sorry, this is a bit long and ramblely. Thanks to the list
for providing such material to chew on.
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 11:00:35PM -0500, Deidre L. Calarco wrote:
> > should change. We persist in using this XOR model of woman/man, but I'm
> > sure there's a better way.
>
> Why associate all these personal characteristics with gender at all? I see
> gender as a fairly small part of who I am. I think of my technical /musical
> /non-frilly /aggressive characteristics as independent of gender, not as
> parts of a complicated new gender definition.
well, I would agree with you if I thought that this position was
tenable in our current society. /I/ see gender as a small part of
who I am. Most ppl I run into get hung up on it(my gender, let
alone theirs). And I know the great one would say "what do you
care what other people think" but, I'm finding that what other
people think is very important. Since lots of other people think
that technical/non-frilly/aggressive != female, it breaks their world
when then encounter such females. Depending on how they
think/feel/react the consequence for this sort of transgression
can be positive (kewl! not all females are fluff-chicks) mild-bad
(a sniff and not hiring you) or really bad (gunshot to the head
cf. brandon teena, 1993).
I don't think that new gender definitions are particularly
comprehensible to a majority of americans(I am just saying americans
because that is who I have the most experience with). I think
geek-female does challenge the traditional notion for female-gender
in a way that barbie et all do not.
> I think that the more we separate ideas about aptitudes and interests from
> ideas about gender, the better. There's no reason why geeky females and
> butches can't share a gender with Barbie, Cindy Crawford, and Ricki Lake.
You know, deidre, you are the sort of poster who I agree totally
with one sentence and then disagree the next. It's difficult to
compose a response that way. ;)
Yes, separating ideas/aptitudes/interests from gender is good. As far as
butches sharing a gender with barbie (etc) um I don't think that they
do. Perhaps it is just a consequence of deconstructing gender so much
that I can't think about it normally. But I think that traditionally
feminine females interact fairly differently than either non-traditionally
feminine females or masculine females, almost to the point of being
a separate gender.
I was thinking about this when I read an article in the Boston Phoenix
last week. Male/man columnist goes off about the joys of paintball
and other sort of typically grunt-male sort of part times, and then
takes aim at certain woman/female sports figures and laments that
they aren't ladylike anymore, and then asserts that it's a shame that
feminism (any one else tired of seeing feminism as a monolithic bogeyman?)
has lowered women to act like men, and gosh! now the women won't be able
to be kind and loving to the men anymore because they are too competitive.
> It's only a small part of who we are - just one shared characteristic among
> many. I guess my conception of "gender" doesn't go too far beyond "sex."
hmmm. then it would be that you don't have a concept of "gender"?
It seems to me that if one did not have a concept of gender then
the label "woman" or "man" would be meaningless. Would it be meaningless
to be on a discussion list aimed at one "gender"?
ok, off to study for my midterm.
nico
--
ND Hailey www.demona.com
"You don't hardly know yourself, girl, till you find yourself
doing things you never imagined." --Dorothy Allison
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
