The Friday Sex Blog [Sex and Science]

Hola mi Gente,

I’m currently working in one of the most challenging complexes on Rikers Island. I’m just sayin’… LOL

It’s Friday, so it’s all about s-e-x...

Sex, Science & the Egg & the Sperm

It has fallen on science to sort through language and culture to arrive at an “objective” truth. But I have always been intrigued on how culture and language shape science. Since ancient times the feminine has been depicted as creative and fruitful but needing to be dissected, shaped, and controlled by “male” reason. The 17^th century English philosopher and inventor of inductive reasoning, Francis Bacon, writing within the historical context of widespread persecution of witches, described a scientific process that included images of nature as female, to be restrained, tortured, and probed by mechanical inventions. “Never ought a man to make a scruple,” he wrote, “of entering and penetrating into these holes and corners, when the inquisition of truth is his whole object... ”

Really? ::blank stare::

Sexual difference became an obsession of science during the Enlightenment era, with an exploration of the differences between the sexes, based on anatomy. In contrast, older, more traditional cultures had used ritual to link the social and natural worlds, so that rituals were the authority, and in a similar way, the rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment claimed nature set down social laws that should be followed. In 1735, for example, the Swedish botanist, Linnaeus, published his classification of plants, describing them in terms of their sexual parts. The males were the dominant, defining parts; the females were secondary and submissive. Such examples were used as a “natural” justification of the subjugation of women. In other words, men and women were not equals.

In this way the identification of women with nature and emotion and men with culture and reason was created. This association of women with nature defined as motherly and physical -- so that their ideal role was in the home as nurturers -- was also used to link them with superstition, depicting the feminine as an obstacle to progress. Both men and women were defined biologically, but while men were free to engage many different parts of the public sphere, women’s roles were tightly controlled and limited by their “natural” function.

In 1759, Linnaeus came up with the term Mammalia, naming an entire class of animals after lactating mammary glands, a feature that roughly only half ever possess. Linnaeus could have chosen external body hair, for example, as a better defining characteristic. However, he was embroiled in a propaganda war against wet nursing, and was more concerned about emphasizing how “natural” it was for a mother to suckle her own child. According the scientific consensus of the time, the breast was a symbol of the natural bond between mother and child, and in that way, women were limited in their role in the home at the center of the family. It was therefore seen as biologically normal and morally good and the emphasis on breastfeeding was another way of limiting women to domestic roles and keeping them from the public sphere and away from political power.

Lest you think this is some ancient way of thinking, please note that this bias still exists. Take note that today language and gender roles continue to confound science. Anthropologist Emily Martin wrote a thought-provoking essay on this issue titled The sperm and the egg. In order to shed some light on the gender stereotypes hidden within the scientific language of biology, Emily Martin pointed to major scientific textbooks’ depiction of male and female reproductive organs as systems for the production of eggs and sperm. Therefore, within the female cycle, menstruation is clothed in the language of failure. The sloughing of the uterine lining is termed “debris,” for example. On the other hand, male reproductive processes are described in positive terms such as the “maturation” or the immense manufacturing of sperm.

She noted that scientific descriptions served to reinforce gender stereotypes and in that way, functions of the egg and the sperm were misunderstood. For example, the egg was seen as passive. It does not move, but “is transported” along fallopian tube. In contrast, sperm are active: they “deliver'' their genes to the egg and, '”activate'” its developmental program. Some researchers likened the egg’s role to that of Sleeping Beauty: a dormant bride waiting for her lover’s magic kiss, which brings her to life. This language is in line with the tradition started by Linnaeus and Bacon. A tradition that has as its roots a form of misogyny.

Recently the researchers at Johns Hopkins University concluded that the sperm and the egg stick together because of adhesive molecules on the surfaces of each. The egg traps the sperm and adheres to it so tightly that the sperm’s head is forced to lie flat against the outer layer of the egg. In other words, the egg isn’t “passive” it is proactive in the reproductive process. The trapped sperm continues to wiggle ineffectively. If the digestive enzymes released by the sperm start to soften the zona just at its tip the fragile sperm can get oriented in the right direction and make it through the zona.

Yet, even this new version of the role of the egg and the sperm helped little in changing the narrative at the cultural level. Researchers who made the discovery themselves continued to write papers using the same stereotypical metaphor of sperm as the “active” party who “penetrates” the egg.

And there you have it, how even science is confounded by language and culture.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization…

Myth Buster Mondays [Immigration and African Americxan Unemployment]

¡Hola mi Gente!

There is nothing I detest more than to see my own people allowing racist, white supremacist thinking take root in their minds. One point in fact is the misdirected and false perceptions of native-born people of color about immigrants. When I listen to African Americans or Puerto Ricans, for example, go off on immigrants, it makes my blood boil because they are co-opting and assimilating the language of white racists. And these white racists know it and use that ignorance to make some us agents of division within our own communities.

Let’s take that tried and true myth that immigrants are taking away the jobs of African Americans and other native-born people of color…

* * *

The Immigration and African American Jobs Myth

Knowledge makes a man unfit for slavery.

 -- Frederick Douglass

The comedian, David Chappelle, had a brilliant skit which highlighted the [mis]adventures of a blind white supremacist who didn’t know he was black. It’s an instructive metaphor for what some call internalized racism -- a state of mind in which people of color sometimes adopt a white supremacist mindset that results in self-hatred and hatred of their respective or associated racial group.

Nowhere else is internalized racism demonstrated by blacks and other people of color than in the issue of immigration. As a Latino of Puerto Rican descent, I am a citizen by lawful decree. All Puerto Ricans are born citizens. And sometimes that puts us at odds with other Latin@ groups who don’t enjoy citizenship status and resent us for it, or when we Puerto Ricans adopt the immigrant views of the dominant US culture. I can’t stand to watch, for example, two closely related groups such as Dominicans and Puerto Ricans go at each other. I’m not saying it’s common, because it isn’t -- this is demonstrated by the large rates of intermarriage between the two groups, but there are always some people who fall prey to their own internalized racism.

This is also very true of African Americans, some who espouse the same vile views of anti-immigrant nativist and white supremacists (here). In addition, myths and stereotypes about Latin@s -- such as the myth of our supposed indifference/ resistance to learning English, for example -- are held by quite a few in the African American community.\

Recently, Rippa posted an article on his site (here) challenging the notion that immigration is harmful to the African American community and one commenter posted a long screed that managed to enumerate almost all the Latin@ stereotypes. I responded contentiously, but also citing empirical studies showing that this particular individual’s views weren’t just wrong, but bigoted and unfounded. I have gotten to the point where I believe interacting with such individuals only serves to reinforce the anti-immigrant ideology, but sometimes I can’t help myself.

One of the ways white supremacists get the upper hand is by exploiting the natural tensions that exist between Blacks and Latin@s and other people of color. It’s as if some of us can’t wait to submit to Da Massa’s shackles. The point here is that this individual’s internalized racism is so entrenched that no facts, no responses grounded in empirical proof will shake that person’s bigotry. Of course, the person in question has yet to post any evidence concerning his or her bigoted assertions. I encourage said person to post an article with evidence to back up his/ her claims here. I’m sure Rippa would be open to it.

One abiding and controversial issue which anti-immigrant groups exploit is the myth that the presence of immigrants in the U.S. labor force -- specifically undocumented immigrants -- has a major detrimental impact on African Americans employment. These anti-immigrant/ white supremacist groups argue that undocumented immigrants, who tend to work in less skilled occupations, are “taking” large numbers of jobs that might otherwise be filled by African American workers.

There’s one major problem with this talking point: there is no evidence for it.

It is important to acknowledge that African Americans do face daunting economic and employment problems, and that the legacy of discrimination continues to be felt in communities large and small across the country. Anti-immigrant organizations have coldly seized on these troubles, however, to leverage a particularly nasty kind of argument against immigration. Some of these self-professed advocates for African-Americans have long-standing ties to nativist and hate groups.

The facts about this issue are plain. A recently released report by the Immigration Policy Center (here) analyzes the existence of immigrants in the workforce and compares it to African American unemployment. If immigration was having a harmful affect on rates of African American employment, it should follow that rates of unemployment among African Americans should be higher in areas with large numbers of immigrants in the labor force, especially immigrants who are relatively recent arrivals to the United States and willing to work for lower wages than most African Americans. The IPC report, however, shows just the opposite and, in fact, finds that there is little apparent relationship between recent immigration and unemployment rates among African Americans, or any other native born racial/ethnic group, at the state or metropolitan level.

One example of this is found in comparing Miami and Cleveland:

Recent immigrants are 17 percent of the labor force in Miami, but only 3 percent of the labor force in Cleveland. Yet the unemployment rate for native-born blacks in Cleveland is double that of native-born blacks in Miami. As with most efforts to make simplistic arguments about unemployment, there is no one-to-one relationship between the presence of immigrants and unemployment in the African-American community. [emphasis added]

That is not to say there is zero competition or that African Americans have no problems finding employment. It means that, controlling for everything else, there is no relationship between immigration and black unemployment. More importantly, in order to move toward a real solution, we need to look at structural issues -- the mass incarceration of African Americans and other people of color and the consequent disinvestment from education, for example -- and how other societal issues are obstacles to African Americans reaching their full potential.

The IPC report is not the sole study, there are numerous articles (here, here, and here) on the issue by noted academics. Gerald D. Jaynes, a professor in the department of economics and in the Program in African and American Studies at Yale University, has studied the impact immigrants have on African Americans for years and has repeatedly found that “the effects are relatively small, and in any event secondary to other causes of less educated workers’ dismal employment and wage experiences.” (click here) And because the work of immigrants often complements that of U.S.-born workers, “immigration can actually create jobs.” (click here to view Jaynes’ congressional testimony.)

Furthermore, Dr. Stephen Pitts, a labor economist who has also taught African-American studies and now resides at UC Berkeley, holds workshops for workers to explain the real villain is not immigrant workers, but rather bad apple employers who exploit both communities. Pitts argues that African Americans should not allow themselves to be pitted against another ethnic and racial group who themselves are struggling for equality and improved conditions in their communities (here). This argument bears repeating when examining the motives of anti-immigrant groups who claim to speak for native-born workers.

It’s no wonder that civil rights groups, who have and continue to fight for African American equality, are now standing up for immigration reform because they know raising the living and working conditions of immigrants will level the playing field and improve the lives of all workers in America. These groups have cautioned against letting anti-immigrant groups speak for the African American community.

The anti-immigrant crowd, almost exclusively composed of White leadership, likes to portray itself as standing up for African Americans. But let’s get fuckin' real, my black brothers and sisters, this recession was not caused by immigrant workers “taking jobs” from Americans. It was caused by the economic meltdown brought on by the greed of financiers and unregulated market practices that pushed our economy to the brink of disaster. It is caused by the failure of neoliberal social and economic policies that now see more African Americans sitting in prisons than there were slaves in 1850. Our shared economic struggles are the consequence of the willful intent to use economic resources to enslave us all.

Rather allowing ourselves to be led by the nose by racist white supremacists who certainly don't have our interests at heart, why don’t we start funneling our energy against the real forces that are literally destroying all of our communities.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization…

Your Mother Fucks [Happy Mother's Day!]

¡Hola! Everybody...
I’ve been hammering away all weekend at the stereotype of motherhood. First, while some stereotypes have the potential to be positive, there are probably more dangers in stereotyping than we care to admit or realize. I believe stereotypes blinds us from the uniqueness of an individual and serves to categorize them in groups making it easier to maintain assumptions about them. Essentially, a stereotype is a one-size-fits all mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment.

Mothers are human, not gods, or goddesses. They make mistakes, have character flaws, and not all of them are the same, nor do they bring the same talents to the table. I would hazard that many mothers are also sexual beings, engage in fellatio, are not that nurturing, can't cook, or generally have what we as a society have decided are "un-mother-like" attributes.

And we give them one day of the year where we offer bullshit Hallmark platitudes and pigeon-hole them. Then we spend the rest of the year, as individuals and as a society, enacting policies that are often hostile to mothers. I have more to say on this, but for now I’ll share the following post I came across the other day.

* * *

-=[ The Seven Deadly Stereotypes of Motherhood ]=-

The woman Wonders in Pink shared a list that included the seven most common deadly stereotypes of moms...

Bon Bon-Eating Mom

Stay-at-home moms don't do anything all day but watch TV and eat bon bons. Stay-at-home moms are loving and nurturing but their brains are mush.

Career-Crazed Mom

Working moms are selfish careerists who neglect their kids. Working moms are competent and intelligent but cold and uncaring.

Supermom

Supermom is the perfect nurturing mom -- always attentive to the kids, doesn't miss a school event, bakes the brownies from scratch -- plus the Do-it-All Mom is the perfect professional career woman -- always available for work, stays on the fast track and makes it to CEO - plus she has a perfect marriage, perfect sex life and perfect kids.

24/7 Bliss Mom

Good mothers love every minute of it, never feel ambivalent, never have a bad day, never yell at their kids, and are always smiling, relaxed and in control.

Long-Suffering/ Martyr Mom (aka Marianismo)

Good mothers always put their family's interests ahead of their own. Good mothers do not have their own needs and interests, and do not seek their own fulfillment.

Glam Mom

Good mothers are glamorous; young, attractive, perfectly fit, designer dressed, perfectly coiffed - and so are their children.

Domestic Goddess Mom

Good mothers love to do housework, are obsessed with cleaning. Only mothers are capable of housework. Good mothers have a spotless house and do everything from scratch; home-cooked meals, perfect birthday parties, and crafts.

For the mothers out there: what stereotype do you think the world sees you as? Which one can you relate to the most?

I will never say I can know what being a mother feels like, but I was the primary caregiver to a child least seven years, and that gave me sense of how little that kind of work is valued. For example, if mothers and motherhood is such a great thing -- something so “divine” “blah, blah, blah... ” then why don’t we pay them? In a capitalist society, I find it odd that a role that’s considered primal, is not valued, economically speaking. In fact, most people would consider such a proposition absurd, and those people make my point.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization...

Postscript: Not that I would claim insight into what being a mother actually entails, but I was a stay-at-home father and primary care-giver for a child for several years..

The TGIF Sex Blog [Sex & Science]

¡Hola! Everybody...
I got my new phone. I hated the Blackberry Storm, and now have the Blackberry Tour. the IT guy is on vacation, so it won't be connected to my desktop until he gets back, but at least I can receive calls and not answer them, as I usually do... LOL! If, however, you desire to have sex with me, please call (women only need apply LOL!).

It’s Friday, so it’s all about s-e-x...

* * *

-=[ Sex, Science & the Egg & the Sperm ]=-

The theory of the human body is always a part of a world picture. The theory of the human body is always a part of a fantasy.

-- James Hillman

It has fallen on science to sort through language and culture to arrive at an “objective” truth. but I have always been intrigued on how culture and language shape science. Since ancient times the feminine has been depicted as creative and fruitful but needing to be dissected, shaped, and controlled by “male” reason. The 17^th century English philosopher and inventor of inductive reasoning, Francis Bacon, writing against a background of widespread persecution of witches, described a scientific process that included images of nature as female, to be restrained, tortured, and probed by mechanical inventions. “Never ought a man to make a scruple,” he wrote, “of entering and penetrating into these holes and corners, when the inquisition of truth is his whole object... ”

Whew!

Sexual difference became an obsession of science during the Enlightenment of the 18^th century, with an exploration of the differences between the sexes, based on anatomy. In contrast, older, more traditional cultures had used ritual to link the social and natural worlds, so that rituals were the authority, and in a similar way, the rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment claimed nature set down social laws that should be followed. In 1735, for example, the Swedish botanist Linnaeus published his classification of plants, describing them in terms of their sexual parts. The males were the dominant, defining parts; the females were secondary and submissive. Examples such as these were used as a “natural” justification of the subjugation of women. In other words, men and women were not equals.

Sound familiar?

In this way the identification of women with nature and emotion, men with culture and reason was created. This association of women with nature defined as motherly and physical -- so that their ideal role was in the home as nurturers -- but it was also used to link them with superstition, making them an obstacle to progress. Both men and women were defined biologically, but while men were free to engage many different parts of the public sphere, women’s roles were tightly controlled and limited by their “natural” function.

In 1759, Linnaeus came up with the term Mammalia, naming an entire class of animals after a feature lactating mammary glands (or “tits” in the vernacular), that only half ever possess. Linnaeus could have chosen external body hair, for example, as a better defining characteristic. However, he was embroiled in a propaganda war against wet nursing, and was more concerned about emphasizing how “natural” it was for a mother to suckle her own child. According the scientific community of the time, the breast was a symbol of the natural bond between mother and child, and in that way, women were limited in their role in the home at the center of the family. It was therefore seen as biologically normal and morally good and the emphasis on breastfeeding was another way of limiting women to domestic roles and keeping them from the public sphere and away from political power).

Lest you think this is some ancient way of thinking, please note that this bias still exists. Take note that today language and gender roles continue to confound science. Anthropologist Emily Martin wrote a thought-provoking essay on this issue called “the Sperm and the Egg.” In order to shed some light on the gender stereotypes hidden within the scientific language of biology, Emily Martin pointed to major scientific textbooks’ depiction of male and female reproductive organs as systems for the production of eggs and sperm. Therefore, within the female cycle, menstruation is clothed in the language of failure. The sloughing of the uterine lining is termed as “debris,” for example. On the other hand, male reproductive processes are described in positive terms such as the “maturation” or the immense manufacturing of sperm.

She noted that scientific descriptions served to reinforce gender stereotypes and in that way, functions of the egg and the sperm were misunderstood. For example, the egg was seen as passive. It does not move, but “is transported” along fallopian tube. In contrast, sperm are active: they “deliver'' their genes to the egg and, '”activate'” its developmental program. Some researchers likened the egg’s role to that of Sleeping Beauty: a dormant bride waiting for her lover’s magic kiss, which brings her to life! This language is in line with the tradition started by Linnaeus and Bacon. A tradition that has as its roots a form of misogyny.

Recently the researchers at Johns Hopkins University concluded that the sperm and the egg stick together because of adhesive molecules on the surfaces of each. The egg traps the sperm and adheres to it so tightly that the sperm’s head is forced to lie flat against the outer layer of the egg. In other words, the egg isn’t “passive” it is proactive in the reproductive process. The trapped sperm continues to wiggle ineffectively. If the digestive enzymes released by the sperm start to soften the zona just at its tip the fragile sperm can get oriented in the right direction and make it through the zona.

Yet, even this new version of the role of the egg and the sperm helped little in changing the narrative on the cultural level. Researchers who made the discovery themselves continued to write papers using the same stereotypical metaphor of sperm as the “active” party who “penetrates” the egg.

And there you have it, how even science is confounded by language and culture.

Love,

Eddie