woman who is as tall as a giraffe, or as strong as a gorilla. Human height and strength operate within a narrow band and within that narrow band males tend to skew toward one end and females toward the other.

If you go back and read I used the phrase on average. Of course there are women who are stronger and more capable than men. I personally could kick my husband's rear end. My brothers, however, have physical advantage over me. Even in his 60s my father had more body strength than I did in my mid 20s. (I was munitions in the Air Force at the time so I was no weakling.) I never implied a large or absolute difference between the two sexes, just that on average there is a difference.

Are you saying that because men do not bear children or lactate that they therefore cannot or should not be nurturing caretaking parents? That care of infants or young children is only for women? Again, that is demonstrably absurd.

No, I never said any such thing. I did say that the early social role of the woman being the nurturer came about because she physically had to be the one to nurse the child. The hormones that flooded her system after the birth dictated that she would form a strong emotional bond with her child. It is a case where a social role developed from a biological role. Women bore, fed, and nurtured the babies so then socially it became correlated with "women's work" even after it was no longer physically necessary (well other than providing the egg and the womb portion).

You also say, "Physically men and women are different. Nothing we do or say will change this and it harms us to try to force this as otherwise." I don't get it. You say there is no need for men and women to have different roles, but that would be harmful to force men and women to pretend that they are not different. Uh? What is it that is being forced? I don't get it.

I am saying that ignoring gender is denying oneself. I am female. I really love being female. I like the way guys oggle if I wear a low cut shirt that shows lots of cleavage. I am physically attracted to men. My favorite bits are the shoulders. I have a thing for strong broad shoulders. Women and men are physically different from each other and personally I love each and every one of those differences. However, I am also intelligent, independent, and strong willed. Denying the physical differences between men and women is like denying the fact that a woman can be mentally competent.

Who is denying the physical differences between genders? I am not. I am taking issue with Kernos saying that there are; "roles demanded by those differences." I am saying there are no such roles.

As for that tired old trope about pregnant women being unable to chase buffalo, come on. Give me a break. Women do not spend the majority of their lives incapacitated by pregnancy. A healthy woman can do just about anything in the first trimester that she could do when not pregnant. Even the second isn't all that limiting. Nor are women, even in societies without birth control, constantly pregnant.

Secondly, neither women nor men were chasing buffalo across the plains 20,000 years ago. Nobody hunted much of anything by chasing it, certainly not buffalo. They stalked, set traps, laid in wait, stampeded herds off cliffs or into coulees. None of the techniques of ancient hunters are physically beyond the reach of a fit and healthy woman. Some of them, such as the stampede off the buffalo drop actually required the combined efforts of the whole group.

Nor is there any evidence that women did not hunt and men did not gather. On the contrary there is evidence in the archeological record that they did.

The whole notion of some sort of primordial nuclear family where the stalwart man went off to work in the hunting fields while the woman and children picked berries and did some light housekeeping around the home fire is just a projection by archeologists of the late 19th and early 20th. It's an assumption, based on their own notions about what is "normal" and one that is not supported by the archeology or by ethnography.