I'll just finish myself off
When scientists declare that men are more horny than women, or that it’s easier for men to orgasm than women, I can’t help but get angry. I understand their reasoning. I understand how evolution works. But I also suspect that their hypotheses and conclusions are in part, if not fully, influenced by our culture, our time. A culture and a time in which women have been forcibly repressed for centuries (see Much ado about patriarchy) and sexuality has ultimately become male-defined (see The PIV POV). I reason, if you took away the culture and studied some truly primal male and female human beings, women might be equally horny and equally quick to come, if not more so.
However, let’s just say for a moment, my righteous indignation aside, that aforementioned scientists are right. That, purely biologically speaking, men have a higher sex drive than women and/or men come faster than women.
Usually, when this theory is put forward, it is deemed synonymous with “men are better than women”, which is probably why I react so strongly to it. Words like “higher” and “faster” tend to mean “better”, in our culture, in our time. A culture and time where being horny is also considered a good thing.
But the statement “men are more horny than women” doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing for women/me. It also doesn't necessarily mean that women aren’t horny at all, or that all women are less horny than all men. It could just be a thing that is. A thing like: most men can grow heftier beards than most women.
I don’t really care that I can’t grow a beard. So why should I care that men are (supposedly) more horny than me?
Because I often jump to the conclusion that difference implies inequality. That if two things are different they must be, by default, inferior or superior, good or bad. Not because I genuinely think this about things or people, but because I’ve grown up in a culture (the UK, specifically) where this is often the case. Where throwing like a girl is worse than throwing like a boy and the word “gay” is (or was, when I was in school) used as an insult.
If this Vanilla is anything it’s an attempt to shake off this kind of categorisation. I want stop seeing good and bad, inferior and superior and instead see beautifully different.
Another popular alternative: deny that any difference exists at all.
In Denmark (where I live), one of the current political debates is whether fathers should have compulsory paternity leave equal to mothers’ maternity leave. The proposal is take-it-or-leave-it m/paternity leave: if a father or mother chooses not to use their 11 weeks of leave, those weeks cannot be transferred to the other parent(s). The intention is to create more equality in families but also in the workplace.
Arguments against the proposal mostly consist of “but is that really best for the children?” Or, to put it more blatantly, isn’t there an obvious, biological, reason for why a mother might take longer leave than a father? You know, pregnancy, breastfeeding and the physical toll inflicted on a woman.
What’s interesting about the debate is that many of the same women who support gender equality, less discrimination in the workplace and more fatherly childcare, are against the idea of sharing m/paternity leave equally.
And I think that has something to do with the unequal biology of the situation.
Because although the proposal of equally shared m/paternity leave is revolutionary and could lead to more equality overall, it also seems like a proposal that hasn’t taken the biological differences of male and female bodies into account.
I have a few theories why feminist policy makers don’t like to talk to much about biology that I touched upon in You can’t mistake my biology, but what it boils down to is this: if we talk about biology, we have to acknowledge that there are differences between men and woman, and as soon as we do that, we open the door to unequal, often unfair, treatment.
And if we don’t talk about biology, we end up with a paternity leave proposal that seems like an attempt remedy a biologically unequal, unfair situation with equal treatment.
Unless we propel ourselves into a future where all babies are conceived in Matrix-esque wombs, no human being has genitals or hormones, and orgasms are rationed out at three a day (alternatively, they can be purchased from your favourite orgasm provider, if you prefer your imagined futures more capitalist than communist), there are and will continue to be undeniable, biological differences between male and female people.
What to do about those?
I don’t really know.
But if I were to tackle the problem of workplace discrimination, I’d start by making all hiring processes blind—eliminating gender, name, ethnicity and age from applications, C.V.s and interviews (think VR!). And if I were to tackle the problem of fathers not doing as much childcare or housework as mothers, I’d tax the rich more and use the money to pay stay-at-home parents a salary equivalent of a corporate manager’s and see how people prioritised their lives under those circumstances. (And if it turned out women preferred to parent and men preferred to run companies, fine, but at least they’d be equally compensated for their societal contributions.) Then I’d dedicate all remaining resources to improving how children are taught about themselves and the world in relation to sex and gender.
What I hope most for is that attitudes will change. That we will get to the point where a CEO isn’t “better” than programmer isn’t better than teacher isn’t better than a cleaner isn’t better than a stay-at-home parent isn’t better than homeless person. Unfortunately, that’s not how money—the most easily measurable currency of our time—works. For such a utopia to be feasible, we either need to live in an extremely socialist world, or we need to stop using money as the only measure.
Consider for a moment: what if having close relationships and living long lives was more important to us than money? What if we valued ourselves and others by those measures instead of by wealth? Would men still be winning?
Ok, I’m done writing myself to socialist climax. Here are your toppings.
Optional toppings
🐽 Are we designed to be sexual omnivores?, a TED Talk by Christopher Ryan which I am slightly reluctant to recommend because I’m not a fan of his book, but the talk is good or, at least, interesting
🚨 I Norge har øremærket barsel givet mere ligestilling. Bare ikke på arbejdsmarkedet by Nanna Schelde for Zetland, about Denmark’s proposed paternity leave and how Norway was well ahead of the game (for non-Danish readers, read this instead)
🏋🏻 Laurel Hubbard: First transgender athlete to compete at Olympics a decision that caused much controversy due to Laurel’s biological history
📒 Everybody by Olivia Laing is a book about bodies and freedom that I am currently gobbling up
🙋🏻♀️ do you mind if i finish myself off? on Youtube
Haaahahaahaahahahahahahahahahahaahaahahahaahaaha!
— H. E.