A few months ago, a "great win" was hailed for British feminism: Jane Austen would be on the £10 note. I didn't think too much of it at the time. As some of my readers may know, I like Jane Austen's books, but I don't share the British passion for her writing: I think she's a good writer, nothing extraordinary; I think if she had lived and written books nowadays she would have been classified as "chick lit" rather than a classic. But no matter: whatever I may think, she is a recognised author, a woman who published under her own name, a woman who gave an insight into the lives of the upper class at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, all in all, an important player in British culture who deserves to be appreciated and celebrated. As I've mentioned, the fact that she will be on the £10 note has been hailed as a win for British feminism: it makes an important woman more visible, in an area dominated by men (she will be the first woman to feature in a British note). And yet... I can't whole heartedly support this.
The other day I took a ten pound note out of my wallet. It was a bit worn, had a black mark near the bottom right corner, probably the result of counting in a bank or a shop, all in all, it looked perfect, a note that had served its purpose and was still going, a note that had seen the world. And on it, serious, with his great beard and his straight nose, with his bushy eyebrows and bald head, was Darwin. And I swear, my heart almost stopped beating. Because, yes, Austen will be on the note. But what will happen to Darwin?
I refuse to draw a comparison between Darwin and Austen. They are incomparable. They were two completely different people, in different times. But I have a fondness for Darwin, the person, that I don't have for Austen. One has to love a man whose wife feared for his soul, because he didn't believe in God. A man who loved his children, who travelled on HMS Beagle, who spent his days observing dirt worms in his garden, and hypothesising as to how they turned the earth over, who had pigeons, who was able not just to see (for others before him had seein it) but to make a case for natural selection as the mechanism for the evolution of species. A highly intelligent man, who was afraid to publish his work because he was afraid he did not have enough data to support it, a man who went case by case, recording all he could, in order to gather more and more evidence to support his theory. The only man in the history of science who has come up with a theory that is both fact and theory.
A lot of confusion seems to fly around when it comes to Darwin. The "canonical" story, what they tell us in school, is that Darwin traveled on the Beagle as the ship's naturalist, got to the Galapagos, and there inspiration hit him as he saw the biodiversity of the islands and he came up with evolution. Unfortunately, almost no part of this story is true.
Firstly, the only reason Darwin ever traveled on the Beagle was because the ship's commander, Robert FitzRoy, wanted a companion to talk to. In the 19th century, it was not practice for the ship's captain to socialise with the crew, and FitzRoy was afraid he might have depressive tendencies (his uncle had committed suicide during a depressive bout), so he decided to ask Darwin to be his companion to stave off loneliness. As it turns out, FitzRoy was right about his susceptibility to depression, and he committed suicide by slitting his throat with a razor in 1865. In any case, Darwin wasn't the ship's naturalist or its doctor, he was simply a young man who was the captain's companion.
Secondly, Darwin did not come to evolution through natural selection in the Galapagos. In fact, he did not even find much to interest him there, and it was only after arriving back in Great Britain that he started formulating his theory. He even had to ask former crew members for their finches, because he hadn't collected any.
Thirdly, and this is a widespread misconception, Darwin did not come up with evolution. Evolution was a more or less accepted concept, as shown by Lamarckian models of evolution. No, the originality of Darwin's approach was not to say that organisms evolved, this was obvious, and few people would deny it (artificial selection, after all, could be observed easily), it was to formulate the mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection makes sense. Not just logically, but factually: if an organism does not have characteristics that will allow it to survive until it reproduces, it will not produce offspring that can inherit its characteristics. New characteristics arise randomly (actually, gene mutations aren't exactly random, some areas of the genome are more prone to them than others), and then the environment will determine whether these random characteristics will allow the organism to be better adapted or not.
Finally, a lot has been said about Darwin not really coming up with natural selection. This is unarguably true: he was not the first to formulate natural selection. He was the first, however, to communicate the concept well and give it the importance it was due. This may sound like cheating, but one must not forget that in science, making a discovery has no value if you are unable to communicate it to others. Darwin's genius was not only his theory, but his fantastic writing (to anyone who hasn't read "On the Origin of Species", I can say I whole heartedly recommend it, not just as a scientific masterpiece, but also as a literary work of art. The writing is accurate and clear, at times difficult to read but always beautiful).
I believe Darwin represents a lot of things many people strive for: he was a tireless worker, he was humble, he was incredibly intelligent, he loved his family, he was a reasonable man. He was unique, possibly one of the greatest, if not the greatest, scientific mind in history (I happily admit I may be biased making this judgement). As much as I do believe that women have to become more visible in order for equality to be achieved, I can't help but find it terribly sad that it might be at the cost of losing Charles Darwin. Because Jane Austen may represent women, and arts, and writing; but Darwin represents humanity.
Tuesday, 26 November 2013
Friday, 22 November 2013
A couple of things about Love Stories (and a few things about sex)
*Note: I talk about "girls" and "guys" here as general terms for "women" and "men" respectively. The reason for this is that I'm more comfortable referring to my male peers as "guys" and my female peers as "girls", "men" and "women" are solemn words that I feel have little to do with me. Only to clarify that it means no disrespect to anyone who considers themselves a "man" or "woman". It's a personal thing.
First, a confession. I've never fallen for a girl. Do I find girls attractive? Occasionally. Some girls (ask me when I'm drunk). Have I ever fantasized about having sex (I hate that euphemism of "sleeping with", I've slept with plenty of people without having sex with them) with a girl? Yes, most of the time these fantasies have more to do with threesomes (including a guy) than with sleeping with a girl, but I have fantasized about both. Do I think male human beings and female human beings are different? ... I don't know. A year ago, even a few months ago, I would have replied "yes", without a shadow of a doubt. Now I'm not so sure. Yes, some human males and human females (and I don't even know how to define human male and human female, but that's a subject for another post) are physically (and perhaps psychologically) different, but I'm not sure that a) this difference is bigger between sexes than it is between individuals or b) this difference is a reflection of a dichotomy. After all, there are intersex people. Sure, they represent a very small part of the population, but they exist. Plus, there's the whole deal about all humans being female when development starts... But again, I'm going off topic. As I said, I'm not sure males and females are different. And yet, I can say that I've never fallen for a girl. And I have fallen for guys. I am also generally more attracted to guys than girls: I can find something attractive in almost every guy, there are girls that don't interest me at all. But I'd like to think that I fall in love with people, not with their sex, or even worse, with their gender.
This whole paragraph to introduce the first thing what I mean to talk about in this post: a love story is a love story. I'm sick of movies and/or books being referred to as "gay" love stories or "lesbian" love stories. After all, we never talk about "straight" love stories (I wonder what they would call a love story with many different people of both sexes and/or genders, or a love story between two intersex and/or two intergender people, or between several intersex and/or intergender people and people of either sex and/or gender, or between an intersex and/or intergender person and a person of one sex and/or gender... or all the other possible combinations). A love story is a love story, and remarkably, from what I've read and seen in movies, love stories have nearly the same narrative independently of who is involved. And I can't shake off the feeling that the reason some love stories are referred to as "gay" or "lesbian" has to do more with sex than with the love story itself.
A couple of days ago, I was going through the Guardian (as I do) and I found this article: "A Single Man's Guide to seeing Blue is the Warmest Colour". And as usual I rolled my eyes and was really annoyed. To be fair, I have not (yet) watched the film. Any opinions I have on it are based on what critics have said, what the story sounds like and it having won the Palme d'Or at Cannes. But I haven't watched it, so don't take this as me saying that the film is good. That's not what this is about.
"Blue is the Warmest Colour", originally "La Vie d'Adèle, chapitres 1 &2", is a French drama about the love story between two young women. Because of this, instead of being sold as a love story, or as a coming of age story, or as a drama, it's sold as a lesbian drama. And because it's sold as a lesbian drama, here comes The Guardian, a newspaper that claims to be egalitarian and liberal and not prejudiced, and publishes an article about how men who go watch it (specifically, single men who go watch it, but I think what they mean is men who go watch it on their own) will be looked down upon by their social circle. Because, it just so happens, the movie has a lesbian sex scene, and god forbid anyone would think a single man goes to watch a film because there's a lesbian sex scene in it.
It smells rotten. If it were a movie about a love story between a young cis male and a young cis female (this is, a love story between a young human male who identifies as a heterosexual man and a young human female who identifies as a young heterosexual woman) it would be acclaimed as a brilliant love story, and the fact that there is a seven minute sex scene somewhere in there would be ignored (or, in the very least, the Guardian would have ignored it, the fact that in the same article "Jeune et Jolie" is mentioned as another example of a French film with a high sexual content doesn't really matter, because if "Blue is the Warmest Colour" hadn't come out at roughly the same time, "Jeune et Jolie" wouldn't have come up at all). But because it's a lesbian love story, a man going to watch it on his own must be wanting to get off, he must be a pervert. Firstly, I don't understand why the fact that he were accompanied would change this at all (I mean, a guy with a date might go watch it wanting to get off all the same, but apparently, that's more socially acceptable). Secondly (and more importantly): why is it a problem if he does go watch it for the sex scene? What's wrong with that? What's wrong with sex, with masturbation, with porn?
Here's the thing: I grew up in a society where movies with a high violent content were rated +13 (Spanish ratings when I was a teenager differed from the British rating system), but movies with any hint of nudity (not to mention sex) were rated 18+. This equates to "sex is more embarrassing than violence, sex is less normal than violence, sex has to be hidden more than violence". Is this really how we think? I don't know, but I'm getting a bit sick of the whole "sex is bad, sex is embarrassing, sex should be hidden" thing. Of course, I don't see it as much in my peer group, but it's telling that it comes up in a newspaper that purports to be liberal and not prejudiced.
OK, so let's talk a little bit about sex. First and foremost, sex is fun. I don't really get people who take it too solemnly (sex is a serious matter, but if I can't giggle I'm out). Sex can be uncomplicated, and it can be fantastic. It can also be pretty mediocre (which, in this case, means crap). I don't understand why, how or when it became a taboo. We (as a society) have so many hang ups about sex, it's unbelievable. Sex is sex. Pure and simple. Yes, it feels good, and I'd be hard pressed to give it up for the rest of my life, but on a case by case basis, there are times when I'd rather do something else.
It worries me that as a society we think it is worse to show a teenager violence than it is to show them sex. It worries me because we grow up thinking that sex has a special status, that it is an activity different from everything else (which of course it is, but no more than any other activity), that if we don't have it we have to be miserable, that if we do have it, we have to be happy. This leads to a lot of things, most of them bad. Mainly, it leads to a lack of information about sex: people not knowing about STD prevention, about birth control, people not knowing that it's OK to say "no" to sex, people thinking that if they haven't done it they are somehow "less" than everyone else, etc. Wouldn't it be better to normalize sex? To make it as much a part of daily life as eating, or drinking or anything else? Personally, I think it's tremendously unhealthy for a society to make violence more available than sex. After all, sex is an act of enjoyment, an act of attraction, and violence is an act of anger and dislike.
Love stories shouldn't be judged by the type of sex they depict. Relationships are between people, and sex is only one part of a relationship. And sex should be more normal. We need to grow up, become less solemn about sex and become more serious about it. Talk about it. Learn about it. And yes, eventually, tell stories about it.
Yeah, now I should go back to MatLab, and write some more code. Hope you've enjoyed reading!
H
EDIT: While reading the blogpost, my friend K was reminded of the song linked about halfway through the post, and decided to finish reading while listening to it. All I can say is, it enhances the experience.
First, a confession. I've never fallen for a girl. Do I find girls attractive? Occasionally. Some girls (ask me when I'm drunk). Have I ever fantasized about having sex (I hate that euphemism of "sleeping with", I've slept with plenty of people without having sex with them) with a girl? Yes, most of the time these fantasies have more to do with threesomes (including a guy) than with sleeping with a girl, but I have fantasized about both. Do I think male human beings and female human beings are different? ... I don't know. A year ago, even a few months ago, I would have replied "yes", without a shadow of a doubt. Now I'm not so sure. Yes, some human males and human females (and I don't even know how to define human male and human female, but that's a subject for another post) are physically (and perhaps psychologically) different, but I'm not sure that a) this difference is bigger between sexes than it is between individuals or b) this difference is a reflection of a dichotomy. After all, there are intersex people. Sure, they represent a very small part of the population, but they exist. Plus, there's the whole deal about all humans being female when development starts... But again, I'm going off topic. As I said, I'm not sure males and females are different. And yet, I can say that I've never fallen for a girl. And I have fallen for guys. I am also generally more attracted to guys than girls: I can find something attractive in almost every guy, there are girls that don't interest me at all. But I'd like to think that I fall in love with people, not with their sex, or even worse, with their gender.
This whole paragraph to introduce the first thing what I mean to talk about in this post: a love story is a love story. I'm sick of movies and/or books being referred to as "gay" love stories or "lesbian" love stories. After all, we never talk about "straight" love stories (I wonder what they would call a love story with many different people of both sexes and/or genders, or a love story between two intersex and/or two intergender people, or between several intersex and/or intergender people and people of either sex and/or gender, or between an intersex and/or intergender person and a person of one sex and/or gender... or all the other possible combinations). A love story is a love story, and remarkably, from what I've read and seen in movies, love stories have nearly the same narrative independently of who is involved. And I can't shake off the feeling that the reason some love stories are referred to as "gay" or "lesbian" has to do more with sex than with the love story itself.
A couple of days ago, I was going through the Guardian (as I do) and I found this article: "A Single Man's Guide to seeing Blue is the Warmest Colour". And as usual I rolled my eyes and was really annoyed. To be fair, I have not (yet) watched the film. Any opinions I have on it are based on what critics have said, what the story sounds like and it having won the Palme d'Or at Cannes. But I haven't watched it, so don't take this as me saying that the film is good. That's not what this is about.
"Blue is the Warmest Colour", originally "La Vie d'Adèle, chapitres 1 &2", is a French drama about the love story between two young women. Because of this, instead of being sold as a love story, or as a coming of age story, or as a drama, it's sold as a lesbian drama. And because it's sold as a lesbian drama, here comes The Guardian, a newspaper that claims to be egalitarian and liberal and not prejudiced, and publishes an article about how men who go watch it (specifically, single men who go watch it, but I think what they mean is men who go watch it on their own) will be looked down upon by their social circle. Because, it just so happens, the movie has a lesbian sex scene, and god forbid anyone would think a single man goes to watch a film because there's a lesbian sex scene in it.
It smells rotten. If it were a movie about a love story between a young cis male and a young cis female (this is, a love story between a young human male who identifies as a heterosexual man and a young human female who identifies as a young heterosexual woman) it would be acclaimed as a brilliant love story, and the fact that there is a seven minute sex scene somewhere in there would be ignored (or, in the very least, the Guardian would have ignored it, the fact that in the same article "Jeune et Jolie" is mentioned as another example of a French film with a high sexual content doesn't really matter, because if "Blue is the Warmest Colour" hadn't come out at roughly the same time, "Jeune et Jolie" wouldn't have come up at all). But because it's a lesbian love story, a man going to watch it on his own must be wanting to get off, he must be a pervert. Firstly, I don't understand why the fact that he were accompanied would change this at all (I mean, a guy with a date might go watch it wanting to get off all the same, but apparently, that's more socially acceptable). Secondly (and more importantly): why is it a problem if he does go watch it for the sex scene? What's wrong with that? What's wrong with sex, with masturbation, with porn?
Here's the thing: I grew up in a society where movies with a high violent content were rated +13 (Spanish ratings when I was a teenager differed from the British rating system), but movies with any hint of nudity (not to mention sex) were rated 18+. This equates to "sex is more embarrassing than violence, sex is less normal than violence, sex has to be hidden more than violence". Is this really how we think? I don't know, but I'm getting a bit sick of the whole "sex is bad, sex is embarrassing, sex should be hidden" thing. Of course, I don't see it as much in my peer group, but it's telling that it comes up in a newspaper that purports to be liberal and not prejudiced.
OK, so let's talk a little bit about sex. First and foremost, sex is fun. I don't really get people who take it too solemnly (sex is a serious matter, but if I can't giggle I'm out). Sex can be uncomplicated, and it can be fantastic. It can also be pretty mediocre (which, in this case, means crap). I don't understand why, how or when it became a taboo. We (as a society) have so many hang ups about sex, it's unbelievable. Sex is sex. Pure and simple. Yes, it feels good, and I'd be hard pressed to give it up for the rest of my life, but on a case by case basis, there are times when I'd rather do something else.
It worries me that as a society we think it is worse to show a teenager violence than it is to show them sex. It worries me because we grow up thinking that sex has a special status, that it is an activity different from everything else (which of course it is, but no more than any other activity), that if we don't have it we have to be miserable, that if we do have it, we have to be happy. This leads to a lot of things, most of them bad. Mainly, it leads to a lack of information about sex: people not knowing about STD prevention, about birth control, people not knowing that it's OK to say "no" to sex, people thinking that if they haven't done it they are somehow "less" than everyone else, etc. Wouldn't it be better to normalize sex? To make it as much a part of daily life as eating, or drinking or anything else? Personally, I think it's tremendously unhealthy for a society to make violence more available than sex. After all, sex is an act of enjoyment, an act of attraction, and violence is an act of anger and dislike.
Love stories shouldn't be judged by the type of sex they depict. Relationships are between people, and sex is only one part of a relationship. And sex should be more normal. We need to grow up, become less solemn about sex and become more serious about it. Talk about it. Learn about it. And yes, eventually, tell stories about it.
Yeah, now I should go back to MatLab, and write some more code. Hope you've enjoyed reading!
H
EDIT: While reading the blogpost, my friend K was reminded of the song linked about halfway through the post, and decided to finish reading while listening to it. All I can say is, it enhances the experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)