Sexism, the media and Robert Pirsig

[Tabouli]

Well well well.

Ah, you OT listmembers.  I thought I could just stagger home from the airport, dump my suitcases by the coffee table and sleep for a few days, but NO!  You're discussing Interesting Things!  I mean, how could even post-voyage fatigue keep me away from raging discussions about sexism and Tolkien's female characters and musical tastes among HP characters?

Sigh.

As for the trip, most interesting, though I just calculated that I caught a total of 18 aeroplanes in the last six weeks.  This does very odd things to one.  Settling into my seat for the Honolulu to Sydney flight, I had the oddest feeling of settling into my own lounge room.  The interior of an aeroplane was almost like a familiar room!  Then there's the mysterious disappearance of the 19th of July.  And the meeting of many, many HPFGU members (evil chuckle with brief glint of sinister gold tooth).  All worthy of further comment, but I can't face that just yet.  Let's look at the Great Sexism Debate instead.

Jenny:
> Many men are raised to believe they are invincible, while many women
are raised to believe that they are worthless without a husband.  My
students truly believe that it's okay for men to be promiscuous but
women who are promiscuous are whores.  Women shouldn't cheat on their
partners, but they should expect and allow their male partners to
cheat on them.  Where is this being learned?  It is being learned at
home, and in the media (which is pretty damned powerful in the US).

Popular women's magazines are the scariest.  Such words of wisdom as they espouse!  (a) Get your face and body looking as close to the media ideal as possible (Get into shape for summer!), and thereby (b) attract men (The secrets of sexy women revealed!), from whence you can (c) pick a "good one" and manipulate him into marrying you (10 ways to get your guy to commit!), then, glory hallelujah, (d) you have achieved success and happiness!

I ranted on the subject of the Meat Market Index of female attractiveness before, long ago, but on my travels a rereading of Robert Pirsig's 'Lila' gave me some fresh musings to add.  Now, the first time I read this book, maybe 6 years ago, it irritated me greatly for various reasons (one of which was that I found it sexist, actually, but that's another story).  On my second reading, I actually concentrated properly when reading the philosophical passages, and found an interesting framework in which to look at my MMI muttering, and, indeed, a lot of the debate on sexism.

Let me attempt a sketchy summary here.  Pirsig proposes four ascending levels of "quality": inorganic, biological, social and intellectual (and also distinguishes static and dynamic quality, but let's not complicate things too much).  Each succeeding level is both dependent on and controls the level below it.

To illustrate, take a human body.  At the inorganic level, lots of chemical reactions are occurring inside it.  However, the biological level of organisation is controlling these reactions, promoting some, preventing others, consuming food and seeking to reproduce, to prevent its cells from returning to an inorganic state (i.e. dying).  If the body were managed by biology alone, people's behaviour would reflect those drives alone.  However, overlaying the biological level is the higher social level, which constrains their expression to fit what is acceptable in the society in which the person lives, to ensure 'social' survival.  If the person were managed by social quality alone, everything a person did would be motivated by a drive to obtain a high position in the society, as measured by the society (e.g. being rich and famous and admired).  However, overlaying the social level is the intellectual level, (which he argued is still in conflict with the social level in human societies today), where ideas like altruism and justice and equality and so on may interfere with people's quest for social status, leading them to donate money to the poor, set up welfare, fight against people being imprisoned because they were thought to threaten the social status quo, etc.etc.

Each succeeding level needs the level below it for its existence, but nonetheless to a large degree the levels are independent and in competition with each other.

(don't know how clearly or accurately I've put that, but anyway)

So.  To look at the relationship issue using this ideology, (specifically the heterosexual woman seeking heterosexual man relationship as portrayed in women's magazines issue), the constrainment within social and biological frames of reference is striking.  Men are, according to Cosmo and co, primarily biological creatures, and therefore intrinsically faithless commitment-phobics who need to be reeled in by tailoring your appearance to appeal to his biological drives and then coerced into a socially defined relationship ideal (monogamous, permanent, publicly proclaimed via marriage), which will give you, the woman, status.  The better you manage to approximate the physical ideal, the better your chances of securing the sort of man who will increase your social position (by being wealthy, having a high status job, being famous, etc.).

Notions like pursuing a job for its intrinsic value rather than its ability to increase your wealth and social standing, or defining attractiveness by a way other than the way society defines it, or selecting a partner because you share compatible ways of looking at the world, etc. are, I'd guess, "intellectual" as defined by Pirsig.  And notable by their rarity in said magazines (except in the "love your body the way it is" article which is inevitably contradicted by everything else in the magazine).  Men are considered to pursue one social pattern, women another.  People are constrained completely by established social patterns.

Interesting way of looking at it, I thought.  Still thinking about how much salt to add, but interesting.  And a philosophy which *does* argue for intellect, and art, and the ability to question as "higher", as raised by Pip:

> Do we see someone with 'intellectual ambitions' (or artistic
ambitions) as superior to someone without? Is there a bias
towards 'education makes you superior'?<

But then, of course, there's the fact that the vast majority of people, however intellectual, *do* want a partner and *do* want an agreeable and reasonably secure position in the society to which they belong (social and biological issues).  It's the ol' Maslow hierarchy of needs (IIRC: Judy?).  When you're starving to death ideological priorities take a back seat.

Ach.  It's all too much for a newly returned salad to think about at the moment.  Any thoughts?

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]