On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> srl wrote:
>
> > Talking about gender and sex as non-binary conditions seems useful to
> > me--- that's why i suggest this. I think that a lot of the problems geeks
> > face could be talked about in terms of gender.
> >
> > For example: Male geeks often face pressure because they aren't [usually]
> > the "jock-guy" gender, and female geeks get pressure because they aren't
> > [usually] the "cheerleader" gender.
> >
> > Does that make sense to anyone else?
>
> yes, it does. But I have a struggle figuring out what gender I am if you
> split it up this much. I know I'm female, but other than that the best
> I can manage is 'I'm me'.
which is what I think it comes down to ultimately. Lots of people can say
"I'm me"--- without reference to further gender categories--- but when
people see us, they see the outside gender presentation.
So, people see something-with-a-female-body, and usually they attach
assumptions: "she's probably verbal/nontechnical/social/deferent to men."
Then a female breaks those assumptions, and some people don't know what to
do with the situation because they have all these ideas about "women".
Or a female doesn't look like females are "supposed" to--- maybe ze gets
called "sir" half the time b/c ze's really butch. Maybe ze doesn't
identify as a "woman" at all.
But, yet, we persist in seeing geeky females and butches as "women"--- in
the same category with Barbie, Cindy Crawford, and Ricki Lake. There's
such a range of female genders, but we have so few words. That really
should change. We persist in using this XOR model of woman/man, but I'm
sure there's a better way.
srl
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
