Boys Don't Cry

I find it interesting that the issues that we take on usually one side will use biology as the backbone of their argument. Another interesting thing I noticed was Louann's debate is about 2 pages less then Brenda's take on the issue. I found myself agreeing with Louann Brizendine's approach over Brenda Allen. I just felt that Louann seemed to get to the heart of the issue on her side, and Brenda seemed to throw in a lot of different filler without looking at the history behind the facts she was using and by only looking at the issue from a western point of view instead of global view.

One issue I had with Brenda Allen's argument was, "'English is a patriarchal language."' "However as they aslo note, we did not invent this male dominated language; we inherited it." (Pg.98). Of course we inherited it, but I think that she also should have looked at other languages and that would have made her argument stronger. For example Asian Languages have a very distinct way of how they refer to each other. There's a male and female way of addressing one another. In Korean to call someone an older brother or sister males use the word Hyung(M) and Noona(F), and females use the word Oppa(M) and Onni(F). The same goes for Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian ect. Now looking at this would you say that Asian society is less sexist then American society? The answer is that Asian society is very male dominated and from a western point a view... sexist. Now things are changing in Asia, but because they are a society raised in Confusisim change is much slower. When I was last there in 2007 I found that the whole issue with male and female issues is harkened back to how women were treated back in the late 1970's and 1980's.

Another issue I found with Brenda's argument was the whole issue of race, "...In 1795 a German scientist named Johann Blumenbach constructed a system of racial classification that arranged people according to geographical location and physical features.... Placing Caucasians in the most superior position." (Pg. 96). What she fails to mention that was common thought back then and actually since the colonization of the Americas. White Europeans would reference the Noah's Story in the bible as why Slavery against a certain race was ok. A condense version of this story is that Noah's middle son Ham accidentally saw his father naked after Noah had passed out from drinking too much wine. Afterwards he told his brother Josphet (Elder) and Shem (Younger) and they covered him up without looking at his 600 year old body. The next day the brothers told on Ham and Noah cursed his son. From this point on the son's of Ham will now be the slaves of Josphet and Shem's sons. Josphet went off to populate Europe, Shem the Israelites, and Ham Africa and Asia. The ancient world did not care of color. In the bible Moses marries a woman of Kush or a black woman. It has no mention of her color anywhere, but the Kushites were from Central Africa and considered the decedents of Ham. Normally i don't use the bible to make a point in an argument, but in the world that Johann Blumenbach was from it was the way of thought. I bring up the point with Moses is that just like we do today, people back then took the information given and left things out. I also found her argument weak on the simple fact that she primarily look at race as color. I can't blame her too much because she is a product of her environment as well. In the Western World, especially America, that's how most people look at the issue... Who's white and who's not. But racism is prevalent in the rest of the world. For example, call a Mexican a Cuban and you're looking for a fight. Even though most Americans say they have a hard time telling apart Asians, Asian societies actually hate each other. The Chinese and Koreans still feel hate towards the Japanese, and the the big 3 of the East Asian world looks down on other Asian societies such as the Vietnamese and Philippinos. The Hutus and Tutsis killed each other and there's nothing to compartmentalize by color or physical features. For me, by not looking at the issues and looking at it with a more worldly view hurt her argument.

Personally I don't think there is a yes or no with this issue, but a combination.
I think that biology is a huge part on why we act the way we do and how men and women process information, but society or individual cultures reinforces it. For the most part people are ok with this gender segration. It's easier to accept then to buck the system. For example, most Americans are ok with waiting in line then trying to rush to the front.

Questions
1) Did anybody agree with Brenda Allen's look at Compartmentalization?
2) Do most of you get uncomfortable when race is brought into the issue?