Amen to all of the above. Sister Song is amazing, and they'll be offering intergenerational scholarships , so moms bring your daughters and vice versa.

Tres cool. I live in Chicago, and will be sure to spread the word.

Thanks.

Maybe this is the place to ask a question I've been wondering for quite some time - given that sexuality is such an important variable in gender and sex-relations, how come theoretical feminism seems to almost completely ignore its importance? I've recently ordered a graduate reader by Sally Haslanger (MIT) and Elizabeth Hacket (Agnes Scott College) called "Theorizing Feminism", and of the almost 600 pages containing 54 articles only three apparently deal with sexuality, two of which are in the "queer theory" section. The last one - dare I say not surprisingly - deals with eroticism as a "power issue".

I suppose this negligence is a) related to the intellectual and political origins of feminism and its then protagonist(a)s, and b) to the fact that any meaningful inclusion would imply that *not everything* is sociologically caused, which is clearly an exogeneous challenge to much of the theory.

I mean, even those neuroscientists who are claiming that even detectable cerebral differences between men and women are mostly caused by sociological processes, like the Swiss scientist Lutz Jähnke, are also claiming that female mating preferences for "classic masculine types of males" seem to be "hardwired".

Assuming this is a correct observation, wouldn't it be important for a theory of gender relations to scientifically explore the social consequences of the often apparent incongruency between female mating rethoric and revealed female preferences instead of almost completely ignoring it?

What do you think?

Tobias, I find your comment confusing. Scores of feminist literature deal with sexuality. A major emphasis of feminism is on deconstructing sexuality to distinguish social imposition from choice. Some feminists, e.g., MacKinnon, take a hardline view of sexuality, taking the position (roughly speaking) that truly free sexual expression and sexuality cannot exist in a world so overrun by gender-dichotomized oppression. Others, e.g., Paglia, are what is colloquially termed "sex positive" (personally, I hate this term, as I don't think any branch of feminism is inherently anti-sex or sex negative) and take the view that sex, even in modern sexist society, is a positive GOOD.

Sexuality is perhaps the biggest looming issue for feminism, and I'm very curious at the thinking underlying your supposition that feminism ignores "sexuality." I also wonder what drives you to term this "negligence," which is a technical legal term whose application here is unclear to me.

I'm interested in your assertion that a discussion of sexuality implies that "not everything" is "sociologically caused." Firstly, feminists don't claim that nothing is "sociologically caused." We don't deny that only women can give birth (at least in the present day). We don't deny that only women menstruate. We don't deny that men, in the aggregate, have more testosterone. What we contest is the inherent social import of these and other factors (and by no means is "feminism" monolithic on this point. Regular commenters here have widely varying and disparate views on these issues).

Perhaps you mean that you think a discussion of sexuality would have to imply that gender is not socially constructed? I don't see how this follows. Sexuality and gender most certainly do exist -- the fact that something exists does not mean it is "good" or "intended" or "natural." Are you suggesting that, if some people are biologically heterosexual (I'm unconvinced we can ever prove this, personally), this must mean there is something inherently biological about gender? I think this argument proves too much. Much of sexual attraction is chemical and the remainder is socially constructed. As to what is chemical, nothing about persons with XX chromosomes tending to be more attracted to persons with higher testosterone concentrations says anything about GENDER. It may say something about sex, but many feminists (myself among them) consider sex and gender to be wholly different things. By the same token, being heterosexual does not imply a preference for stereotypically "masculine" qualities by any stretch of the imagination. I'm heterosexual, but I'm completely turned off by things like body hair and sweat, which are strongly correlated with higher testosterone levels. If gender and sexuality are so intrinsically linked, how can my having a somewhat "less" "masculine" type be explained? Does it mean I *must* be bisexual (I'm not)? Or does it mean, perhaps, our notions of gender are, at the very least, far too strongly correlated with sex for us to make any sense of this whole mess in the near future?

"female mating preferences for "classic masculine types of males" "

But what does this even mean? Which "classic masculine type?" What counts as particularly manly varies across time, to say nothing of between cultures. Nowadays reading/writing poetry is not very manly at all, but then you look at the troubadours. Skinny, nerdy boys who like girly stuff get laid (I should know--often I'm the one doing the laying). Does it mean "most people have conventional preferences in mates"? Because, well, yeah, that's what "conventional" means. Or is it one of those tests where they have you look at a bunch of different faces and rate the one you find most attractive? Because I find those tests to be inherently flawed. For one thing, they don't reflect actual lived behavior, as one never assesses physical attraction in a vacuum completely separate from social, intellectual, and personality cues. For another, such tests assume that attractiveness can and should be pinpointed and assessed on a hierarchical scale. It's a very artificial construction.

claiming that female mating preferences for "classic masculine types of males" seem to be "hardwired"

I've read a couple books that turned these anthropological, psychological and biological myths of female sexuality on their head: Natalie Angier's An Intimate Geography and Riane Eisler's Sacred Pleasure, which is a history of sexual pleasure. She wrote The Chalice and The Blade which posits we're moving from domination to partnership, from pain to pleasure paradigms. It's a fun romp.

The first two books were romps the third is on the serious side. If I roast my ass out of bed and get into the car, I may go to this or YearlyKos.

Lawfairy, EG, thanks for your insightful replies.

lawfairy,

In my understandinf feminism looks as sex mainly as a political issue (not only in the MacKinnon branch), thus only as a dependent variable (ie, how social and political systems influence our gendered sexual beings), as opposed to looking at its importance as an "independent" variable (ie how sexual dispositions influence social and political systems...). I doubt the effects are clearly separable, and as I said, the origins of feminism as a humanist political and philosophical movement emphasising the importance of social construction in my opinion explain much of that emphasis. That said, I still find it insufficient, if not dangerous, not least for the discipline itself, to - in my opinion - consistently deemphasize one part of reality.

Btw, I just looked up negligence in the dictionary again (I'm a native German speaker), and I think it is expressing what I meant - an lack of interest in one element of the question at hand.

"We don't deny that only women can give birth (at least in the present day). We don't deny that only women menstruate. We don't deny that men, in the aggregate, have more testosterone."

Quite frankly, certainly in Germany where I live, there are quite a few feminists who would argue with you about the testosterone statement and call you names for alleging there is something like a "biological fact", if only "in the aggregate".

But as there are biological differences, then these will necessarily have a social import if they have independent behavioural consequences - simply because they create different needs and thus conflicts that individuals and societies need to deal with. In my opinion, the question is not if, but which social import they have - or should have. Philosophically speaking, it means dealing with the tricky problem of "equality in difference." It's not just a little like squaring a circle.

Much of sexual attraction is chemical and the remainder is socially constructed.

I entirely agree.

As to what is chemical, nothing about persons with XX chromosomes tending to be more attracted to persons with higher testosterone concentrations says anything about GENDER. It may say something about sex, but many feminists (myself among them) consider sex and gender to be wholly different things.

I think this is what I am confused about. To me, gender is very useful as an analytical category, but as you suggest in your closing statement, all our lives are influenced by biological as well as cultural elements, sometimes imperatives. So we are both gender (cultural imperatives) and sex (biological imperatives). So, yes, you're right, human beings with XX chromosomes tending to be more attracted to persons with higher testosterone levels doesn't necessarily say anything about "gender" - but it is nonetheless an important factor for gender relations if it is indeed a culturally independent behaviour and thus will have cultural impact - and the consequences of testosterone are all over the news all over the world...

"But what does this even mean? Which "classic masculine type?" What counts as particularly manly varies across time, to say nothing of between cultures."

True, but there seems to be a common denominator.

I've translated parts of the interview with the neuroscientist Lutz Jähnke (university of Zurich) that I was referring to in my first comment to make a little clearer what I'm trying to say. This is the original in German. His main point is - contrary to what most of his colleagues say - that much of the biological differences detectable in adults are in fact sociologically caused,

If all cerebral differences are a matter of training, then why are there sex differences? There are subtle, possibly innate differences, which are then inflated by culture.

but he also mentions one exception: mating behavior.

So you don't think that even those innate biological differences, which you accepted before, have any behavioral consequences?

Yes, of course they have consequences, mainly when it comes to mating. In this respect there are important differences, which aren't changeable through socialisation or religion. A woman can rarely have two dozen children, a man can have thousands of children, theoretically, and that causes different strategies. Men aren't really choosy when it comes to mating, women are. It has to be the one and only right man to have children with.

Are these different strategies still relevant?

Absolutely. The data is conclusive. Women choose men mainly because of their status, that's why men are usually five years older than their partners and have a higher income. The assymmetry is immense. The behavioral differences are particularly visible during puberty when boys are in a ranking competition and women mostly have the role of interested observer - and in the end pick those who have a higher position.

So my term "classic masculine male" can only be a proxy for a proxy (testosterone) which in turn seems to have independent behavioral consequences and thus social import (so does the estrogene that chooses, of course).

So that's the fundamental incongruency I feel is disregarded, or neglected, by feminism: Women - in the aggregate - seem to be "hardwired" to choose mates that have demonstrated social dominance or status, which necessarily creates a mating dilemma in an gender-egalitarian society.

I remember reading "feminism ain't no dating service" here on feministing.com some time ago, I think it was in response to the Maureen Dowd article about being too successful to be married, about a year and a half ago.

Feminism may not be a dating service, but I can't help but think that it is intentionally turning a blind eye on one of the most fundamental driving forces of sex and gender relations.

Nowadays reading/writing poetry is not very manly at all, but then you look at the troubadours. Skinny, nerdy boys who like girly stuff get laid (I should know--often I'm the one doing the laying).

Damn, ">I'm writing songs and I thought that's a very manly thing to do… you know, owning up to and expressiong ones emotions… hmm… but in the "classic" sense…? ">This one maybe more so than others ;)

Hi, I replied with a post that contains links, I suppose that's why it's 'held for approval'...