Guys can be feminists !

July 30, 2008 at 12:32 am (random brain output)
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

“One feature of our own society that seems decidedly anomalous is the matter of sexual advertisement. As we have seen, it is strongly to be expected on evolutionary grounds that, where the sexes differ, it should be the males that advertise and the female that are drab. Modern western man is undoubtedly exceptional in this respect. It is of course true that some men dress flamboyantly and some women dress drably, but, on average, there can be no doubt that in our society the equivalent of the peacock’s tail is exhibited by the female, not by the male.” The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins.

Before I start I want to make it perfectly clear that the book quoted is not about equality, it’s about evolution. I just found that this passage would be a good starting point for my defence of women. Many people think that women act a certain way because that is the way they are genetically predisposed. For some, that is the essential reason why women and men could never be equal or only equal by law but not everyday life. The thing is that assumptions like the fact that the brain has a sex, are seemingly loosing ground in favor of a stronger symmetry of the sexes. As I have always personally believed, it appears more and more strongly that the differences between men and women have more to do with society (always the same target) than genes. Different sexual organs and different sexual related hormones…this is probably where the difference stops. Brain wise, a woman and a man have the same cognitive capabilities. And the evidence is there. Women do slightly better in school than men. So why is there still an issue ? because there still exist remnants of sexism in our society. It goes to the fairly obvious discrimination at work (when they are not more or less forced to stay at home with the kids) to the most insidious thing such as gallantry. You might be surprise by the mention of gallantry. After all, isn’t it supposed to be a nice gesture towards women. Think of the implications for a second. To me it screams a blatant discrimination on the part of men. It hides the assumption that women are weak and that therefore men should assist them in life regardless of who they are, as long as they are women. But if men and women are going to be equal, this behaviour has to be eradicated. Or rather it should be replaced by unisex politeness.

While things like discrimination in the workplace are so obvious that they are constantly put to question and bound to be repaired at some point, I would like to focus on the more hidden problems, the ones that have left such a strong mark in society that most people think it normal. It has become almost like a moral obligation for women to appear as beautiful as they can to a point that is ridiculous. More and more I hear women talking about going on a diet. And they are all fine ! If their BMI was calculated they would all fit perfectly. And yet there is a desire to look like the women in the photoshoped ads who, in reality, are suffering from anorexia.  It is the equivalent with men’s need to display strength. Which guy has never heard “be a man !”? but aren’t we men to start with ? same for women: “Be more feminine !”. In our society you have to be loaded with make-up and dress ‘chic’ to be feminine and be a tough thug to be masculine. That’s bullshit! It’s obviously bullshit! thanks to that, you can be a tom boy or very effeminate and people will point it out like it’s a big deal. It has just sunk in so deep into our habits that we have forgotten that it was wrong (if indeed we ever realized).  It is important, for the sake of equality, that both sexes should find their worth in terms of intellectual criteria not beauty or strength. Not to mention that strength should have lost it’s appeal in a world govern by laws. It is not wrong for a women to wear make-up and so forth but when it used as a discriminating factor it is a problem. There is nothing wrong with women that decide to cultivate the beauty inside rather than the superficial shell outside. When I hear a guy say: “Women should wear dresses and have long hair, they shouldn’t wear jeans”, I’ll answer: “why ? because that’s less appealing to you ? well that’s YOUR problem, women in general are not forcing you to adopt a certain appearance because they like it”. There is definitely more of a pressure on women to be the ones to stand out, and that is just unfair. It should clearly be 50:50 effort. But, again, to most people, men or women, there is really no issue here. A shame, because it’s a good place to start if we want total gender equality.

I have to admit, I am not entirely satisfied by my own writings tonight, so I might change some stuff around if I can find a better way to organize my ideas. In fact, my ideas presented as thus could prove very confusing. Sorry about that…

3 Comments

Those little assumptions…

July 21, 2008 at 1:06 am (random brain output)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Here’s a little set of quotes to give you an idea of the general stuff I’m analysing:

Someone : ” So what do you think of the new teacher ?”

Me : “He’s ok”

Someone : “He’s definitely gay. He’s got a gay voice.”

Youtube comment : “Men and women cannot be equal because they are different physically. Give a boy some toys, he’ll make them wage war while a girl will organize a tea party.”

youtube comment : “…Feminist movements (Lesbian movements ?)”

Obviously, as you can anticipate, I find those kind of remarks appalling. But lets have a closer look at why people think they recognise gay people (and as a consequence may cause prejudice) through certain recurrent patterns or why men see such a biological divide between them and women. Now before you embark in the reading of my opinionated blog, take in account that I am heterosexual and I am a guy, so I am hardly defending my own interests here.

Let’s start with homosexuality. Homosexuals like men (or in the case of lesbians, they like women). To me that pretty much sums up the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual. But a lot of people go much further than that. According to the stereotype, gay men have a peculiar voice and dress in unusual outfits and put make-up on. While this is a gross generalisation, it must be conceded that indeed there are gay people who fit that depiction. But, is it really because they are gay that they dress in that fashion ? Personally, I would be more inclined to see these characteristics as walking hand in hand rather than one being the result of the other. As I see it, a gay person, by his acceptance of his own different sexuality, already shows the courage of going against our society in which one is only really considered normal if he/she is a heterosexual (a feeling strengthened by opinion controllers such as politics and religion). I have to stress that I loath the word “normal” and that I’m a using it in a very sarcastic sense. It means nothing to me (especially in this context). Now, if this person has had the courage to drift away from society’s ’superficial’ ideal about sexuality, this person, with his new-found freedom might tune other aspects of his life accordingly. So he’ll dress exactly the way he wants, talk the way he wants and really do his own thing. Of course, he may choose to dress like you would expect him too if that is what he enjoys. Conversely, people who have extravagant personalities are not all gay, they show enough awareness of society to take their distance from it, but naturally show an interest in the opposite sex. But because gay people have a tendency for being free thinkers, both concepts seemed to be mutually attractive, that is why sometimes both will emerge quite cohesively in one individual and why other more rigid individuals will start pointing fingers. And that much liberty should not be condemned but instead admired. They are truly being themselves.  And we should all truly be ourselves. I, for one, am very faithful to my ideals and needless to say that it has attracted me a bit of hostility from others who keep themselves on the path society has laid for them. Lets put it that way, if society put both sexual tendencies on the same equal grounds (especially in the Law), there would be nothing to differentiate homosexuals from heterosexuals because a homosexual’s behaviour would not be surprisingly different from one of a heterosexual (except maybe when it would come to flirting). Another important point, homosexuality is by no means genetic like some people seem to think. Evolution-wise, homosexuality has no obvious advantage as it prevents genes being passed on to a next generation (obviously, a member of the opposite sex is needed for that). That sole sentence is enough to justify why homosexuality is not genetic. If there truly were genes for homosexuality, they would dissapear with their owner. It is often an easy way out for people to say that things are genetic. You can have enhancing factors in your genes but these can express themselves in many different ways. The interaction environment-genes is really the answer. I probably have genes that expose me to alcoholism as it runs in my family and yet I don’t even drink (at all) (and my parents hardly drink). So one person can have genes that are favourable (or deterrent) to a certain way of being, but it really is up to the developing person to become what he wants to be. The title of one of the TED talks I recently watched was “Your genes are not your fate”. I think this fits perfectly with what I’m saying here.

I run out of time each time (look at the time !)…I shall therefore post the end of this chain of though in the next article I write. So misogynists beware…because I’m extremely pro-Feminist !!!

1 Comment

Stereotypes, the ugly categorizer…

July 12, 2008 at 11:35 am (random brain output)
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

What you’ll come to learn about me if you take an interest in this blog is that I have developed a rather strong opposition to all forms of stereotyping. We are all exposed to that phenomenon and inevitably, it starts to sink in most of us. Of course, some will only mention these common stereotypes in comic form, being able to see through it’s grotesque foundations (often fear or an urge for a group of individuals to feel superior). But even so, they could see a part of truth in it. What is worse is that these stereotypes exist precisely because some people blindly believe they are true.

As an American who spent 18 years growing up in France, I have been the target of stereotyping, especially during George W. Bush’s mandate when, Americans were, all of a sudden, deemed plain stupid by a good few. Not to mention other tags like ’selfish capitalists’. Some of you might read this and think “so true”. Well, I beg to differ. Some people’s attitude towards me drastically changed when they learned I was American. Why? Now, why would they enjoy my presence before but not after I casually declared being American. Surely, my behaviour could not have so drastically changed as to fit their mental picture of the “American asshole” ? And why would they not hate me beforehand if my behaviour was supposedly already American ? That’s because I am not acting typically American. There is no such thing as acting American. I am far from daft and I’m certainly not a “selfish capitalist” (who’s kidding themselves anyway ? Capitalism thrives in the Western world). In the end, there is no possible justification for this behaviour of portraying someone by his nationality. It is just a way of creating extra controversy. As if there was not enough of it to start with.

Many of you have been witness to the video circulating on the internet, set on putting American intelligence to test. Of course, as you could expect from this piece of British humour, quite obviously supposed to be a mockery of Americans, the  ‘Americans’ fail dismally to tell how many sides a triangle has or what country starts with a ‘U’. If you’re already slightly (or strongly) convinced that Americans have empty heads than you will blindly agree with this video. Otherwise you might be sceptical and come to realise how easily misleading this video can be. How many people are actually seen to be interviewed on the video ? a few. How many people were really interviewed do you think ? A good bunch I’m guessing. Not to mention that, in a country as big as the US, it’s easy to find small secluded cities where people are culturally light because of the frail opportunities for a decent education. All in all, I strongly believe this show could be replicated in any country, may it be France or the United Kingdom, and a couple dozen light heads would stand out from amongst a good thousand interviewed. Proportions also have to be taken in account. Maybe there are much more uneducated people in the US than some country in Europe. Yet, when swung in proportions to each country’s population, is the divide really flabbergasting ? not really.

Of course, I also get some abuse from people because of being French (I live in the UK now). But, there are stereotypes that I hate much more than nationalistic ones. I am talking about those stereotypes that have lead to things such as sexism, homophobia and racism. Of course, people who bring these to the extreme obviously have big issues that disable them from thinking outwards, in the light of rationality. They look inwards, towards their own emotionally romantic driven self for the answer. The compulsion to hate, despise or lower everything that does not characterise them is strong. But most of us more clever and humble types will look very sorely towards these extremists. But at other levels, these discriminations still exist. When France had its episode of slum riots, most people saw this as a simple manifestation of those people’s natural tendency for violence. Needless to say, this assumption came from a muffled tendency for racial discrimination. Because these populations were in majority Arab, it was all to easy for them to make a connection between violence and ethnicity. If you stop to think about it, there is absolutely no connection. Violence obviously sprung from the horrid living conditions in which these people live, which again, they did not bring upon themselves but rather arose from xenophobic tendencies in the workplace and in social life. Unable to express their rage through healthy means, as the educational system in these areas receive very few or no support for improvement, the young minds of the slums have no other resort but violence. If any of us lived in the slums in these dismal conditions, let me assure you, we would have burned cars (you may dismiss this idea for yourself, after all, you have no tendency for violence. But, would your personality be the same if you had been raised in poverty ?). Even the Fox News (which spells ‘biased as Hell’) commentator who foolishly tagged these people as ‘bestial’ would change his views if he lived in slums for a couple of years. Of course, none of these people would openly declare themselves racist, but there is no other word to describe so accurately why they so easily aim their anger towards these people. This is the same behaviour that lead to the holocaust. Thankfully, France is not on the verge of an economic recession in which the scapegoat behaviour thrives. And neither is any other developed country with that exact problem.

I think that at this point, everything I could say about homophobia and sexism on the same level as my depiction of racism would be too predictable. So I shall leave it to this and next time write what I really meant to write about all along: Little assumptions that people make because of certain personality traits one has. This will include the subjects of gender differences and homosexuality. I’ll also explain how it affects me personally. Amongst other things…

Leave a Comment

An Introduction to the chaos of the mind…

July 6, 2008 at 12:18 am (random brain output)
Tags: , , , , , ,

Well, this is my first article on WordPress ! It is quite strange that after watching the final episode of Season 4 of Doctor Who, I suddenly felt compelled to set up a blog and to write down my thoughts. Now it may seem that it is not such a far fetched idea if I had derived some sort of strong emotion from the episode and need to share this with someone else than my family (none of which find sci-fi appealing). But the fact is that I don’t intend to talk about Doctor Who. It is not the aim of this blog. So this blog has arisen from a quite sudden random craving. Maybe there were subliminal messages in the episode that bolstered me into an unconscious desire to create a blog.

Or maybe it was this video I saw who’s focus was a Hillary Clinton supporter (Will Bower) who, as a consequence of Obama winning the Democrat primaries, had decided to actively discredit Obama in order for McCain to win. Are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton so fundementally different that a Democrat should prefer to vote for a Republican instead ? I seriously don’t think so. I think this is another case of people voting with their heart rather than their brain. They are so revulsed by the idea that Clinton did not make it through that they will resign voting or worse still, vote for Republicans. Now obviously one can guess where my allegiance lies. However, when I say “worse still vote for Republicans” I meant from a logical point of view. If you have a tendency to vote Democrat, voting Republican is the worse thing you can do for the party. Equally, if you tend to vote Republican, voting Democrat is really not going to help the party. Sometimes the sudden swing of stance is justifiable. After all, you would want what you think is best for the country (or best for you, if you are selfish. We probably all are in our own ways). But, to vote completely out of whack with your ideas and ideals just to seek revenge for not getting exactly what you want is fairly damaging for your party. And quite frankly, it’s stupid. If a good portion of people act in that irrational way, the joint effort ultimetaly becomes a weight on the election and swings it one way or another.

As crazy at it may sound now, I don’t think I initially intended to write that much about the subject of the American election. This blog will not be a political one. In fact you can expect me to go on about Science much more than politics from now on. Because Science is a huge fascinating subject and I’m really far from having that enthusiasm for politics.  Like for example, I might talk about the Large Hadron Collider which will be operational in 1 day 21 hours 2 minutes and 50 seconds after I wrote this sentence. That is from http://www.lhcountdown.com/ which is the official site for the countdown. Don’t go complaining if the countdowns increments time instead of decrementing. That’s because they keep pushing the dates of the grand opening back. But seeing the scarce time left, I think this is it. Maybe next week we will find the Higgs Boson…and maybe we won’t. I won’t hide that I am quite excited and so are some of my friends. Isn’t that right Laurence ? Another reason why I just might mention science is that I am currently reading Richard Dawkins everfamous ‘The Selfish Gene’. The title might be confusing if you don’t know what it’s about. I can start by telling you that the focus is on the ‘gene’ not the ’selfish’, so now you can easily guess that Richard Dawkins is not a psychologist but rather a biologist (or more precisely a zoologist), and that his book involves the genome. Evolution is what it is all about. This book explains how species have evolved from simple replicators to the survival machines that we, and other living animals, consitute. It also goes on to explain how all intricacies and outcomes of evolution can emerge from each indivual gene’s selfish need to spread, strongly discrediting ideas like ‘group selection’ that seem now to be easy shortcuts for explaining evolution. As I have now contracted a headache from standing in front of my computer at 3 am, I shall not go into details. You will just have to read the book for yourself. It’s worth your while, I have never read a book so fast than this precise one (to the possible exception of ‘Second Foundation’ by Asimov).

So expect alot of scientific talk from this blog. I might also throw in some controversial pieces of mindflow (I just made up this word…I think) about what I think of awful stuff like Intelligent Design (well you could have predicted that much) and how I so absolutely believe in the Global Warming threat that so many people turn a deaf ear too (for those who were wondering if this interest has recently been nurtured in book form as my interest for evolution has, I shall answer that, yes, the book I was reading before Dawkin’s book is Al Gore’s ‘Earth in the balance’ [for some reason, i'm going through a non-fiction phase right now...]).

Damn, writing a bit of random prose is refreshing…

Leave a Comment