Distance, Surface, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies: A Relativistic Critique of Maxwellcentric Conceptions of “Knowing” Bodies

Note: This post, What if Famous Scientists Wrote like Gender Scholars? originally appeared as a guest post on Lawrence Glarus’s blog.

Have you ever wondered what famous math/science works would sound like if they had been written by gender scholars? Then today is your lucky day!

I. Distance, Surface, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies: A Relativistic Critique of Maxwellcentric Conceptions of “Knowing” Bodies, by A. Einstein

In Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Isaac Newton examines the sensory and cognitive, mathematical processes involved in rendering bodies in motion as remaining in motion and bodies at rest as remaining at rest, using the language of infinitessimal, geometric calculus. Maxwellcentric social norms emphasize differences, rather than similarities, between moving electrodynamic bodies, creating perceptions of asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. In this paper I focus on a particular subjectivity and a particular spatiality. The subjectivity is that of dominant Western Maxwellcentric electrodynamics. The spatiality is the specific organisation of spacetime through which that subjectivity is constituted and through which it sees the world, a problematic described here as a relativistic space of electrodynamic self/knowledge. Take, for example, the reciprocal, non-patriarchal electrodynamic action of a magnet (“masculine”) and a conductor (“feminine”). By introducing the “infinitessimal” metaphor, Newton enables theoretical development in how cultural norms and sensory perceptions shape the social construction of spacetime curvature around the action of the magnet and conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary, phallocentric, Maxwellian view draws a sharp, “othering” distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion.  In the process of electrodynamic attribution, cognitive filters guide our attention to certain features of bodies marked as different (e.g., spin, charge, mass), while priming us to ignore other features of bodies (e.g., shape, velocity). The move from a structuralist account in which “electricity” is understood to structure activities between magnets and conductors in relatively homologous way to a view of hegemony in which electrodynamic powers are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of space structure, and marked a shift from a form of Maxwellian theory that takes structural, atomic totalities as theoretical objects (eg, photons, electrons,) to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of unified spacetime structures inaugurate a renewed conception of electrodynamics as bound up with contingent bodies.

It is thus argued that certain psychoanalytic Newtonian electrodynamic theories—like all psychodynamic mathematics—can offer a critical account of Maxwellcentric kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes, which is also a critical account of the production of visual space-time interactions. Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters. …

 

II. The Construction of Shapes as a Quintessentially Masculine Subject: The Elements of Geometric Gender, by Euclid of Alexandria

Definition 1.
A point is that which has no gender, ergo, is invisible to cisheteronormative ways of “seeing.”

Definition 2.
A line is conceptualized by Freudian psychodynamics as a phallus.

Definition 3.
The ends of a line are points, an imposition of patriarchal masculinization upon a formerly a-gendered space.

Definition 4.
A straight line is a line which has internalized cis-hetero-normative expectations of psychodynamic sexual relations between “men” and “women,” producing an arbitrary gender binary that contributes to the erasure and oppression of non-binary performing individuals.

Definition 5.
A surface is that which presents the illusion of impenetrability along its length and breadth, except by the masculine, heteronormative phallus, reinforcing colonialist narratives of the importance of male dominance.

Definition 6.
The edges of a surface are an a-structural post-colonist region of conceptualized “boundaries” between “masculine” and “feminine”.

Definition 7.
A plane surface is an unbounded, limitless potentiality-space which lies evenly with the conception of heteronormaty imposed on itself.

Definition 8.
A plane angle is the homosexual inclination to one another of two lines (constructed masculinities) in a plane which meet one another and hereafter reject heteronormative coupling with non-angles.

Definition 9.
And when the lines containing the angle are viewed through the lens of patriarchal heteronormativity, the angle is called recti-(ie, rectum)-linear (ie, phallus.)

Definition 10.
When a straight line standing on a straight line oppresses the adjacent angles, subverting their equality to one another, each of the equal angles is justified in its demand for self-expression, and the straight line standing on the other is called an oppressor (capitalist, bourgeois,) to that on which it stands (the subject, colonized, feminized “other.”) …

 

III. On the Deconstruction of “Species” as a “Natural” category: a Feminist Approach to re-imagining the Descent of (Hu)”man” Outside the Patriarchal Supremacy Paradigm, by C. Darwin

Chapter 1: Variation Under Domestication

Unquestioned patriarchic thought modes employ explicit categorization of living beings into unchanging, discreet hierarchies, from beast to angel, placing man–qua man–in the topmost, “in the image of god,” (the masculine) position. In this paper, I draw upon the theories of Buffon, Lamarck, Saint-Hilaire, Wells, Herbert, and others to develop a counter-narrative, feminist proposal that nature (“feminine,” but against patriarchal codings, red in tooth and claw, not maternal,) is the source of selective pressures that gradually transform one species into another.

When on board H.M.S. Beagle, as a queer-identified trans-racial feminist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the oppressed, post/colonial indigenous persons of color of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. The constructed masculinities of domination embodied by the colonist sphere struck me as throwing light upon the sharp, hierarchical divisions between beings which lead to my revelation that change, over time, could account for the origins of that which we insist on calling “species.”

When we examine the effects of patriarchal subjugation and domination of plant and animal forms for the satisfaction of human appetites, we are struck forcefully by the great diversity of outcomes: the domesticated, “husbanded” forms differ much more from each other, than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of natural, feminine, stewardship. When we reflect on the vast diversity of the plants and animals which have been cultivated, and which have varied during all ages under the most different climates and treatment, I think we are driven to conclude that this greater variability is due to man’s (masculine) drive to divide, differentiate, subdue, and consume. Even our oldest cultivated, “domesticated”–as in domestic, housewife, feminine, dominated by the patriarchal–varieties of plants and animals such as wheat, are still often driven to produce new varieties or “improvements” that exist, of course, only for improving their economy or taste on a human’s palate, not for marked change in the individual being’s experience of life or joy. …

 

I hope you all enjoyed reading those as much as I enjoyed writing them.

With apologies to Albert Einstein’s On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Euclid’s Elements, Charles Darwin’s On The Origin of Species by Natural Selection, and Isaac Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

With no apologies to: Blind to Sameness: Sexpectations and the Social Construction of Male and Female Bodies, Distance, Surface, Elsewhere: A Feminist Critique of the Space of Phallocentric Self/Knowledge, The Construction of Physics as a Quintessentially Masculine Subject: Young People’s Perceptions of Gender Issues in Access to Physics, Science: A Masculine Disorder? or Judith Butler.

And with special thanks to Lawrence Glarus for hosting me and to Twitter’s NewRealPeerReview for curating the list of atrocious (but real) papers that inspired this post.

Is Humor Some Sort of Man Thing?

As I mentioned before, I’ve never even heard this claim before that “men are funnier than women,” much less any ev psych claims on the subject, so I decided to investigate.

According to Cracked, approximately everyone thinks men are funnier than women, but for totally dumb reasons like evolution turning men into dicks who then act in evolutionarily approved ways rather than socially approved ways. Or because elementary school teachers laugh at the antics of little boys and punish little girls for acting up, which I suppose is the sort of thing you might believe if you’ve never encountered elementary school, children, or parents in your life and are completely incapable of understanding basic statistics.

It’s at times like this that a little voice pops up in the back of my head and says, “Math is hard. Let’s go shopping!” and I say, “Yes, disembodied Barbie, yes! Let’s give in to the corporate programming! Maybe we will get dumb shoes!” Then I go back to acting like a normal human.

According to The Independent, men don’t find women funny or don’t like it when women are funny or something like that. Why? ‘Cuz, like, masculine egos, domination, funny women intimidate men or come off as mannish or something.

Moving on to to Psychology Today, “humor researchers have long noted gender differences in the use and appreciation of humor. While women want to settle down with a guy who can crack a good joke, men, to a large degree, want a partner who laughs at their antics.”

Wait, “humor researchers”? This is a thing? That people get paid for?

Can I get that job?

Back on subject, this seems like a reasonable arrangement: if one side likes telling jokes, and one side likes hearing them, then everyone is happy, yes? (Except, of course, for women who want a career in stand-up comedy. Although Lucile Ball seems to have done quite well as a professional comedian.)

To be fair, “good sense of humor” is something I have heard that women put in their dating profiles a lot. I’m not exactly sure why; if I were making a dating profile, it’d probably say something like, “Must be willing to check the math on my calculations of rates of genetic spread over time,” or, “Must be capable of intelligently debating the role of the anterior cingula in disgust and facial recognition.”

Probably the guys over at Chateau Heartiste and the other PUA blogs have some intelligent answer to this mystery; any of you guys want to weigh in?

Let’s assume that everyone is telling the truth, and that women like funny men, and men like women who laugh at their jokes. On the male side, this leads to the obvious conclusion that “humor” is not just “masculine,” but a form of masculine aggression or alphaness, similar to being 6’4″, making over 100k a year, or doing Xtreme sports. We might even classify “humor” as a subset of “aggressively gregarious,” which obviously works very well at attracting women. (Suggesting that starting off your date with a series of knock-knock jokes is not what women want, but actually the ability to generally converse in an aggressive conversation style that lets you successfully deflect embarrassment from yourself while showing how much better than others you are, eg, the responses listed in “How to Blow Past Girls Dropping the “Creep” Bomb.”)

Aggressive behavior is actually valuable for women (they have to live in society, too,) but it is not generally their core competency. In particular, while men strut through life trying to dominate each other at every pass (they even randomly bash into each other while walking down the sidewalk just to assert dominance,) women tend to pepper their conversations with signals of non-aggression.

This all gets back to the different historical rates–and mechanisms–of male/female reproductive success. In a world where 40% of males reproduced, vs. 80% of women, male success has been ensured largely by being dominant over other males in order to control access to women. Female success has not been due to being dominant over other women, but due to their skills at social organization. Women are sensitive to aggression because, simply put, they are easier to kill than men, and no one wants to be killed.

At any rate, laughter is a form of punctuation, especially for women. This is part of why people note laughter in their online communications, LOL. Smiley faces are also common in female text, and general non-aggression signaling (“Sorry for writing so much, LOL! I’m just a chatterbox! :)” writes a woman who just wrote four whole sentences on a topic.)

To be honest, this quality can make women really annoying to talk to. They have emotions and get offended easily, and there’s a whole industry devoted to milking women’s offendedness for all its worth. Additionally, even when politics aren’t concerned, women tend to take critique really personally and get frustrated easily. When men get frustrated, they get aggressive. Frustrated women cry.

Laughter is a good technique for diffusing potentially awkward or frustrating situations. Laughing makes people happy and disguises aggression–so if you can make a girl laugh, she probably 1. enjoys your conversation, and 2. perceives you as less aggressive.

But what about men not valuing humor in women? Well, men don’t generally want dominance displays from women; they want to know that women like them. Women’s dating advice websites don’t generally cover how to make playful banter, suggesting that playful banter just isn’t that important a skill for women. (Though conversation skills help with making friends.)

Very tellingly, apparently women who crack jokes appear to be preferred as one-night stands, while less-joke prone women have an advantage on the long-term market. This introduces a chicken and egg problem: do men actually prefer jokers for one night stands, or do jokers prefer one-night stands? In general, the one-night-stand environment tends to select for masculine women (and men) with more aggressive traits (suitable to encountering and pursuing many partners,) whereas the long-term environment tends to favor more feminine traits, like staying devoted to one partner and not sleeping around.

Civilization, of course, is built on these feminine traits (among many).