cliterature

Sometimes is can be tricky to explain to a guy why gender myths(a.k.a. gender stereotypes or false beliefs) are/can be a big deal.  Partly this is because most of the gender myths we are taught as children continue to just seem plausible to us throughout life.  The other is that myths about males are a bit more insidious than those about women.  Women are characterised as weak, emotional, hysterical and erratic.  Being characterised as strong, logical, laconic and herois doesn’t seem like such as bad deal (until you try to live up to it all the time without ever showing a hint of weakness).

It can be helpful to illustrate how gender myths can be unnecessarily limiting by reach for example from the past, and examples relating to the male gender.  In fact there is one particular example that I have found to very effectively in getting the point across.  I will illustrate it with some quotes from what was considered a rather progressive book about sexuality, circa 1912.

 ”…the growing man [up to the age of 25] needs the semen secreted to develop his own body.  It is now recognised as a fact that the semen, if not dissipated, will be reabsorbed by the system and aid materially in the development of the body.  Boys who waste this “elixir of life” during their youth do not develop as they should.  The youth who practices masturbation …  during this period of development is wasting energy he never can regain.”

That’s right, it was commonly believed that a male up to the age of 25 should (could) abstain from any emission.  And what would happen if he did not?  Well according to this author:

“…self-abuse has a weakening effect on the body … capable of producing the most serious of results, such as insanity, idiocy, impotency and sterility … Children who have developed the habit of self abuse usually sleep badly, become thin and haggard looking, peevish, nervous and excitable.  Some even have convulsions.  Older boys who are masturbators usually get  a sallow look and hang-dog expression.  They become  absent-minded and lose their frank expression.  The young man with this habit becomes overshy as he is conscious of doing something that should be condemned. Adult masturbators may show no signs otherwise than that they are cowardly and mean-spirited … He lacks the willpower necessary to succeed in any undertaking and drags through life as a failure.”

These days we joke about going blind or getting hairy palms.  But this was a real basis for shame and confusion for boys who did what came naturally.  They must genuinely have feared becoming a coward, pervert or weakling.  In fact this belief lingers in certain subcultures to the present day.  Young boys were watched closely, sleep on hard beds with light blankets on the understanding that being warm ’stimulates’ erotic desires–in fact if possible they were mean to sleep outside or at least with a window wide open.  Using condiments on food was also considered dangerous and cold baths both a preventative and curative treatment.  Children born to men under 25 are described as likely to be deficit and under-developed.

It may seem funny now, but I doubt it was at the time when many boys would have been ashamed of something they were told was, on a moral and scientific basis, abnormal.  How would we know which of the beliefs we hold today might eventually be shown to be just as fallacious?  It may seem easy to dispute the opinions in an old book (one that goes on to discuss ‘race suicide’ and the advisability of sterilising imperfect humans). 

But irrational shame still lurks in the form of gender myths in our own day to day lives.  We obsess about our sexual attributes, orientations, the strength or absence of libido, our appearances, our fantasies, what we view and read–and equally we are judgemental of others based on the very same things.  It should be simple, really.  There should be no shame where no-one is harmed.  But false science and moralising convinces many people that what comes naturally to them harms themselves or others.  And it is hard to sort truth from myth when another camp, especially on the online Wild West, will suggest any kind of abuse is actually normal and loving.

It may take a funny example to make the point.  But gender myths limit how people behave and who they are, not just sexually but in every way.  Some of these limits are beneficial and prevent selfish abuse or others, and some are arbitrary and perverse with a needless legacy of shame and self-loathing.  The trick, as ever, is telling the differemce between the two.  Or at least trying to.

 * Quotes from Himself: Talks with Men Concerning Themselvesby EB Lowry and RJ Lambert (Forbes & Company, Chicago, 1912)

I apologise, today’s topic is more than usually trivial, but here we go…..

I have this ongoing argument with MSWord spellchecker.  Well actually I have several, but that’s what custom dictionaries are for.  (An ‘e’ in the middle of judgment, I think not).  The word I am thinking of today is ’steepled’, specifically as it relates to hands.  Spellchecker assures me that the word ’steepled’ is a non-word, it fails to be, it is without existence in reality as defined by our friends at Microsoft.  (And remember, the computer is your friend.)

How to Read a Person like a Book(1973) assures me that steepling is a recognised hand gesture, but over the course of four pages absolutely refuses to use the word in adjective form.  ‘Steeple’, okay–’steepling’, fine–no steepled.  (How annoying).   I also read within that men steeple there hands high which signifies confidence–women steeple lower and in covert ways.  (With helpful pictures depicting a male in a business suit and a female in a short skirt).

I tour of the dictionaries available online, including my favorite Merriam-Webster, also fails to back me up.  Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation (2002) finally back me up with: hands may also be “steepled” where the tips of the fingers of each hand are touched together.  But the inverted commas are not exactly an unmitigated endorsement.

 Upon consideration (and because How to Read a Person like a Book mentions the fact) I think I learned about the gesture, and how it is described, from Sherlock Holmes stories.  A character who certainly embodies the kind of masculine arrogance that the body language experts attribute to it.  But a search of the canon, alas, also fails to produce the adjective.

 I can locate it in Sherlock Holmes pastiches by other, later authors such as a story by John Koons in the anthology called The Game is Afoot (but this is an anthology of parodies and so perhaps not to be counted on for establishing language conventions). I also find it in other less than authoritative works such as fan fiction and Amazon reviews.  Finally I find it in a number of moderately serious pastiche stories dating from the 1980s onward (The Einstein Paradox, 1998; My Sherlock Holmes, 2003; Ghosts in Baker Street, 2006 etc). 

However, “steepled’ remains elusive (not absent but extremely rare) even in modern works other than stories about Sherlock Holmes and references to architecture.  So, what do you think?  “Steepled” hands: corrupted and incorrect language, weird post-Doyle Sherlockian jargon, or a correct but modern usage? 

 And, I begin to wonder, has a female character ever been described as making this gesture?  I know that I steeple my fingers–normally with feet propped in my desk and some journal on my lap, disregarded for the moment do to having provoked a thought–or being so boring that some irrelevant thought has intruded.  Possibly this is just an affectation (and a pretentious one at that).  Or maybe just as the words describing the gesture have changed with time, its relation to gender has as well.  With women no longer keeping our confidence low and covert, perhaps women are free to steeple high and proud. (Or maybe I am just a Sherlockian Geek, or rather more butch than I realise).  Steepling, do you do it–and if so is it up high or down low?

p.s. I found there is at least two female characters in published novels described as having “steepled” fingers–can you name any?  Bonus point for each example up to a maximum of 5.

My recent post about the gender gap in reading provoked plenty of comments that people should follow their own interests, regardless of gender.  this is, of course, true.  Although I still think that if there is a big gender difference in an activity, consideration should be given to whether there is an unfair gender barrier. 

If reading is becoming seen as a ’sissy’ activity this would be a backwards step for any modern society.  If it is seen as shading towards feminine but not in a way that would embarrass a male reader, then that is not a problem.  A predominance of interest by one gender should never act as a barrier to another.

 For me, reading does not feel ‘gendered’–but an activity equally admirable in either sex.  When I look through my collection of antique and vintage photographs, a photo of a reader always strikes me as being particularly attractive.

I mean this lady looks beautiful, engaged by the world within the book and hardly noticing her surroundings.

And this older gentleman certainly strikes a scholarly note, even in an informal outdoor setting, partly by virtue of the volume in his hands. …And finally what about these guys (below)?  They look plenty masculine to me, reading together at the table with what looks like a bottle of beer between them.

So the bottom line for me is this: Reading, a Good Look for Anyone, Any Place, Any Time.

 (p.s., to the guys, it totally impresses the chicks ;)

I realise (after much badgering) that most woman like the alpha-male, if not in real life than certainly in romance fiction. This probably accounts for the fact that 99% of heterosexual romance (completely made up statistic, but you get the point) has a power imbalance in favor of the male.  Some commentators assert that beta heroes are on the rise, but I have yet to see a great deal of evidence for this.

Mainstream romance beta’s still come in limited flavors: the nerd, the high fantasy (e.g. Taming the Forest King–Claudia Edwards), the gorgeous geek (e.g. Gone with the Nerd–Vicki Thompson) or the rich boy (e.g. A Lick and a Promise–Jo Leigh). And some of these stories still end with the heroine all overwrought that she has been too bossy. And if, like me, you shop in the AA shelves (that’s African American fiction), well, just be prepared to spend more time liking for beta male romance than actually reading it.

 However there has been a slight increase in beta-male romance (from basically none to just very little) and an increase in alphas with vulnerabilities.  For example the trope of the ‘wounded hero’ has become more popular–alphas rendered vulnerable by amnesia, magical curse or something less subtle like a gunshot wound.  And, in fact, wonder of wonders,  there might be some more books in the middle ground (like Joey Hill who writes beta men for readers who like alpha men).

My only hope is that somehow, the beta-hero and the flawed alpha will meet somewhere in the middle.  Some weird fantasy world where men and women have relationships that where who’s on top is just a matter of sexual positioning, not some kind of sociological statement (patriarchal or feminist).  Until then, I’ll keep hunting for the elussive beta and spend the rest of the time reading gay romance (where one can normally stop gender politics getting the way of a good love story).

In a 1944 book ‘Women and Men’ Amram Scheinfeld wrote:

“It is no accident … that women have been most outstandingly successful in the theater and in fields of writing where they could best be themselves, whereas they may have fallen short in music, painting, and sculpture because in considerable measure they have tried to compose, paint and sculpt in a man’s way.”

One things that jumps out of this excerpt for me is that writing is identified as being feminine.  While the form of the novel was created largely by and for women, the edifices of literature consist of the usual array of DWG (dead white guys).  Growing up, I experienced literature as approximately gender-neutral, being exposed to an array of male and female authors (but perhaps with an emphasis on the males when to came to formal education).

The media and certain organisations certainly seem to depict the relative lack of interest in reading and writing on the part of boys as a something of a modern phenomenon–or at least a worsening one.  On the flip side of the old approval of girls doing girly things, like writing–we now have a modern neurosis that we are making boys do girly things… like reading books with female main characters (girl  reading about boys apparently troubles nobody, including the girls).

In school curriculums there are apparently: “Few strong and active male role models can be found as lead characters. Gone are the inspiring biographies of the most important American presidents, inventors, scientists and entrepreneurs. No military valor, no high adventure.” [Washington Post]

What is interesting to me is that reading and writing may be growing into one of the few abilities that is identifiably feminine according to our modern culture, but universally considered highly admirable and something boys should be encouraged to do.  But is this seen as a drive to make boys more ‘feminine’?  No, it is seen as a need for literature that is more butch.

Interesting, isn’t it, that the opposite gender gap in mathematics is seen as due to women being unmotivated, having an irrational fear of maths, lacking confidence, needing extra time and not having high career aspirations.  Not, for example, the overly butch way in which mathematics is often taught.  (That is, with an emphasis on qualities not mechansims; what numbers are rather than what numbers do).

It always seems that when males are seen as under-performing in an discipline, the discipline is obviously flawed and not sufficiently welcoming/inclusive to them–when females are under-performing in a discipline it is because they lack drive and ambition–or basic cognitive aptitude.

Interestingly, in societies where genders are more equal, the female math disadvantage gets smaller, and the female reading advantage gets larger.  Perhaps because this so called-equality consists of women feeling free to be as conventionally feminine or masculine as they like–but even in ostensibly egalitarian cultures a man willing to act in conventionally feminine way remains something of a minority (i.e. plenty of girls in pants, not so many men in skirts–plenty of girls reading books with male heroes, no so much of the reverse).

I think that ultimately butching up literature will only make up so much of the difference because both of these ‘gaps’ have elements of both being held back by outside forces and holding ourselves back.  And we need to consider both aspect no matter which gender or which discipline is being discussed.

Meanwhile we blame a failed woman sculptor for trying to do it like a man, and we pity a boy who is being asked to read like a girl (while 7/10 of our best paid authors are still men)–and apparently never notice the double standards still running rife on both sides of the issue.  When we frame the two problems in similar, balanced way we may finally be ready to solve them.  

Sexism isn’t generally all that overt these days–at least on most urban areas on the US.  I do, I suppose, sit in a the back of a limo with the seat beat pressing right on my neck no matter what I do.  It would be across my shoulder if I was the height of an average man, rather than (as I am) the height of an average woman.  But honestly, isn’t that a pitiful thing to be complaining about?

 As I suppose is the Hudson News outlet at the airport that thinks computers and retirement are somehow  only the purview of men.  I mean… com-poot-are, what are one of those?  And me, I plan to die young and beautiful like like all good females do, and avoid that messy business of needing to save up any money for later.  Or maybe my non-existant husband with deal with that for me.

 To be fair I think the labels may have drifted a little out of place, but the whole idea of labelling magazines by presumed gender of readership strikes me as rather silly.  They are grouped predominantly by topic and if you want to know what the magazine is about, specifically, the cover tends to be something of a clue. 

Besides, as any logical and educated person knows, the whole thing is based on a logical fallacy.  Even when most of the readers of a magazine on a certain topic are women, that does not imply that most women are interested in that topic–which is, to my mind, what would make something a ‘woman’s interest’. 

But I shall desist ranting on this point for fear of becoming boring. 

A man was recently convincted in the UK for posting a fictional story about torturing and murdering the real life band Girls Aloud.   A Scotland Yard spokesperson reported said: “The test is whether the material is likely to deprave or corrupt those reading or viewing it.”  I call bollocks.  I actually agree with suppressing material about murdering real people if, in context, it could be seen as a threat or encouragement to really attack them.  But the idea that a fiction story will “deprave or corrupt” the reader seems outright ridiculous to me.  But the line between fantasy and reality is fuzzier than many people like to acknowledge.  My thinking is more that if someone came already depraved as hell, this story might suggest the band as appropriate victims–it is like hate speech but against individuals not a race or religion.  Which is firmer ground psychologically speaking, but still not a really good basis for suppressing a fictional work let alone prosecuting the author.  I am just kinda okay with ambiguity and going with my gut feeling about where this example falls along the scale of social acceptability.

Another example of screwing with the fact/fiction so-called boundary is, of course, OJ Simpson’s ‘If I Did It’.  For those of you who have been living under a rock, let me explain.  If ‘If I Did It’ is a book in which Mr. Simpson explains how he would have killed his late wife, if he had, which he sort of  didn’t (under criminal court, although just to muddy things further a civil court found him guilty).  Which makes it something like alleged fiction–the other side of the coin from Frey’s A Million Little Pieces (which was presented as factual but actually largely fiction).  Simpson’s charming little book about domestic homicide was picked up by Beauford Press (yes, speaking of two side of a coin, this is the same Beauford Press who I, as I previously commented, picked up The Jewel Of Medina). But on this book I also find myself conflicted but in agreement with the law.  Perhaps because there is, horribly, no way the victim could be considered still under threat–and perhaps also because the proceeds go to her family and it is published with their blessing.  OJ Simpson, meanwhile, may finally get locked away for the rest of his natural life, albeit for a different crime.

Commentators seems to be constantly surprised and dismayed by the interest straight people have in gay and lesbian erotica.  It seems we are all meant to inhabit a tidy world where each person only lusts after one gender and the other gender is about as exciting as a coat-stand (notwithstanding that there are no doubt a few coat-stand fetishists out there)

 For example, Ashlye Tellis writes: “One of the most infuriating things about straight men is their professed interest in lesbian porn. Straight men are so assured of their place in the world, they think the frame of the lesbian porn scene is merely waiting for their entry … All these women need is a d**k, is what they argue. “

Straw man argument aside, there is a leap here from the bemusing fact that men watch women together to a very gendered all-encompassing interpretation as to why they do it.  How is it gendered?  Well, women show an equal and opposite interest in gay male erotica (e.g. slash, MM, yaoi), albeit more often in written rather than visual forms.

Does this mean they are so assured of their place in the world that they think gay men are just waiting for them and their magic c**t?  To be honest this interpretation is probably right on for a small minority who prefer voyeurism scenarios leading to MFM.  But actually the MM fandom is very diverse.  There are many explanations and most of them are probably correct for some people, but none apply universally.

And whatever the motivation might be, what is acheived by denying the legitmacy of the response (”professed interest”) or somehow denying its logic, legitimacy or moral standing.

This kind of regulation of desire didn’t play when it was done to women (e.g. Freud’s theory at clitoral arousal was ‘infantile’ and vaginal stimulation alone should suffice, not to mention all those charming theories about hysteria, frigidity and nymphomania).  Women have fought very hard to be free to have their own desires, as diverse and perverse as they please so long as nobody gets hurt.  It seems only fair that what is good for the goose should also be permitted for the gander: the freedom to choose erotica we like, without fear of slander.