I was right!

It's a good thing to have a thougthful "opponent" such as yourself -- I was right about that. Among other things, I got the chance to re-read that piece of Shriver's -- it's an example of first rate writing and thinking -- and extrapolating from one's own experience to make valid generalizations. So in that spirit... I was teased and bullied as a boy. Probably because: -- I had no ability for and little interest in team sports. -- I couldn't fight (didn't know how to use my fists.) -- My nose was generally to be found in some sort of book. -- I yakked constantly -- flood of talk. -- I was kind of "pretty" in a somewhat faggy, sissy-ish way. -- I did well in academic subjects (not in P.E.!) and sucked up to teachers; rewarded with top marks from them and scorn from most classmates, particularly the male ones. -- I was interested in and fascinated by boys, not by girls, although I tended to get along better with the latter. Some boys gave me a funny feeling in my stomach; something that no girls did. The more knowing and observant of my classmates had my sexuality figured out before I managed to do so myself. SO -- I think I understand where Shriver is coming from -- with one huge difference. I didn't reject my own gender. I was angry that the things that interested me, that turned me on (both literally and figuratively) marked me as someone who was betraying my gender. What's unmasculine about loving music and reading? Why do I have to be good at/love sports to be masculine? -- those were the thoughts I had, so the extent I articulated the thoughts to myself. I never wanted to be "feminine" or run around in dresses -- the thought horrified me then and horrifies me today. The gravest insult hurtled at me -- the one that hurt the most -- was being accused of being some kind of girl. Now, I can see what you are saying -- that the way to get rid of that is to send a message to boys like I was --"it's okay! You don't have to be masculine! Fuck gender! Be yourself!" (and to send comparable messages to girls like Shriver was.) But it won't work. It will not work, irrespective of the culture -- and I think that has to do with the fundamentals of the human condition -- that to establish masculine identity, boys have to be able to separate themselves in one way or another from the swallowing mother who is always threatening to pull them back in. (I'm speaking of the "mother" in general -- the way Paglia does.) Boys such as the boy I was need masculine role models/associations even more than tough little macho dudes who can beat up everyone in sight to prove their masculinity. The fundamental imbalance between the sexes goes back to the fact that boys emerge from the bodies of the other gender whereas girls emerge from the bodies of the same gender. Where does that leave girls like the one Shriver was? It's a legitimate question. The answer that our society is moving towards is, IMHO, a disaster for boys such as the one I was -- tear down the gender walls! If a girl wants to sing, play sports, or hike in the woods with the boys, let her do it! What's wrong with it? What's wrong is that it turns the group -- choir, scout troop, sports team -- into just what Shriver was trying to escape -- a bunch of girls! I hark back to my favorite example -- choirs. There is no such thing as a "children's choir." Force a boy choir to accept girls and over time, the BOYS WILL LEAVE!! because they are too afraid of the feminine (this is what I think Paglia was getting at when she wrote of the awesome, fearsome power of the feminine.) The solution? Not "genderfuck" but gender segregation. Together with a message that within the institutions for each gender, -- the boy choir, the girl scout troop -- there is nothing intrinsically "masculine" or "feminine" about a specific activity -- it is perfectly masculine for boys to sing together or learn how to cook; it is perfectly feminine for girls to tromp around in the woods or play basketball. Indeed, gender segregation fosters and allows this kind of experimentation (what am I really good at?) without the fears of gender contamination (and while I sympathize with Shriver, I think those fears are greater for boys -- masculinity is a more fragile construct). To paraphrase George Wallace, gender segregation today, gender segregation tomorrow, gender segregation forever!!! (It's the only way we'll ever get back into the lives of boys.) SR