emmanuel reynaud holy virility the social construction of masculinity

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$C:\Users\rileyn\AppData\Local\Temp\notes95EC0B\Bari evidence ...$

picking or childcare are not prescribed by biology, they are imposed by a social relation of power in which one group exploits another and tries to camouflage its exploitation with naturalist or biologising explanations. [2 / Introduction / Holy virility] The argument for a natural difference between the sexes has been disproved by a whole series of discoveries. We now know, particularly from Margaret Mead's work [1] that psychological characteristics, behaviour and social roles traditionally attributed to one or the other sex in the West vary considerably according to different societies and are often even reversed. Among the Chambuli in New Guinea, to mention but one example, to be level-headed is considered typically feminine: the women are the dominant partners and the men are considered less able and more emotional. Similarly, anatomical distinctions associated with physical strength, supposed to be an irremediable factor in dividing the sexes, appear to be considered differently in different places. In a number of cultures men and women are of the same height and build and in some societies the men are even smaller and less sturdy than the women. Robert Briffault [2] cites the African Ashiras and Bashalingas as well as the Bushmen where the women are on average 4cms taller than the men. Moreover, if we go back in history consider our Paleolithic ancestors, studies of the earliest human remains have revealed that there was a very slight difference in height between men and women, and that their bones were of almost identical diameter. In a more general work, Pierre Samuel [3] gives a number of examples, historical and contemporary, where women are as strong as, or stronger than, men. He has found numerous women pirates, outlaws, warriors and fighters who had been ignored by official history; societies in which the women hunt or make war, with or without the men; others in which boxing matches are mixed; others where pregnancy does not prevent women from continuing their usual activities, which are only briefly interrupted while they give birth. To add to the list of examples of societies where there is little dimorphism or where the male and female attributes and roles are inversed would not make it any more convincing. It is not necessary to gather proof of the contradictory character of the supposedly natural sexual differences, to remind ourselves of the too frequently forgotten fact concerning man and woman, which is that humans do not exist in a natural state, outside social relationships, but that they are precisely a product of those relationships.
[Introduction / 3] The division into sexes One of the reasons for the confusion that reigns whenever the division into sexes is discussed is the amalgam made between the differences which are in fact natural, and those resulting from a social structure where men and women form two distinct groups. What can be said about natural differences? Only that they are related to the sexed mode of reproduction; the aptitude for reproduction does not depend on the individual but on the species. Like all the living beings which reproduce by interbreeding, humans have a male and a female variant. The mechanism of sexual differentiation is fairly well known; it begins at conception, according to whether the pair of sexual chromosomes consists of XX or XY; this genetic sex causes a hormonal process which determines the development of the sexual organs; in the end it is the external appearance of the physical organs which determines the legal sex at birth. Thus there are two sexual differentiations: one is biological (genetical, hormonal and physical), and makes a person either male or female; the other is social, and is based solely on the appearance of the external sexual organs. It determines whether a person belongs to the group of men or to the group of women. The social gender may well not correspond to the biological gender. As a result of mistaken diagnosis in the event of genital anomaly, for example, a legal gender may be attributed to a child which might be unrelated to its biological sex. Robert Stoller [4] reports a large number of such errors. The study of these cases reveals how important upbringing can be in irrevocably determining sexual identity. Attempts to rectify the ''mistaken'' identification and to restore the ''correct'' one in accordance with the biological gender can even prove traumatic. Stoller cites the case of a girl who became psychotic when she was told, at the age of 14, that she was 'neuter', or 'perhaps a man'. These errors are, of course, relatively rare, however they emphasise the arbitrariness of a social decision which imposes two different behaviour patterns, depending on whether one has a vulva or a penis.
Page 1 and 2: EMMANUEL REYNAUD HOLY VIRILITY THE
Page 3: 1 INTRODUCTION Old ideas die hard;
Page 7 and 8: individual matter, in other words ,
Page 9 and 10: tenderness, etc.― give rise more
Page 11 and 12: The first version presents the crea
Page 13 and 14: you shall win your food from it all
Page 15 and 16: Whatever the truth about the origin
Page 17 and 18: The disappearing bοdy Man reproduc
Page 19 and 20: sufficient to guarantee his power,
Page 21 and 22: ut we could also speak of mutilatio
Page 23 and 24: It seems that over the last few yea
Page 25 and 26: Desiring to be a woman Man sometime
Page 27 and 28: definition. But he does not usually
Page 29 and 30: Ignorance and mutilation For a long
Page 31 and 32: Yet the institution of circumcision
Page 33 and 34: with their gentle swaying are more
Page 35 and 36: associated with power, but the dime
Page 37 and 38: 4 MAN AND SEXUALITY Man does not al
Page 39 and 40: ealised them successfully. Of cours
Page 41 and 42: [48 / Holy virility] Rape and eroti
Page 43 and 44: which the possibility of such an ev
Page 45 and 46: mind make up a single indissociable
Page 47 and 48: consider his penis as an organ asso
Page 49 and 50: 5 THE MYTH OF THE PHALLIC ORGASM Ma
Page 51 and 52: is frigid, and not in imagination:
Page 53 and 54: Male sexuality and its breakdowns M
Page 55 and 56:
Why get a hard-on if one does not a
Page 57 and 58:
«Nathalie put her finger on it tha
Page 59 and 60:
the flesh by exerting total control
Page 61 and 62:
appropriation of women means that a
Page 63 and 64:
has fallen so low that the job is b
Page 65 and 66:
[The daddy and the rapist / 77] Art
Page 67 and 68:
Man does not generally envisage rel
Page 69 and 70:
«I would like to put in an ad: '22
Page 71 and 72:
discord that women are supposed to
Page 73 and 74:
wife cannot claim her body as her o
Page 75 and 76:
. . The list of disadvantages of th
Page 77 and 78:
The contradictions of appropriation
Page 79 and 80:
of Christianity, to usher it into t
Page 81 and 82:
sacrifice. But at the same time he
Page 83 and 84:
[Between men / 99] Faced with the w
Page 85 and 86:
There is never a human being at the
Page 87 and 88:
Relations between men in patriarchy
Page 89 and 90:
possession of their rights, their w
Page 91 and 92:
fragility of power when men at last
Page 93 and 94:
Power rid of its eternal alibi appe
Page 95 and 96:
doing this, they have set in motion
Page 97 and 98:
2. MAN AND HIS BODY 1. Joseph Dietz
Page 99 and 100:
6. THE DADDY AND THE RAPIST 1. Heid
show all

emmanuel reynaud holy virility the social construction of masculinity

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?