Some of these ideas come from the formal field called the “evolution of sexuality”, which begins with women assigned to be the gatherers and child bearers and men assigned to be the warriors and hunters. But these roles when matched with the preferences and talents of actual human beings reveal over-lapping bell curves: some men would rather gather and some women would rather hunt. Not all. But we seem to be past the idea that all human beings are equal and alike. (Whew!) There are real differences, some due to gender, and real outliers, some from heredity and some from culture.
Newer evidence comes from the examination of porn (depictions of the direct act of sex) which seems to be the preference of most men, versus romance novels (accounts of the story of intimacy) which appears to be what women want. (Equally unreal.) These preferences are linked to the act of procreation (men) and the creation of family (women). In terms of biology, men risk violence for a few moments of intense feeling and women risk pregnancy for at least twenty years of relationship with children. Until a hundred years ago, giving birth often killed women. Still today competing men confront each other violently.
Evidence comparing straight men versus gay men via the porn industry -- both the viewers and the providers -- suggests that the ONLY difference between straight and gay is in their desire preference -- whether for the same or for the different sex -- which is evidently set during gestation. Nothing to do with frailty or boldness or muscles. True of many mammals. Outside of that (bell curve again) gay men seem on the whole to have better sex and have bigger crucial equipment. Each set of men -- gay or straight -- distribute out over every spectrum in roughly the same ways: big tough guy vs. wimp, scholar vs. pugilist, caring and protective father vs. seed scatterers.
Women distribute along their own curve with the difference that they can adapt to many kinds of men or even a woman partner as the wage-earner, the aggressor, the tough one. Children, so long as their basic needs are met, are quite comfortable with whichever sex is doing the parenting and can even -- up to a point, which is mostly the acquisition of speech -- be protected by other species. (A wolf cannot teach a child to talk.) The ideal, because it is the most evolved and so far the most successful pattern, is a nurturing mother and a protective father who love each other and therefore keep the family boat on an even keel.
One of the most startling phenomena, now much better known than when it formed in the Seventies, is a particular genre of romantic fiction, in which attachment and bonding between media characters, both of them men, extends to include female ideas. That is, men-identified-as-men who are intimate in a female way, not just physical but also emotional and spiritual. This is called K/S or “slash” fiction. It stands for Kirk-slash-Spock, because it began with this heart-versus-head pair on “Star Trek.” By now many fictional pairs of male friends -- intense and loyal male partners being a trope of fiction going back to “Gilgamesh” -- have been further explored as lovers by fans online. When readers and writers of slash fiction (not always explicit about the sex act, as much as the emotional commitment) are interviewed and categorized, they tend to be women who are inside the statistical bell curve of male social roles. Not their physical appearance, but their interests and abilities. Uppity women. Border jumpers. Tom boys.
In the real world, K/S fans might or might not be lesbian and might be in straight childless marriages dedicated to a common cause. Might not be married at all. These women might be described as adventurers or even warriors. As Salmon and Symons put it in their amazing small book, they prefer to be warrior partners rather than wives of warriors. A marriage on this basis can work very well so far as society is concerned, but is not easy for every real-life couple.
The version of this kind of woman that I like best is the Chinese movie “samurai” from the Western steppes: skillful, disciplined, dedicated, athletic. (Maybe because they are the ones I least resemble.) I also love their male warrior lovers, who are often near-shamans because the intimacy involved is far more than physical. Other women warriors are more likely to be rivals than partners. Best not to try to control or punish such women. They might make good partners for younger men. Think of the relationship of “M” to James Bond, especially in “Skyfall.” This is all fantasy. What’s wrong with that? So long as one remembers it's not reality.
Early (naive?) same sex marriages were seen as asymmetrical: one more powerful than the other, one more “femme” than the other, one more “mommie” than the other. In my experience there are as many kinds of intimate partnership as there are kinds of people. Literary teddybears have as much in common as big stud grizzlies, though I don’t suppose the two groups socialize together much.
In a rural small town there is a lot of homosociality, that is, gender-assigned socializing. The guys do the big machinery stuff and the gals do the quilting. By junior high the sports tend to
sort the kids -- football for boys, volleyball for girls, with golf or track as unisex. The consensus that develops in these separated groups can be pretty out-of-sync in many ways. A place like this is likely to be less tolerant of outliers, especially if they cross over to the other homosociality group, which can lead to suspicion about sexuality. If a boy’s idea of a machine is a Singer or a stove and a girl’s idea of fun is repairing combines or shooting gophers, they can be made to feel pretty uncomfortable. But that has nothing to do with their sexual desires or with their ability to form intimate relationships over a long period of time. Sometimes art or music offers a common ground.
sort the kids -- football for boys, volleyball for girls, with golf or track as unisex. The consensus that develops in these separated groups can be pretty out-of-sync in many ways. A place like this is likely to be less tolerant of outliers, especially if they cross over to the other homosociality group, which can lead to suspicion about sexuality. If a boy’s idea of a machine is a Singer or a stove and a girl’s idea of fun is repairing combines or shooting gophers, they can be made to feel pretty uncomfortable. But that has nothing to do with their sexual desires or with their ability to form intimate relationships over a long period of time. Sometimes art or music offers a common ground.
The qualities that make a sexual union good for parenting kids are not the ones that distinguish gay from straight or tough from gentle. What’s needed is adults who pay attention, who have resources (not just money), and who are stable enough so the kid can use his or her energy to grow and acquire skills instead of always having to accommodate adult caprices and traumas. In an era where people tend to be a lot more fluid in many ways (maybe they wander or maybe males get killed young) the old tribal pattern of mom and uncle seems to work, which takes the sexuality of the adults out of consideration, but not the cultural pride of having a father and his genetic bequest.
What qualities enable the survival of children family by family, and which ones support the survival of children as a society? The two are braided together, but it seems obvious that feeding programs, health programs, and education are vital. Housing is now becoming crucial. Tolerance of differences, basic information about self-management, role-models of many kinds, and now I would add self-protective out-reach to the Internet larger world, means of self-expression, and a refusal to victimize or be victimized -- the list could get pretty long. Maybe patterns of three adult “parents” will rise to meet the challenge. Or could we revive the idea of “god-parents”? Or the Blackfeet custom of all one's mother’s sisters being one’s mother and all one’s father’s brothers being one’s father? Warrior lovers. Why get stuck in stereotypes?
Michelle Yeoh
No comments:
Post a Comment