Well, I had my first night of fitful sleep because of stress from philosophy last night—and not the “oh no, I’ve got a paper due” type. No, rather, my sleep was constantly interrupted with my subconscious trying to puzzle out everything involved with sexual difference. Is there such a thing? Is it natural, or constructed? If it’s natural, does that lend support to the entrenched misogyny that promotes ideas that women are, by nature, dumb, emotional penis-repositories whose duty, again by nature, is to care for the products of the penis. If it’s, instead, constructed, does that mean we all are essentially the same, and that the patriarchal objectivists are justified in reducing each of our varied experiences down to one single (white and male) representative existence?
I really don’t know how I feel about this, hence the struggle. Erin and I have always prided ourselves on the equality of our relationship. I’m sure there are deeply ingrained gender roles that we’ve still been unable to shake, though, but on the whole, I think our love is founded on a deep and profound respect for each other.
This equality manifests itself, as I think is often the case, by us insisting to show that Erin, here representing women, is capable of doing the same things that I, man, can. This idea is extremely attractive to me. It fits perfectly with the gender spectrum, leaving us with a world of individuality, just not based on sex. Though, is setting up a system of gender difference any better?
And yet, I read in my Existentialism text:
“Being an individual man is a thing that has been abolished, and every speculative philosopher confuses himself with humanity at large; whereby he becomes something infinitely great, and at the same time nothing at all”
Concluding Unscientific Postscript, p. 113
For Kierkegaard, Hegel’s system, in trying to assimilate the varied aspects of existence, collapses all difference. (Raymond 95).
When I read that, I put the book down. Those words, “collapses all difference,” stuck in my head the remainder of the day. I could hear Irigaray inveighing against the idea of a world without difference—we need to make a place for the feminine in our cultures. This, too, is appealing, but which is right? Different or not? Do ovaries really create such an essentially different being than testicles? There is some biological evidence, namely, the production of different hormones. Are there then, in fact, differences, just not in the ways that have been propped up by the patriarchy?
Well, I eventually rolled over and managed to get a few more hours of mono-fighting sleep. Yes, that’s why I’ve been silent for a while. Mono sucks really takes it out of ya, male or female. I’ve at least had my first night where the more common work stress has been supplanted with stress about philosophy—pretty sweet. It certainly seems more significant than tossing and turning over wire transfer order forms.
I wish I could go read Irigaray’s Ethics of Sexual Difference, but, alas, I must turn back to our dear old Locke and see what his Essay of Human Understanding has to offer. Irigaray will have to wait for the winter break.
