First post, might as well jump in with both feet...

wharrison · Jul 26, 2005

Gilsmak:

Without waxing too eloquently, there is another and better reason for one of my previous discussions and for the general thread of my discussions. And that derives from the following quote, which you might come to appreciate.

The immediate, natural, and necessary relation of human being to human being is also the relation of man to woman. In this natural species relationship man's relation to nature is directly his relation to man, and his relation to man is directly his relation to nature, to his own natural function. Thus, in this relation is sensuously revealed, reduced to an observable fact, the exten to which nature has become human nature for him. From this relationship man's whole level of development can be assessed. It follows from the character of this relationship how far man has become and has understood himself as, a species-being, a human being. "The relation of man to women is the most natural relation of human being to human being. It indicates, therefore, how far man's natural behavior has become human, and how far his human essence has become a natural essence for him, how far his human nature has become nature for him. It also shows how far man's needs have become human needs, and consequently how far the other person, as a person, has become one of his needs, and to what extent he is in his individual existence at the same time a social being."

Just an additional thought!

Bill

wharrison · Jul 26, 2005

Gilsmak:

One additional thought!

Either you or your friend or the both of you might enjoy reading and learning from Natalie Angier's book: "Women: An Intimate Geography". It is still in print and available at Amazon.com as well as various other booksellers.

I've copied and pasted several reviews of this book at Amazon.

1.

This is one of those books that I am considering buying for every woman I know: young, old, of all creeds, races, and religions.... even after completing it I am STILL floored by its appropriate, humorous, scientific, lyrical, and profound words. It is empowering without any negativism. There is not a shread of male-bashing in this work of art. Natalie Angier is a science writer for the New York Times and her work is infused with just enough science to make all the fascinating issues she covers comprehensible to any and everyone who reads this book. She covers the female body like no one ever has, and I don't just mean the chapters on breasts, the uterus, and the ovaries, but the hormones, the menstrual cycles, nursing babies, menopause, exercise, chemistry, and the psychology of being a woman. I wish so much that this amazing piece of work had been around when I was 18 and wondering what the hell was WRONG with me! (nothing. apparently. But who can tell an 18 year old anything.... maybe if I could have read it.....). Angiers carefully weaves together the myths, the legends, the cultures, and even the misogyny from where we ALL come and gracefully and humorously meshes them with the studies, the sciences, the theories and the facts, and gives the reader an entire body of work on all of the issues about ourselves we are curious about. It is book that teaches you something fascinating about how and why you are and work and play and love. One of the themes that surrepticiously repeats in this book is the completely normal, completely natural, "you are SO ok - it's laughable to think otherwise" theme. Women are complex and complicated creatures and we owe that to this magnificent temple called the body and we now have all the evidence and joy in this book to know that.

2.

.. others have missed the point of Woman, that it is a book celebrating female physiology and biology in a way that it often has not been by the (typically now but almost always in years past) male science writers. This is not to say that there are no good books about the female body, simply that this once should be taken in the construct in which it was conceived. Angier certainly does convey the wonder of the female body, the absolute miracle of the biology that creates and sustains life. And she also makes a compelling case for the argument that the biology of women has traditionally been seen as 'other,' with the norm being male, and that writing, opinion and diagnoses (particularly psychological) have often sprung from this misconception - the fact that every fetus starts of as female still does nothing to convince people that woman are not the second sex. Many of the recent books I've read in evolutionary biology highlight this basic dichotomy, with the male traits still somehow the 'better,' more highly evolved ones (of course, that many female writers feel differently illustrates clearly how science, a 'rational,' 'logical' and 'intellectual' discipline is nevertheless highly subjective).

I think that Woman is marvelous in its celebration of woman and her unique capacity to give birth (with the help, of course...). The myths about menstruation that have been around forever - including the current theory du jour that women don't NEED to menstruate - have made it a curse, a major pain, a source of suffering, and it cretinaly is amazingly refreshing to have it and other parts of being female actually spoken of in wonder at nature's incredible artistry to devise such cool ways of keeping a woman's body healthy.

I am not a scientist, so I cannot vouch for the accuracy of her scientific data, but I did learn a lot that has been borne out in other things that I've read. Angier's wit, intelligence and incredible writing made it impossible for me to put this book down, and I have since then recommended it to many women who have loved it - and who got sick of me saying 'wanna hear something cool?' I think this book is also important in the way it approaches female biology, not as something incidental but as part of the miracle of nature. In a society in which women are encouraged to hate their bodies, I think this book has incredible significance and recommend it most highly. It is, however, as much a social commentary as anything else, so for 'pure' science you might, as others have suggested here, want to look elsewhere as well.

3.

There's more to a woman than meets the eye. You would think that being a woman would put you at the top of the list of knowing about ourselves. That just isn't the case. There is a lot we don't know about ourselves. Some we just assume, others we just try not to think about.

Natalie Angier has thought about them, researched them and comprised a book of them in "Woman: An intimate geography." Angier, a Pulitzer Prize Award winner has numerous books under her belt. She's also a regular writer for the New York Times science column.

In "Woman", Angier has divided the body into different areas where she goes into intimate detail. Her discussions include but are not limited to: the female egg, chromosomes, the uterus, menstruating, the ****oris, breasts, breast milk, ovaries, hormones (especially estrogen), female relationships, female aggression, muscles, and psychology. Everything you could think of relating to a woman and maybe some you haven't. To keep things in perspective she hasn't completely left out the men.

This has been an interesting read from beginning to end. In some areas the text is way over my head but the book is understandable and provides reams of data that I didn't know about myself and women in general. It also reinforced some things I did know. On a personal note, I learned there is such a great variance in breasts and menstrual bleeding that I'm normal after all. According to Angier, Hornet talk and "mastering words and barbed insults are an essential task of childhood." And here I thought we were just surrounded by little bitches.

"We are all women with many pasts. We are old primates and neohominids. We feel drawn toward other women, we feel a need to explain ourselves to them and to impress them, and we run away from women, we disavow them, or we keep them around only until the real thing comes along. We can do each other mischief, even violence, but we can do each other good as well. Both options are open to us, in the plastic opportunistic flow chart of our strategies and choices," says Angier.

I believe she's given us a better vessel with which to understand why we are the way we are and the many different forms of whom and what we are. She is positive. She is honest. No aspect of what she says makes any female form inadequate and unappreciated. Her book is a successful delivery of who and what we are and what we have the potential to become.

"An Intimate Geography" would be of interest to young ladies or senior citizens. We're never too old to learn about our bodies. It provides a framework for discussion with other women and helps to put us at ease with one another and ourselves. The 367 pages are well-worth the time.

Just another thought to add to the discussion.

Bill

Hertz van Rental · Jul 26, 2005

Wharrison.
Would you please read the Guidelines for this forum?
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23315
The guides for posting replies in particular.
I would appreciate it if you kept your responses in here reasonably brief and to the point.
Book reviews certainly have no place here. Whilst of immense interest they have little or no relevance to critique.
I know that you have a lot of experience and knowledge to share with us but please try to put a curb on your enthusiasm.

Thank you.

wharrison · Jul 27, 2005

Hertz:

As usual, your "comments" are so revealing!

By the way, are you related to Rumpole's wife by any chance?
Regards,

Bill

JonMikal · Jul 27, 2005

wharrison said:
Hertz:

As usual, your "comments" are so revealing!

By the way, are you related to Rumpole's wife by any chance?
Regards,

Bill

Hi Bill -

Well, you certainly have lots to offer on the subject of photography and I'm sure the original poster and other readers are much appreciative, however, your last comment is a bit off-topic. Please focus on the content of gilsmak's post or curtail any further comment. Thanks for your cooperation!

Jon
Critique Forum Moderator