after rereading this thread I noticed that something was missing and I'd like to throw it in here because I think it's pretty integral to the debate: 30-second introduction to feminist theory!
(I've been around the internet long enough to know that I'll probably get blowtorched. please note that I have nothing to do with this theoretical perspective. it is the result of years of work by theorists like Dworkin, Butler, etc...but in a discussion about gender roles in a particular subculture, I think it's pretty relevant. flame away!)
consider the sentence:
men/women are naturally/inherently some specific quality such as adventurous/security-seeking/insecure/headstrong/foolish
let's take this one step at a time:
men/women: I think most of us have recognized that these constructs are just that—socially constructed. however, what hasn't really been discussed here is the context of that social construction: these gendered roles are the product of a patriarchal Western society and, historically, they have been used as a tool of systematic oppresion. the characteristics that we associate with femaleness are subordinate ones—passivity, nurturing, security-seeking, emotion (as opposed to reason), fragility—because having women conform to a subordinate role consolidates their status as second-class members of society.
naturally/inherently: this part is problematic for two reasons. one is the above; if gender roles are socially constructed, not biologically innate, then the whole idea of "inherent nature" is meaningless. another reason is that sex and gender are two different things. sex is a biological categorization, determined by what's between your legs; gender is a personal identification with a particular gendered role that can be the same as biological sex but often differs. gender is much more variable and fluid than biological sex; take for example transgendered people, who were born with a particular biological sex but feel that their gender does not match their physical sex.
so to bring this back to masculinity and psychonautics...think this may clarify a few reasons why women don't seem to play as large of a role in drug culture as men do:
- women still aren't welcome, much in the same way that they're not welcome in construction crews, upper management of large corporations, etc. this has nothing to do with how individual men feel about having women in the community, but rather with the codes of behaviour and social structures that exist in the community. regardless of whether or not a particular woman uses psychedelic drugs, she is probably less likely to actively participate in a social community that is uncomfortable or unwelcoming.
- we've talked about the negative social consequences of being involved with this community, and it's been suggested that women are less willing to incur those consequences than men are because of their inherent security-seeking/approval-seeking/less adventurous/etc nature. I'd argue that it has little or nothing to do with inherent willingness to risk social consequences, but rather a dramatic difference in those consequences for men and women. promiscuous sex is a perfect analogy; guys are studs, women are sluts. I think there's a similar attitude when it comes to drug use; men are praised for reckless/extreme/risky behaviour, and women are disapproved of for engaging in the exact same behaviour. this, again, has little to do with individual men approving of women who use psychedelics, but a larger societal tendency to subordinate women by discouraging non-conformity to the traditional female role.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
