:
|
i have learned my lesson, in the future i will only post threads that can be answered with the likes of LOL., me too, that`s stooped  , etc.,etc.
To those who have had thier order of thing damaged , my apologies, it won`t happen again.
the old doctor |
Wow, you could cut the pompous in that post with a knife.
Here's my take on the whole thing.
I'm a bit skeptical of people who think it's more "enlightened" to believe there are no innate differences between the genders. From my experience there definately are differences. And, guess what, older and wiser cultures then our own agree.
There seems to be two dominant ways our western culture approachs the fact that there are two sapient speicies on this planet who can breed together. The first is to deny any possibility for understanding between the sexes and the second is deny any differences.
The first is what we'd call the "chauvanistic" attitude. Men are men. Women are women. And never the twain shall meet.
The second is the "enlightened" or politically correct attitude.
Many people today think the second attitude is both fundementally different then the chauvanistic and *better*. I think it's more of the same.
It's the same attitude as that of a self-centred traveler encountering a new culture and thinking herself enlightened because she is so accepting of it... while all she's doing is *denying* all it's differences. Like the attitude of the traveller, the "enlightened" gender attitude resolves the fear of difference by denying it completely. This also is parrallel to the sex-phobic narcisist, who can't stand the thought that he is incomplete, that someone has something he does not, sex being the activity that makes this most blatant and unavoidable. If both sexes are the really the same, then they have nothing to give eachother, nothing that either one *wants* and, most tragically, nothing to teach eachother.
However there is a middle way to resolving this issue. It could be best expressed in the concept of yin-yang, or the jungian theory of the anima/animus. As there is a bit of the masculine in the femining yin, there is a bit of the feminine in the masculine yang. And in humans, according to Jung, a man has an anima, his feminine qualities, and a woman her animus.
The chauvanist tradition denies the existance of the anima/animus, and so does the "enlightened" tradition. Since, in order to have an anima you must first *be* male(thus have dominant male characteristics) likewise in order to have an animus you must first be female(thus have dominant female characteristics). Without acknowledging the distinction between male and female, there is no ability to acknowlege the similarities.
The chauvinist denies all similarity, and the p.c. adherent *forces* conformity by denying difference.
How does this apply to Stranger being male? Well, in my experience transexuals in our culture aggressively deny the qualities of the sex that they physically are, while embracing a dogmatic view of the sex they want to be. In other words, they are *not* balanced in terms of their gender. (This could be contrasted with transexuals in other cultures who are more balanced, often because they are provided with a sense of belonging and respect.)
Stranger *is*. His masculinity is intelligently balanced with a certain amount of femininity-- the necklace, the long hair, beads and the constant referance to him being "purdy" all lend him a subtle feminine quality. In other words, it isn't Stranger's masculinity that makes me think he's male. It's his femininity. Or more accurately, the balance of the two within him.
Also, once again, I don't think he would approach the problem of his identity the same way if he was female. It seems like identity is where men and women differ most. A woman has an inborn sense of identity, whereas men seem to develop one via their actions. This makes male characters more vulnerable to problems of identity, and more likely to take the kind of drastic action Stranger was willing to take.
Nice termonologies
