Philosophy                    Posted June 15, 1999

Summary of "Are There Feminine and Masculine Natures?" June 10, 1999

By: Bernard Roy
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Philosophy
Baruch College of The City University of New York--212-387-1684
General Studies Program, New York University--212-998-7120

Page 1.

 I estimated that the women to men ratio, in our very well attended gathering,  was 60-40 in favor of men.  I opened by pointing out that much of the work done by contemporary feminist philosophers consisted in debunking the 3-millenia or so old view that women were less "rational" than men (Aristotle, Aquinas); that women were commonly associated with the earth (Dionysian), the body, the negative, the passive (yin), while men represented the heavenly (Appolonian), the mental, the positive, the active (yang). I also suggested that the discussion may remain focused, if we could agree to a distinction between sex and gender. Where the former refers to biology, and the latter
to socio-cultural forces.  But most of you demurred at the suggestion.

Since Frank had proposed the question two weeks before, and he was present that night, I asked him to explain to us what the question meant to him. He said that it had to do with our previous discussion on the nature of "pure romantic love." He recalled that at one point we raised the issue whether that kind of love may be different for women and for men, and if so, how it would differ. In other words, assuming that there is such a thing as "pure romantic love," would it be the same for a woman and for a man? If not then there is a difference between the two.

The issue underlining our discussion rapidly became clear: "If there is a difference, is this difference "natural" or "cultural?" Although the room had a few essentialists, it appeared to me that the majority was either undecided or non-essentialist (they came to be called "constructivists). But an essentialist insisted on a making a point precise: "What is nature?"; "Is it substance or essence?" Some of you brought up the examples of animals, suggesting that animals act "naturally," i.e. free from social
or cultural obligations. If some generalizations could be made from our observation of the behavior of  animals, we may conclude from this that we humans, qua animals would act "naturally," if we acted the same way.

However, the comparison was not well received. Someone pointed out that not all animals behave the same way (in some species, males are aggressive, in others, female are), and I pointed out that our observations are somewhat tainted by our gender assumptions. Sharon, very insightfully, questioned the unchangeable character of nature. We kind of went along with an unargued soft essentialist view of "nature." Are there traits exclusive to men and to women?

The constructivists  and the undecided proposed a few suggestions as to what may count as a trait for women and men: (1) women are better friends to each other than men are; (2) even in homosexual relationship, one partner assumes the "feminine," the other the "masculine" role. The
masculine is associated with power and aggressiveness. Power has to do with having money, and with being the leader in sexual exchange; (3) women are taught to be attractive, and men are reminded of the ugliness of their body; (4) women and men have different level of hormones, and they have a different immune system than men; (5) women must feel different because their activities are often interrupted.
 
Next Page
Next Page
Posted with permission of the author.  Hi-Tech Development Co., Ltd., 1999.  All rights reserved.