is wst really a men's room of sociology

Mon, 21 Oct 96 18:34:57 CDT
Daniel A. Foss (U17043@UICVM.UIC.EDU)

The other day, I said or implied, in a post where it emphatically did
not belong, that the world systems subcult, whateveritis, is a Men's Room
of sociology. It isn't the only one, of course. There's a Men's Room on
every floor of the social structure, from the basement garage to the
observation deck.

Now, consider that, in both Song dynasty China (960-1279) and Ancient
Athens, women had to hide behind partitions while their men had sophisticated
conversations with their male friends, in the Athenian case also having a
drunken sex orgy with slave prostitutes male and female, the whole even being
called a *symposion*. In both societies, mention of the wife's given name was
taboo, but the Athenians were more lax about these things and allowed her name
to be mentioned after her death. In medieval China, she remained Miss father's
surnameŁ forever in public usage. In both societies, the wife was married at
14, and virginal, to a man ten years older, who in the upper class would be
well on the way toward his PhD *jinshi*Ł, whence and hence, wealth and power,
in China, and for the Athenian citizen, for militaristic, slavedriving, and
suchlike-appropriate pursuits. Such that she would experience marital sex as
pain and suffering, endured with her clothes on, in both cases. And such that
death in childbirth was commonplace. For the husband, in both societies, it
was meanwhile permissible, in fact normative, to have recreational sex, but
taboo to have it with women who were his social equals. It was appropriate
for the husband to have recreational sex with women who were social inferiors,
if not slaves. Concubines were a special case, socially inferior, but more
secure in the family. In Athens, a man found his own concubine, but in China,
a dutiful wife was expected to shop for and purchase the concubine she figured
would be just right for her cherished husband. In both societies, women were
kept busy with mindrotting, boring, idiotically iterative women's work, namely,
in both cases, making textiles. Which, true enough, is a commonplace torture
of females; do we not ourselves speak of "spinsters" and "the distaff side."

What can we say about the startling similarity of these two cases of extreme
sexism? Precisely nothing, because historical sociology is developing its
underdevelopment such that it cannot find similarities, differences,
connections, or whatnot, whereto all these amazing parallels might be found
meaningful. There were differences, of course. Wives in the Chinese case were
prudish, as well as in the Athenian; but husbands were unfazed in Athens
about being seen in public places stark naked, and consorted with women,
or boys, inferior in social status or age, who would be equally or are so
depicted on Greek pots. (See Anna C. Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual
Politics in Classical Athens, 1985. Also, Patricia Buckley Ebrey, The Inner
Quarters: Marriage and Family Life in the Song Period, 1993.)

Patricia Buckley Ebrey has suggested, with regard to explaining Chinese
history, "Look at where the women are." Maybe we should. It might explain
something. Don't ask me what. What, yourself. It's just that, sometimes,
I feel, around here, I'm playing poker with the boys. You know what I mean.
Anyone wanna discuss batting averages?

Daniel A. Foss