Rumors Barack Obama's campaign shouldn't try to correct. - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

Rumors Barack Obama's campaign shouldn't try to correct. - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

Sex & Gender Part I - Culture v. Biology

Many days instead of dissertation writing, I mull over various thoughts I have regarding "liberal" issues like racism, gender socialization, gay rights, attitudes towards evolution, and the like. I always think about how I should write down some of these thoughts (and therefore parlay them into something academically useful instead of just an interesting distraction). Therefore, today I'm going to start a multiple-post arc on issues of culture & biology in sex and gender.

One big question I've struggled with for years is: How much are gender differences biologically versus culturally determined? By gender I mean the traits, characteristics, behaviors, etc. associated with being masculine and feminine. The standard line is that sex is biological (women have boobs, men have gonads) but gender is socially constructed. The controversial question issue is how much is gender connected to sex? How much of femininity is biologically ingrained in women and how much do genes tell men to be masculine? (Interesting aside - Judith Butler argues both sex and gender are socially constructed.)

I've always leaned on the far side of the socialization scale. Girls like frilly dresses, the color pink, playing with dolls, and acting demurely because they are raised that way. And even when parents explicitly try bring their daughter up differently, influences like television, music, toys, movies, friends, family members, school, and practically everything else in our culture teaches them to adhere to a certain gender role. In this way gender is like a role we perform, where our gender identities are constantly reconstructed and reinforced through the repetition of everyday gendered acts, behaviors, words, etc. (See more about the performative theory of gender here.) Certainly things have changed a lot in contemporary U.S. culture over the past few decades, but it's still quite shockingly prevalent. (Think of gender stereotypes constantly used by the media, especially during Hillary Clinton's recent presidential campaign.)

Of course, many would point out (including my mother) that I am completely ignoring the large stack of research that demonstrates biological differences between the sexes. I'm not denying it completely. However, I would make three points. First, sex and gender are different concepts. Just because there are biological differences does not mean that they automatically lead to a behavioral gender attribute. So if the area of the brain that controls language tends to be larger in women, does this automatically mean women are inherently gossipy (as the gender stereotype says they are)? Absolutely not. I concept like "gossip" is a cultural construct. Maybe biology would say women tend to be better at remember the large amounts of information and social relationships that are part of "gossip" but the tendency for women to engage in this very specific kind of language activity (and the negative social connotations associated with gossip) are socialized IMHO.

Second, we can probably never truly test nature v. nurture arguments such as these. Short of finding a bunch of kids raised by wolves, there is no way to remove individuals completely from culture (and then we'd just be seeing the effects of socialization into wolf culture). In scientific experimental terms, we can never successfully apply the "treatment" of biology alone/no culture. Confounding cultural variables will always get in the way.

Third, biology and gender research can lead us down a dangerous ethical path. Here is one of my biggest pet peeves in the whole biology v. cultures debates. Why does a biological basis for any human behavior, attribute, belief, etc. differences make it somehow more justified? Why is “because it’s natural” a good justification for ethics and ideas about how society should be constructed?

For example, take the supposition that XYY men biologically tend to be more violent. (While the most recent research demonstrates XYY men are not more aggressive, just assume it for the sake of this point.) Can you imagine a judge who gave an XYY male a lighter sentence on an assult or rape charge because "he's biologically predisposed" to be more violent and therefore his behavior was "natural"? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. As a society we have an ethical standard against violence in most cases (with certain exceptions, of course), and we purport to apply this equally to all individuals, regardless of the amount of testosterone in the bodies.

Along those same lines, why should we tolerate arguments about women's role in the military, political leadership positions, math and science abilities, etc. that rely on supposedly biological differences between men and women. Just because it’s natural and there’s a biological explanation doesn’t mean it’s ethically correct. We construct our own ethical view of how the world should be independent of biology and use culture to shape biological, not vice versa. So, therefore, the biology v. culture in gender and sex differences debate should not be as meaningful as many think it is.

Part II and III to come later. I'm sure you can't wait!

Something decent to watch this summer

Just found this on The Underwire blog on Wired.com: Fringe Pilot Leaks Online Three Months Before Premiere

I'm already downloading the Torrent. This will be a nice compliment to the X-Files summer marathon David and I are having. It will be interesting to compare the two. I wonder if conspiracy-minded FBI agents on TV are more or less paranoid about the government in the 21st century than in the 1990s? How will Fringe contribute to our long history of conspiracy culture in the US? (I must stop thinking about this or I will get even more distracted from dissertation writing!)

UPDATE: I watched the Fringe pilot on a train ride to NYC last week and it was awesome! 1 hour and 20 minutes of scifi/conspiracy/pop culture bliss. I hope the rest of the series is as good as the pilot. If anyone wants a copy just let me know.

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Just found this fascinating article from The Atlantic - Is Google Making Us Stupid? Basically it's about how the information revolution and the internet are fundamentally altering the way humans process information and think, and even how our brains are structured. The end also has a nice twist with an overview of how these kinds of doomsday predictions were always made with the advent of new communication technologies (such as the printing press).

By hook or by crook . . .

I just found out that plans on underway for a remake of the 1960s spy/sci-fi cult TV show The Prisoner. I'm intrigued by the idea and my mom will be even more excited than I am. (She introduced me to the show many years ago.) The Prisoner was one of the first television shows to use to medium to explore heady philosophical issues such as individualism v. society, personal identity v. socialization, political authority v. personal conviction, and even the very nature of reality itself. It's one of the few shows that runs counter to the claim that popular culture has gotten more complex and smarter over the past 40 years.

This is one remake that I can't wait for!

This one goes out to the one I love

I had the most incredible night last night. SingleGirl and I went to see R.E.M. at Merriweather Post Pavillion. It was one of the best concerts I've ever been to in my life. These guys still know how to rock, which is especially amazing given they're all around 50. The placed was packed, the audience was screaming, jumping and dancing, and Michael, Mike, and Peter were on fire. This is the fifth time I've seen R.E.M. live (two nights of the Green tour in Kansas City the summer of 1996, the Werchter Music Festival in Belgium summer 1999, and Constitution Hall in DC in 2004) All were great performances, but right now I think this was the best. My ears are still ringing from the show and I might need a double knee replacement from jumping around so much!

Being the 21st century-relevant band that they are, R.E.M. has set up a cool multimedia site for fan generated content. People can post pictures, videos, blog entries, and twitters from each show. He's the DC show page.

For those of you interested, here's the set list. They played a good mix of old and new stuff. The songs from their new album Accelerate sound closer the late 80s/early 90s R.E.M. of Life's Rich Pageant, Document and Green than any of their albums of the past 15 years. So the newer stuff fit in perfectly with classic songs like These Days, Finest Worksong, and Pop Song 89 (Everyone should check out the new album. It's been getting great reviews.)

As some of my reader my know, I have was an insane R.E.M. fan for years. I saw "was" because before the new album, I really haven't enjoyed a lot of their stuff since Monster. However, R.E.M. played a significant role in my high school and college days. They still rank in my top 5 favorite bands of all times. It all started in 1989 when my cool older friend Tricia loaned my her cassette tape of Green. I admit at first I listed to it just because she liked it. But the more I listened the more I couldn't stop. Soon after I bought Eponymous, their first greatest hits collection (which, by the way, was the first CD I ever purchased). It was True Love from then on. I bought the entire back catalog my freshman year of high school and every new album since. I have memories of sitting in my room crying over something that seemed monumentally important at the time (unrequited crush, being grounded, unsightly acne), and being able to get through it by listening to R.E.M. They were also the first band that made me really listen to the lyrics and understand them as poetry in their own right.

So back to the show. One of the most awesome moments was during the encore. Michael told the audience to welcome Johnny Marr onto the stage as the opening chords of Fall On Me began. I turned to SingleGirl and screamed "Johnny FUCKING Marr!?! I don't believe it!!!" Johnny Marr, as many of you may know, was the lead guitarist and co-songwriter (with Morrissey) for The Smiths. This was like a Generation X music porn fantasy. Members of the two most influential 80s alternative bands on stage together. I'm sure many in the audience were fondly remembering all the teenaged angst-fests fuel by R.E.M. and The Smiths lyrics.

So why was Johnny Marr even there, I wondered. Does he live in the DC area? (And, if so, can I stalk him?) Like a good thirtysomething gadget geek, I googled on my iPhone on the way out. It turns out that Johnny Marr has been the guitarist for Modest Mouse (the opening band) since 2006. WTF?!? How did I not know this? And how did that happen? Imagine being the members of Modest Mouse and getting a phone call from Johnny Marr. "Hey mates. Can I be in your band?" And the rest of the has to tell the guitarist "Sorry dude but Johnny Marr wants to be in our band. You have to play rhythm guitar now." I'm sure he was like "fair enough" because it's Johnny FUCKING Marr! But I digress . . .

I didn't get home until almost 2am last night so I am a little sleep deprived today. However, it was totally worth it. Now I secretly want to buy tickets to a couple nights on their European tour latter this summer and make a vacation of out it. Anyone want to join me?

Those young whippersnappers today!

Came across this great essay in the NY Times about the current younger generations' views on hooking-up, dating and love from the perspective of a college-aged male. It's part of the Times' Modern Love series. I think SingleGirl especially should read this.

Bottoms up!

New Hints Seen That Red Wine May Slow Aging - NYTimes.com

When machines become smarter than humans

I just ran across this special report from IEEE Spectrum on "The Singularity." The singularity is essentially the moment in the development of technology when artificial intelligence becomes smarter than humans. Some fascinating stuff about the future of science, technology, and the human race. Check it out.

This gives me hope that my dream of uploading my consciousness onto the internet or into a clone will be someday achievable. (Kind of like the plotline of the Battlestar Gallactica prequal "Caprica.") But that's a blog post for another time.

What I've been doing on my summer vacation

I just realized it’s been 1 ½ weeks since my last blog post. You’d think I’d have all the time in the world since I’m visiting my family in Topeka, Kansas right now. I’m one of those people, though, who gets the most done when I am really busy. If I have long blocks of unscheduled time then I get absolutely nothing done. Well . . . nothing productive that is. I’ve been engaging in plenty of reading for “personal enrichment”

I finished Karen Joy Fowler’s new book Wit’s End. She’s best known for writing The Jane Austen Book Club, but prior to that she was known in the scifi/fantasy community as writing fantastic historical fiction with a fantastical edge. Check out Sarah Canary and the PEN/Faulkner finalist Sister Noon. Unfortunately, I was disappointed with Wit’s End. She’s definitely seemed to abandon the fantasy realm and is directly placed herself in the genre of “intellectual chic lit.” It was a fun, quick read but not the heady stuff of her earlier work. Perfect for reading while lying next to my parents’ pool, though :)

I also bought the Anita Blake series graphic novel that is the prequel to the book series. (I guess every is jumping on the graphic novel bandwagon now.) Laurell K. Hamilton’s books have always been a guilty pleasure of mine. Part vampire fantasy, part romance, part action. Kind of like if a Joss Whedon script was tweaked by a Harlequin Romance writer. Fun stuff.

Right now I’m half way through Steven Johnson’s Everyting Bad is Good For You, a great non-fiction book about how pop culture is actually making us smarter. I love it when someone tells me all my TiVo-ing of Lost, 24, and Battlestar is helping to increasing my cognitive functions. Along the same line, I came across this interesting story that current pop culture demonstrates Americans are becoming more tolerant of gays and lesbians. While pop culture certainly can influence social attitudes, it also reflects general trends in society. This is especially apparent when we consider that the main goal of TV is commercial – it needs to sell itself to the audience and not offend too much.

I’ve also been following the possible upcoming end of the world through the advancement of science, how the media has portrayed race and gender in the current presidential primaries, how more authoritarian parental styles can cause kids to later be “bystanders to genocide,” good 'ole misogyny in the guise of promoting faith & abstinence, evidence that if you reply the history of life multiple times you'll get vastly different outcomes, and mulling over possible theories for the events of the crazy yet awesome season 4 Lost finale.

So basically the same dissertation avoidance techniques I use all the time!