Musings on Gender

[j_forias]

So, I've got to plan a disseratation in about three weeks. I've decided to do it on some kind of feminist take of Defoe's Moll Flanders, looking at Moll's voice. It's a really fascinating issue for me, particularly as I'm writing a first person novel in a female voice (or trying!).

Comments

[ehnel]

And does gender matter at all? Should we think of ourselves as just people?

I like the idea that there's a distinction between gender and sex (only English does not have adequate words to express said distinction). This theory came up in one of my archaeological theory modules last term. Looking at the man/woman thing through this light, you have a male or female biological sex, but your gender (masculine, feminine, other) is a role determined by society/yourself. Which I think is nice, and to some extent true as well

[j_forias]

I agreed with everything you said so much that its scary!

The distinction between gender and sex is very important. But I'm fascinated that you studied it in relation to archaeology. Do you mind me asking how it related? Does archaeolgical theory have a heavy focus on culture?

And yes, completely agree about thinking of a person as a person and as a man/woman/transman/whatever. Plus with the gender being so much a part of us. Being a man is part of who I am. I'll never escape that and I don't think I'd ever want to.

Hmm, yes, the two halves. Like how you can't truly understand the idea of light, without knowing what darkness is? I do think that a lot of truth comes with balancing two "things". We kind of test one against the other, and we get something unique out of the process. Like mixing blue and yellow to make green. Or something like that.

My apologies. I'm rambling!

[ehnel]

But I'm fascinated that you studied it in relation to archaeology. Do you mind me asking how it related? Does archaeolgical theory have a heavy focus on culture?Hee. Yes. No. Sort of. Some of it focusses on culture, some of it focusses on the actual practise of archaeology. There are lots of different kinds of theory, and their emphases vary - there's gender archaeology, Marxist archaeology, structuralism, contextualism, processualism, culture history, nd loads more

[ehnel]

Hmm, something else I thought of: a lot of archaeological theorists are interested in how your own assumptions/prejudices are reflected onto archaeological interpretations. At the most basic level, it is VERY basic. You excavate what looks like you to be a pot made of clay: therefore you assume it served the function of a pot or a container, because you have pots in your everyday life. But it might not have seemed that way to the person who made it. So, that interpretation could be right. But it could be wrong. At its more complicated level, these assumptions ARE complicated. Perhaps you excavate a skeleton that you cannot sex using the bones, and there was a sword buried with it. Most people would immediately assume this to mean the skeleton is male, because swords are almost exclusively associated with men in this culture. Could be right. Could be wrong. Ditto if you excavate an unsexable skeleton with an infant's skeleton. The automatic assumption might be that it's a female adult skeleton buried with her baby. Could be right.

[j_forias]

Aye, yes, I can see how that would work. It's amazing how these theories touch so many aspects of human life and human knowledge. They question are base assumptions in almost every academic and life area. Wow!

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain that. (And yes, the Marxist archeologists sound bonkers.) I'll check out the link tomorrow! Got to head towards bed now. Up at 6am. :(