Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!eirikur
From: eirikur@amber.DEC (Eirikur Hallgrimsson)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: We aren't that simple.
Message-ID: <2408@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Jul-84 17:15:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.2408
Posted: Mon Jul  9 17:15:41 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jul-84 00:32:31 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 39


     From  what  a lot of people are saying these days, I get the impression
that  many  think  that  sex  roles are simple stuff--costumes, physical and
emotional, and a little posturing. Like, maybe we could make them go away if
we  yanked  the  trappings,  and  waited a couple of generations.  I used to
believe this, and it *may* be true, but sex roles *evolved*, in the cultural
sense,  and  like most things that 'jest grew' they're horribly complicated,
and very well adapted.

     I don't think that they can be wished (or legislated) out of existence.
Because  they serve a need. Culture abhors a vacuum. (Shava Nerad, where are
you?)  Courtship, (or a replacement protocol) has to happen. Kids have to be
born,  and  wear  designer jeans, watch too much tv, eat junk food, etc, (or
your  local  period/regional  variants) and then raise kids themselves. This
*has*  to happen. (Dag Hammarskjold said something on the order of 'What has
to happen is going to happen.' I'll extend that to saying that there will be
a means.)

     Anyway,  the  point  of this article is that sex roles are deep-rooted,
primary  parts  of  humanity, (we have been discussing how hard it can be to
buck  them!).  They have to work in the general case. What if sex roles only
worked  for  a given sub-population? One generation later, their descendants
would  be  the  only  population. Hence, they work. They're ill fitting, and
hurt  a  lot  these days, though. Maybe we can grow them so that they better
fit  the  us  of now. Cultural bonzai doesn't have a good track record, so I
suspect  that  they  won't ever be what we want them to be (even if we could
agree). They'll just fit us better, (and be more fit--pun semi-intended).

     Deep  rooted,  I  say.  For  example, and more relevant to net.motss--I
haven't  ever  seen  a gay or lesbian relationship that did not *most of the
time*  exhibit differential 'sex roles.' They may swap or submerge, but from
what I've seen, they surface daily.  They're so solidly a part of us that
they persist when they're not relevant.
Comments? 


	Eirikur Hallgrimsson  


Mon 9-Jul-1984 17:13 Marlborough uncorrected time.