This is a wonderfully exuberant paper filled with ideas and challenges for your reader. As usual, your style is provocative, smooth and biting with brilliance. I read and yet I am hungry. If I did not know you I would be left unsatisfied by flashes of thought on a subject so rich, so loaded with controversy, that one should really only write about it in a manner more fleshed out. This is not satire, you are writing seriously but not going deep. Your statements need more substance, and this prompted me to write some notes, if nothing other than stimulation for you at some point should you revise.

 
EY: "What was the gender of the Declaration of Independence?"

EY: "The U.S. is a male dominant country."

RS: From the latest feature films to children's books, in business, advertising to politics, we find examples of gender discrimination whose roots are based in the expectations of traditional sex roles. The female body is used to sell products, as if it is a commodity itself--this well established fact has been noted by feminists in discussions of the sexual harrassment, rape and battering of women and is conducive to a colloquial (street) language that if filled with sexist connotations e.g. refering to a woman as a "bitch" or as a "cunt.".

EY: "The feminist movement is an intelligent and often vocal outcome of an inherently unjust treatment of more than half of humanity."

EY: "One day my wife...It is clear that marketing experts are gender-biased. One can say that, from a marketing perspective, my wife and I had only one thing in common: corn nuts! Were they affirming the sex roles imposed by society? Were they conveying a subliminal message to my wife she must have headaches and menstruation? Were they forcing her to shave her legs? On the other hand were they suggesting that my underarms smell and need to be deodorized or that I should grow a beard so I could enjoy the pleasures of shaving? The questions might contain a naughty clue for a serious arguement."

RS: Let me pause here: I think you need to pose both sides of the question since you are speaking on such a loaded issue. Were they affirming the sex roles imposed by society/or/are they filling the desires of both genders, reflected throughout society?

This is a chicken/egg problem that has been debated for many years. Who, we must ask, either directly in your thesis or before writing, who sets the gender standards that are followed. Feminists claim that men, who took them from Judeo-Christian doctrine, which make up this country's founding principles, impose the standards. If we accept this as your starting point, we assume you have read historical background on the history of patriarchal systems, not only those mentioned in the Old Testament but in secular societies.

I think what I am having difficulty with is my perception that you are mixing apples with oranges in this discussion.

You are bringing in a number of highly significant issues, although I understand your desire to use humour as a tranquilizer, I think certain points can be defeated if this is not used carefully.

 
These are some points you raise:
 

First: Gender-bias versus Gender-neutral

 
Second: Sexual subtexts in mass communication: media, advertising, every aspect of interpersonal communications

Third: You propose some very interesting points, however mixed the assortment is, and then call them "naughty" and leave them out there as a "tacit/spicy sarcasm" for the reader. As a reader, why should I bother reading any further? I will read because of the wrong reason, because I know you and want to go on.

Your rhetorical question posed on females being obliged to "have headaches and menstruation" is almost a non squatter.

I will pose one in return--Find me a healthy child-bearing age female who does not have the burden of menstruation and as her body prepares for it each month, a headache and often other symptoms I won't bore you with. Symptoms generally lessen after child birth, so some women do not ever suffer much, and some women are incapacitated with pain, and the female "emotionalism" that you dislike and headaches.

Women in America, as opposed to many Latin or European countries, shave everything they can see. There are articles annually in women's magazines, particularly in the spring and summer when the body is more exposed, on the best methods and products best suited for this problem.

Why do women do this? Very simply--in different societies men are attracted to different things. It is a known published documented fact that African Americans generally find that Caucasians have a body odor that repulses them and visa versa. Blacks prefer their own stronger scent, which is not a dirt smell, simply what Whites find generally unattractive, like sweat or body oils. These are scents that mark us individually. These markers of body chemistry bring people toward each other, and they vary in each "language" in every society. This can be easily established by buying the same brands of bar soap, in different communities. You will find not only different wrappers but different scents targeting the needs of each population segment.

EY: "Men and women, in general, are different by nature and they have different needs and roles."

RS: Well, well. Would you like to hear a feminist-type response to that bit of intellectual rhetoric?
 

Let me play provocateur for this discussion:

How are we different? Are you going to use the same old tired cliche and say that women are "emotional" and men are rational?

Are there emotions or personality qualities that women have that men lack?

Women can do just about every job a man can.

Just what do you define as a women's role, sir?

Is it to bear children and keep the home fires burning while the man is out hunting for a deer for dinner? What if a woman must hunt the deer, dress it and cook it for herself and her three kids and there ain't no man because he deserted her for some other chick?

You get my point? When you make certain types of statements, using language that is politically charged, you must account for and follow through on your statement to its conclusion otherwise you've lost your arguement from the start. I see further down you discuss a woman being allowed to make choices and act on them.

This illustrates my difficulty with this work again:

 Same para:
EY: 1) Equal respect and appreciation of roles.

RS: You have not defined "roles" therefore what are you advocating we respect?

Whatever anyone wants to take on as a "role"?

How about homosexuals taking on the "roles" of same sex parents and demanding to be called "families"? How can a society, based on Judeo-Christian ethic, give equal respect to such role-playing?

 
EY: 2) Equal chance for both male and female to choose their roles freely and responsibly.

RS: How does a female, who inherently bears the children, choose on an equal basis with a male?

How does a man, given equal chance to choose freely, come to take another man as his partner?

The issue of biology is at the forefront in this area. We are coming to understand, through research, that some issues not simply a matter of choosing "responsibly or freely."

That research is in great dispute, but it is becoming the basis of many laws dealing with homosexuals.

EY: 3) Laws to promote/guarantee these two goals.

RS: Define Roles and Equality for the reader then advocate guaranteeing their liberties.

EY: "Indeed, it is not necessary to distinguish what is natural/social to attain a fair relationship."

RS: You may actually think that way. But in fact you define the primary role for woman as one of child bearer and partner! Distinguishing what is "natural/social" and appropriate has been the basis of every civilized society. Your one sentence cancels out most of anthropology, alot of historical studies, literature and dare I say it, philosophy, which discusses the pro and cons of natural/social orders and the characteristics of men in societies to make this order workable.

RS: On to McKinnon-

I disagree with McKinnon and most of her work. By suggesting one remove the dominance, which she infers is neither male nor female, it assumes each gender will simply exist in a state of existential genderless harmony. Remove the pink elephant and one will not think about the pink elephant.

It is a false argument. It looks good on paper but in fact is not possible. In every single relationship, work, home, friends you have one of two who is dominant. Ideally dominance fluctuates complementing the needs of each other, more often it does not, hence the divorce rate. Look at your own relationship, look at ours as distant as it is. By the mere power of your intellect, you remain the dominant factor. This is simply one factor in relationships that pulls people together. It is not necessarily negative, it just IS.

However, we are specifically dealing with male/female issues. How shall we examine this:

If a man is not dominant does that mean--

1. He does not pursue a woman

2. He does not initiate sex

3. He does not pay on a date

4. He is not responsible for support or maintenance of wife/kids

5. Pornography in which women are submissive is outlawed

6. All literary references to male dominance are changed to the gender neutral term "person"

7. Ditto with all laws

If a woman is not submissive does that mean:

1. She may pursue a man

2. She may initiate sex

3. She pays on a date, at least for herself

4. She can support herself

5. Pornography is outlawed

6. Women get equal pay for the same jobs men do

7. Women should be active soldiers, cops, firemen, and other life support system jobs that require strength

8. Women should not be bothered having kids or nursing when adoption and baby formula is available.

Your point, is a moot one, as in any relationship a fine balance is always evolving, it is like learning to dance.

EY: ..."We can get intoxicated in [a] power struggle and harm our children"

I propose to you that all of the above mentioned points have already occured in America, set in motion by feminists to push aside "male dominance" and the effects has been gender confusion which is found everywhere, including children.

RS: You asked me about my thoughts on feminism. I would like to preface anything I write with an understanding that I have reached philosophically, I am a cynic of the first order on just about everything, but particularly anything smelling of politics and that includes feminism. I have seen the effects of sexual patronage stemming from gender politics, in academia.

I stated in my very brief note answering your mention of feminism, the attempt by feminism to "remove" what is inherently part of the male personality, namely dominance, and a man's need to dominant has cut the balls off men, mentally and spiritually, to be completely clear.

I am not speaking about men dominating women through ongoing abuse. I would go to the most perfect of Books, The Quran! A man is instructed, after he assumes the responsibility for having a woman in his life, is that if there are problems, to speak with her. Man's ability to reason is his dominant feature. I said, a man's ability to reason is his dominant feature. Look at every single question and response on the "19" Miracle and see which gender is counting, tabulating--I marvel at the mental gymnastics. Not because I am stupid, as a I woman have other qualities that enable me to function and complement a man.

And that is a crucial point. It is a point you personally believe as a man, but want to circumvent in your own ideology. You can't redefine roles as "equal but separate"--would call an orange and an apple equal but separate simply because they are both fruits? They are inherently unequal and can only be measured against one of their own kind. What are the complementary factors that each gender carries for one another to find a harmony? The Quran describes nothing short of perfection in how to treat a woman, but the reading is corrupted and abused as everything else is, for religious convenience.

A woman will respond first to intelligence, not brute force. A woman hears on every level so reason is what seduces, not muscle. Men forget this tiny but important fact most of the time. A woman who does not respond to verbal requests from her husband is choosing to ignore her husband and her marriage for a variety of complex reasons. She may be struck, and note the use of green twigs which are used to awaken, they are a gesture not meant to inflict pain or suffering, they are available when language and reason no longer functions and reaches her either emotionally or rationally. I would say that having to resort to this, one must accept that the matter is likely beyond repair, but it is provided as a tool. Woman is exactly one half of a sanctified couple in front of God, he is allowed to use this measure to save the marriage, his wife etc.
 

These dictums seem to provide some context for roles for both genders.
 

"...Loaded with emotional hormones" Men cry, get depressed, and do many emotional hormone things that women do, who knows about tears, pain, love than a man who lost so much?

EY: "The basic role for woman is motherhood and partnership..."

RS: There have been studies done in women's prisons that show those women form families. One woman is being the male and other women taking on the roles of children. Lesbianism between women in prison is a given fact. Sex between women is not forced or by rape as in men's prisons.

There is a need to nurture even, or particularly, in that environment.

EY: "The basic role for woman is motherhood and partnership..."

RS: This potato is so hot I almost dropped it... I utterly completely agree, but, what about those women, who do not want that choice, can't have kids, can't find a partner etc.?

Are you advocating that motherhood or partnership in any form, i.e. un married women, lesbians, Nuns? Define partnership.

EY:" We as the generation of information and intellect, should appreciate and enjoy the natural diversity of sexes, without refracting or exploiting them."

RS: If we are such an enlightened bunch, do we have any restrictions? What are they?
I read Rashad's comments on Polygamy where he refutes having more than one woman.
What is his basis for this? It would appear to be a socio/political decision rather than religious.

EY:"women...ought to be empowered economically"

RS: With your political background I'll try not to lecture, however the established order of capitalism in this democracy has strong interest in keeping segments of its population economically oppressed and at a disadvantage, i.e. on drugs, sub standard living conditions, without child care, or health insurance. If oppressed populations are liberated, by acts that enforce their choices, then those in power risk the possibility of losing their power and control.

Speaking of the good benefits of feminism is like patting a woman on the head. Most of the effects of feminism are very subtle.

But my feeling is that feminism has been more divisive, destructive than anything else. Divisive between the sexes and destructive for both genders. We cannot advocate that women have "equality, freedom, abortion on demand, etc" and on the other hand then ask ourselves, as women with these freedoms to dress immodestly, to have sex indiscriminately, to abort without conscience, why men are not falling over themselves to be "men" and cherish us, protect us.

EY: "The bargain between men and women will fluctuate...for centuries.. and finally settle down."
 

I disagree with your conclusion. I felt was necessary to respond to a topic I feel has been 'beaten around the bush' too often, I will finish up with some points on your final paragraph.

1. Men will continue, as they must, to gain whatever they do through "muscle" both physical/intellectual.

2. Women will continue, as they must to gain whatever they do through their own "muscle" both intuition/intellect.

As my theory on men and women may differ with yours, in this context, I will conclude by saying this 'bargain' will continue to fluctuate up to the Final Day, for it is the nature of men and women to negotiate at every level, and particularly between one male and one female.

But, I love your final sentence so much, we'll leave it in peace.