> 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.
This is an interesting topic, and not one I've thought about much. Since
I've never been politically involved in feminism (haven't even taken women's
studies) or struggled with my sexual identity, I've never questioned my
gender. So, if what I say sounds inconsistent or half-baked, it's because I
haven't really worked out my views yet.
>
> 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.
To me, "man" and "woman" are very closely associated with sex-specific
physical characteristics. Beyond that, men and women are (in my opinion)
much more alike than different, and have huge, overlapping sets of talents,
interests, preferences, etc. Isn't that how most people define them?
Question: Is gender a cultural construct, encompassing other's reactions,
attempted socialization and personal reactions to it? Does the concept have
any meaning outside of that? If it's just a social construct, then it's
flexible. We can choose ways of dealing with other people's - and our own -
conceptions of gender. We can play with it or try to ignore it. We can
live our inner lives mostly outside of it.
> Would it be meaningless
> to be on a discussion list aimed at one "gender"?
It doesn't seem meaningless to me. Female people in the computer industry
tend to be marginalized, and we share the same (attempted) socialization.
It's fun to talk with other women who are into computers and have thought
about and experienced some of the same things I have.
Deidre Calarco
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
