There is a lot of historical and anthropological evidence for "human nature" that includes switching genders roles, from India (where transvestites travel in troupes, a long tradition) to the old Yugoslavia, not sure but maybe it's modern-day Serbia (where a woman in a manless family would switch roles for life, not only dressing but actually becoming known as the man of the family, hanging out with men and never marrying), often in order to carry on blood feud, and that tradition is only ending because blood feuds are being controlled). And have you ever read Sir Philip Sydney's "Arcadia", considered an English Renaissance masterpiece; a long section on men dressing and acting as women. And of course Shakespeare never saw a woman act any of his female characters, and how did that influence the audience? Maybe there are some serious faultlines in US society which can benefit from journalistic and artistic surfacing, but it's not as though it "never" was.
--- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "jacquesdebierue" <jacquesdebierue@...> wrote:
>
> --- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, sonny <sforstater@> wrote:
> >
> > montois, did you see film of 'fight club'?
> >
>
> The resonance of that novel and film are remarkable. The topic, the emasculation of men and boys in the US. Brilliantly studied by Susan Faludi, who blew the whistle on a social engineering effort to make men like women. Predicated on the assumption that the world would be a better place if men were like women... now, this nonsense would never take root in a traditional society, where people know that the world wasn't invented yesterday and that human nature is pretty much immutable and that men and women are not particular cases of a generic "human being" made of putty. But in a world where everything is being reinvented every few years, it did take root. Especially in schools. I don't know if Chuck P. set out explicitly to take on that raging bull of a situation, but he did it. Unfortunately, his novel is likely to be misinterpreted -- I read some reviews that totally missed the central point.
>
> I give equal rights to my dog and my cat, but I do not assume that one would be "improved" if it were like the other... that's the confusion at the root of all this.
>
> Huge topic -- and I am not sure that it is entirely ON topic, but since it came up...
>
> mrt
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06 Aug 2009 EDT