202. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:53 AM PT
Res: (Aside) Egads!
203. davidmeyer - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:54 AM PT
Resonance:
I was talking about if I became a woman at this point in my life, after having already lived 21 years as a male. I feel pretty qualified to talk about how I currently perceive social roles. I have no idea what I would do if I had been born a woman.
204. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:57 AM PT
" I feel pretty qualified to talk
about how I currently perceive social roles."
Yes, we've gathered that. The important thing here is that you're denying the absolutism in your perception of those roles, and it's plain to be seen. You argue as thought these lock-step social roles dominated us, but then claim that you do not. I think you might wish to reconsider.
205. davidmeyer - Dec. 10, 1998 - 1:10 AM PT
Please, point out a single instance where I argue people are slaves to social roles.
My posts:
Message #129, Message #129, Message #147, Message #153, Message #162, Message #168, Message #171, Message #173, Message #177, Message #178, Message #181, Message #191, Message #198, Message #203
I am absolutely certain of how I currently perceive social roles. However, I am certainly willing to profess the possibility that my perceptions are inaccurate. I would be displeased to change into a woman because I believe that society has thus far given them a raw deal. The norms that women have to deal with are more difficult to overcome to achieve the substantive ends to which I aspire.
206. Slackjaw - Dec. 10, 1998 - 1:25 AM PT
"Because if you continue to use your power privilege to force me to screech delightedly, your discourse with me will be equivalent to rape."
Seguine! Mind your role. You are not to make droll remarks. That is for me and my hegemonic brethren only.
"...force me to screech delightedly..." The juxtaposition of this and the image of your 3" pumps, plunging neckline, et al., along with some drunken revelry...well, that's excitingly feminine indeed.
207. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 1:32 AM PT
I'm not going to be awake long enough to do them all. Let's examine Message #129, though.
"If I had a vagina for a day, I would probably feel
lost and worthless; women aren't "supposed" to
like to do the things that I enjoy."
This assumes that your role would dictate how you would act as a woman. You aren't supposed to like doing things that you do -- therefore, instead of overcoming your conditioning, you'd feel lost and worthless. Point number one.
"I wouldn't
know how to act without the "privilege" of being
male. "
Point number two. You assume that your gender conditioning would dictate how you would act as a woman. (The above quoted idea, if I may say so, is pretty fucking silly).You assume that your role dominates your understanding and your persona.
"Basically, I would either internalize a lot
of the social stereotypes given by resonance up
above, or I would become a Mary Daly-type
lesbian."
Three. You are assuming that your role-conditioned understanding of yourself and your gender would force you to adopt either one of these two patently silly options.
208. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 1:33 AM PT
"Femininity is
merely the negation of masculinity; hence the
historical associations of masculine with
rational, feminine with emotional, masculine
with competitive, feminine with cooperative."
Four. You are assuming that your binary oppositions here, as you understand them, pervade all understandings of 'femininity' -- else, you would have qualified the above statement. I've never bought this insistence that whatever is female is that which is not male, fwiw. But that's irrelevant to your absolutism.
"As
long as masculine is defined as good and
feminine defined as its opposite, I could never
deal with being feminine. "
Five. You assume that 'masculine' *is* categorically defined as 'good', and that 'feminine' *is* categorically defined as its opposite. Once again, your words imply that you could not escape these role-conditioned ideas. Your language is very absolute -- it is as filled with absolutes such as 'never' as it is lacking in qualifiers such as 'some' or 'perhaps' or 'one way of looking at it is' or 'I might'.
209. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 1:33 AM PT
So we've five very clear indicators of this absolutism, this belief that gender roles not just influence but utterly dominate our acts and understandings. In one post, Meyer. I saw more in the quick perusal of the thread that I did, but I'm frankly too tired to bother going through more posts of yours. And I don't have to -- with just one of your posts, I've made my point five times. Do you see?
210. Slackjaw - Dec. 10, 1998 - 1:34 AM PT
"PS. I am from the state of blue grass, but that hardly explains my political views."
Come on, Meyer. What makes you think you're so enlightened that your poltical views don't bear the imprimatur of the fascist social strictures of the bluegrass country? You've read Derrida? Your mom gives you Derrida books for Christmas?
Meyer's college thesis: "Oppressed in Owensboro: Voice, Exit and Social Roles at the Mall of Evansville Food Court."
211. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 1:40 AM PT
Res: (Aside) And egads again!
(To Brabantio)I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter and the economist are now making the beast with two backs!
212. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 1:42 AM PT
There's none of Derrida in that. Maybe some Fish, some Foucault, and perhaps some Kristeva and some Althusser.
213. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 1:43 AM PT
Jauss and maybe Iser, too.
214. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 1:45 AM PT
I'm not as acquainted with the feminist and postfeminist crits, but I'd suspect that there's a heaping teaspoon of it as well.
215. Slackjaw - Dec. 10, 1998 - 1:50 AM PT
Message #211 hahahaha, very good.
Oh no, Derrida goes in. That's the kind of conspicuous citation a thesis like Meyer's begs for.
216. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 1:59 AM PT
Well, actually, I was referring to his politics and gender views, not his alleged thesis. Hell, I'd have no idea at all where to start with that monster.
217. Slackjaw - Dec. 10, 1998 - 2:08 AM PT
Meyer:
"Social roles exist, they influence people, and they typically protect the interests of the groups with the power to produce them."
What group (or should I say cabal) has the power to unilaterally produce social roles?
"That said, I would feel uncomfortable as a woman because it would be more difficult to function when "success" requires overcoming substantial social obstacles."
I am most impressed with your ability to simultaneously brownnose and condescend to an entire gender.
218. jonesatlaw - Dec. 10, 1998 - 8:13 AM PT
After reading the numerous posts concerning social roles and gender and frankly some nonsense on the same, I would like to throw another twist into the discussion.
1. Women and men are socialized differently in this country.
2. Women and men are biologically different and that difference includes differences in their brains, and consequently their thinking, emotions and view of the world.
3. The extent of, and effect of #1 and #2 vary along a continuum.
To ignore any one of the above is to miss the point of masculinity and feminity.
Men and women are as different as Macs and PCs. You can do most of the same stuff with either one, but there are some things that one does that the other can't. However, these differences are small compared to the vast overlap in what they both do. Secondly, while each may work equally well, the actual operations of each may be different to do the work.
219. bubbaette - Dec. 10, 1998 - 8:55 AM PT
Jones
I agree. Also, the notion that men and women have (in two generations?) overcome centuries of tradition is absurd. Hell fire, I'm 41 and when I was a child, I expected to grow up to be a housewife. That career doesn't really exist anymore without a tremendous amount of faith, considering a divorce rate of 50%.
Somebody back there mentioned birth control. I think that the availability of birth control and the invention of the washing machine and the electric or gas range has had more to do with changing gender roles than any desire to leave the kitchen for the office.
All the same, I'm not going to be a good rodbuster -- I don't have the upperbody strength. There are physical and developmental differences that can be used to our mutual advantage. It just so happens that the things that are "typically" feminine are considered to be of less value.
220. Seguine - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:06 AM PT
"Seguine! Mind your role. You are not to make droll remarks. That is for me and my hegemonic brethren only."
I subvert you, oppressor, by calling into question the pullulation of your objectifying reification.
""...force me to screech delightedly..." The juxtaposition of this and
the image of your 3" pumps, plunging neckline, et al., along with some
drunken revelry...well, that's excitingly feminine indeed."
You and your hegemonic brethren force me to use my coerced submission to your objectifying impulse as a club with which to arouse and then deny your expectation of satisfaction.
Did I mention black seamed stockings and garter belt?
221. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:09 AM PT
Message #218
I don't see how that's another twist, since that's what everybody except DaveMeyer seems to believe.
Message #219
But how are "gender roles" constraining? How does the fact that things typically "feminine" are considerabled less valuable constrain you? Meyer thinks that these "gender roles" are perpetuated by and benefit those in power.
"Somebody back there mentioned birth control. I think that the availability of birth control and the invention of the washing machine and the electric or gas range has had more to do with changing gender roles than any desire to leave the kitchen for the office."
I agree 100%.
222. jonesatlaw - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:09 AM PT
"it just so happens that things considered typically feminine are considered to be of less value."- Bubbaette
More's the pity. When you think of child care, nursing, teaching etc. "feminine" fields all, the real human value doesn't seem to match the economic value does it?
This may be changing. I think that men of my generation are changing what it means to be a father. I think that we are trying to hold on to the good things that our fathers did for us, and trying to provide some of the more "feminine" support and nuturing we got from our mothers. I think I am more free to be myself with my son than my father was, and even he was an aberration for his generation. He was far more physically and emotionally demonstrative than most Dads of the day. This was somewhat uncomfortable when I was a teenager, but I am glad of it now.
223. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:13 AM PT
davidmeyer (Message #191)
"Actually, my interpretive community hardly qualifies me to testify to their existence."
Like I said, you are a ninny, and a jellyfish to boot. The fact that you are a man does not disqualify you from testifying to, or denying, the existence of certain social norms about women. Get a spine, Meyer.
"Personal narratives are the primary evidence for the existence of said norms..."
You missed my point. It's not so much that anybody questions the existence of certain social norms, but with "personal narratives" as evidence, anyone can say anything is a social norm.
"[personal narratives] are the only evidence which considers the standpoint of the disadvantaged."
You are lost lock stock and barrel to this crit nonsense, aren't you? Why don't, say, data on poverty rates consider the "standpoint of the disadvantaged"?
"If you claim evolutionary psychology as an alternative to tabula rasa social construction, then why don't you simply say so?"
I've already said it in the past: tabula rasa social construction is complete and demonstrable bullshit. (TBSC is also known by sociobiologists as the Standard Social Science Model, even though it's more of a literary conceit than anything else.) All the same, evolutionary psychology does not preclude social and environmental influences on behaviour.
"Claims of 'naturalness', transparency, or neutrality, which typify modern liberal societies, mask the norms which reinforce power and resource inequity."
I think this is pretty much bullshit. It's not like anybody is claiming slavery is natural today.
"I have a cursory understanding of evolutionary psychology, and am a bit skeptical towards it because it just happens to privilege those who are responsible for its production."
How? As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
224. jonesatlaw - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:13 AM PT
PE, it may not be much of a twist, but I can only take so much sociological clap trap about role expectations as the be all and end all of behavior. That's what I was responding to. I admit that most folk agree with post Message #218, but we seemed to have strayed far afield.
225. jonesatlaw - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:14 AM PT
Sorry, that should be "claptrap"
226. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:14 AM PT
Meyer said: "Social roles exist, they influence people, and they typically protect the interests of the groups with the power to produce them."
In addition to Slackjaw's question in Message #217, I would like to know precisely how these "social roles" are significant constraints on behaviour and how they protect powerful interests.
227. harper - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:19 AM PT
If I were a man for a day, maybe I might be able to figure out why civilization as we know it would end if football ceased to exist. And why golf is fun and important. I would try to understand why a man just *can't* phone if he's going to be late and doesn't understand that some one is *worried* about him. I would try to understand "male bonding" and its rituals. And what *is* it about fast cars and fast women, anyway?
228. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:21 AM PT
I am actually quite sympathetic to feminism, but that part of feminism I find pointless is the one that grumbles plaintively about inequities which are simply insoluble through policy, like double standards about promiscuity or overweight or age or beauty. These are some of the things I am sure our teen-blitherer Meyer considers derived from social roles which "protect the interests of the groups with the power to produce them". In my opinion, feminism will be far better off concentrating its efforts on finishing the task of achieving institutional and functional equality in the formal society at large.
229. marshame - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:26 AM PT
Lady Chaos
In reading the transgender diary, which you linked in Message #149, I am struck with what I can only describe as excessive narciscism.
It seems to me that we all go through a period or periods of time in life when we don't feel like we fit in, we're like outsiders looking in, etc. etc. But in the process of maturation, we learn that this is practically a universal phenomenon (the feeling of being a stranger in a strange land, etc.) and we move past it.
So I'm not always comfortable as a woman. So I wish I could be different some times. So I wonder why I find some of my women friends to be so tedious at times.
That's life, friend.
But those who identify themselves as transgendered, or gender confused, or whatever people in a state of confusion call themselves who focus on their sexual identity as the locus of the problem - those folks seem not to be able to move beyond that point in their emotional maturation.
LC - I'm sure you've made a life-long study of this. Is this view held by anyone in the field, or am I completely off?
230. harper - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:32 AM PT
PE: Message #228
I agree. I sometimes think that feminism has lost its way. Too many fringe agendas. But, having worked for a company that was so male chauvinist it made your teeth ache, I really resented having to be more "macho" than the guys in order to have my opinion heard. There were no women in management and the only ones in Marketing got laid off. It was pretty grim. I actually had a whip and handcuffs hanging in my cubicle--they were a joke of course, but some guys there took them seriously and weren't sure I wouldn't use one or both on them. I just let them think that. It earned me a modicum of respect (or at leasr fear)--that and going to the firing range and shooting .357 Magnums at targets.
231. Msivorytower - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:37 AM PT
Harper
"And why golf is fun and important."
Hahaha, I don't think you need to be a man to see this. I admit to a strange passion for the game, even though I'm a very bad player, and its importance is in its networking opportunities used by the rich and powerful. It's that simple.
"And what *is* it about fast cars and fast women, anyway?"
Don't we women have the same passions? For dangerous men who drive dangerous cars and machinery?
You know, the bad boy on the motorcycle....
The Playboy in his Porshe (or whatever car is the phallic symbol of the moment)
etc.....
232. harper - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:54 AM PT
MsIT: Message #231
Having dated a few good-looking rich guys with fast cars, believe me, it ain't what it's cracked up to be. They were stupid, shallow, and self-centered for the most part.
But wouldn't you like to know just what is *is* about football anyway?
In one of my historical re-enactment groups, I actually kit out as a guy and march in formation, shoot a matchlock, and do guy stuff (well, not scratch my balls) like drink from whatever bottle of whatever is being passed around, sing dirty songs, belch, fart in public, etc. I *still* couldn't get the officer to address me as a man, as just one of the soldiers. Since I'm as tall as any guy there, and wear baggy breeches and coat, I'm not obviously female. At least, they know I'm a competent 17th century soldier and don't patronize me.
Once, for a theatrical presentation, I put on a fake beard & moustache (luckily, they really matched my hair). They needed four men, but they ended up with 3 and me, so I was drafted in a minor part. I hammed it up unmercifully. Several women just freaked when they found out I was female. It was fun.
233. Wombat - Dec. 10, 1998 - 11:01 AM PT
Meyer:
Get a job, get a life, get a steady girlfriend (if you are hetero), come back in ten years.
I would have enjoyed "having a vagina for a day" in high school or college, just to find out what kind of gossip about boys goes on in the girls bathroom.
Now, it may be worth doing in order to get a woman's-eye-view of the need for spatial hegemony in the medicine cabinet. I realize that women may need more stuff, but at present, I have about enough room to park a can of shaving cream on the one-quarter shelf (out of the two shelves in the cabinet) allotted to me.
234. Slackjaw - Dec. 10, 1998 - 11:31 AM PT
Message #227
No, you try to figure those things out now, from the sound of it. If you had a penis for a day you'd probably just shrug and do them.
Gender roles and all, you know.
235. Slackjaw - Dec. 10, 1998 - 11:32 AM PT
"You and your hegemonic brethren force me to use my coerced submission to your objectifying impulse as a club with which to arouse and then deny your expectation of satisfaction."
Is this the postmodern way of saying you're a tease?
"Did I mention black seamed stockings and garter belt?"
I have to, uh, comb my hair.
236. lazygeorge - Dec. 10, 1998 - 11:42 AM PT
harper,
What war do you re-enact? Can you help me to understand the interest in historical re-enactment? I cannot imagine 16th, 17th, 18th or 19th century war as fun.
237. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 10, 1998 - 11:49 AM PT
So you might have found trench warfare of the 20th century scintillating?
238. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 10, 1998 - 11:51 AM PT
Anybody read "Confederates in the Attic?"
239. Jenerator - Dec. 10, 1998 - 11:55 AM PT
Harper,
So, you've been to a gallery and you own a .357 magnum? (my kinda woman!!)
My favorite gun that I've owned was a Desert Eagle .44 mag. It weighed 3.7 pounds and would blow the target off of the hanger!
240. lazygeorge - Dec. 10, 1998 - 11:58 AM PT
pseudoerasamus,
I am not aware of any World War One re-enactors. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to share a trench filled with cold mud and hungry rats feasting on the flesh of my dead friends. I have met a few World War two re-enactors. I do not understand the fascination for adult men to play "soldier". I did it for real. I am glad it is behind he.
JaDeGoLd,
I will look for the book.
241. Wombat - Dec. 10, 1998 - 11:58 AM PT
It's a lot more fun if you can go home to a hot shower and a hot meal at the end of the day.
Harper, is it your observation that many of the reenactors are way overweight for the wars they are reenacting? I was struck by this when watching the film Gettysburg (which I liked). When Pickett's Charge got started, all these good ol' boys who had had a few beers and twinkies too many, started waddling toward the Union lines. I know that there are some hardcore reenactors who seek a higher degree of versimilitude. What are your thoughts on this?
242. CalGal - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:07 PM PT
DavidMeyer's comments remind me of a portion of Andie McDowell's "geez, how many lovers have I had?" monologue from Four Weddings and a Funeral (the quote is not exact):
"Guys 17-20--the college years. Gentle, sensitive, intellectual men. Sexually speaking, a real low point."
243. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:08 PM PT
Wombat;
You'll love the book "Confederate's in the Attic."
There is clearly a pecking order among re-enactors. The author went on one re-enactment where, as he was advancing across a battlefield, he was amazed to see the "dead" snapping pictures at the troops. Later, he was asked to replace another re-enactor who "had to leave to attend his kid's birthday --- so he took a bullet early on."
244. Wombat - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:17 PM PT
Jade:
I think Harper's (the magazine, not the fraysana) ran an excerpt from that book. I did enjoy it.
245. Seguine - Dec. 10, 1998 - 12:30 PM PT
Slackjaw,
"Is this the postmodern way of saying you're a tease?"
Mmmmm.
And yet how could I be otherwise, in such readily excitable company?
The hegemony made me do it.
246. davidmeyer - Dec. 10, 1998 - 3:18 PM PT
Resonance, re: Message #207
These examples are all ridiculous. I was discussing how I would feel in that situation.
As for pt. #1, I would definitely feel lost and worthless if I were to become a woman today. The confusion and turmoil that would result from an abrupt change in one's sex would be remarkable. I can hardly fathom your objection to this statement.
As for pt. #2, I would not know how to act without the "privilege" of being male. My entire life has been built upon my perception of what is available and appropriate to me, i.e. public life. The assumption that women are supposed to strive for private accomplishments while men strive for public surely limits one's opportunities.
As for pt. #3, I would either sell out entirely or reject any social gender role entirely. I simply perceive that these would be the two easiest options were my sex to change, and in fact I frequently consider them now. In the wake of the confusion over an abrupt gender change, they seem reasonable to me.
As for pt. #4, I do assume that most people view gender as a series of binary oppositions. Obviously, the margins are blurred, particularly by homosexuality and trans-gendered people. If you disagree with this assumption, state why. Perhaps it is a definitional disagreement.
As for pt. #5, I argue that people defining "good" have traditionally been men. Accordingly, "good" has acquired a decidedly masculine bent.
Message #129 was "absolutist" because I was talking about how I would feel. I qualify myself quite frequently when discussing anything else.
247. davidmeyer - Dec. 10, 1998 - 3:21 PM PT
Slackjaw, re: Message #217
ME: "Social roles exist, they influence people, and they typically protect the interests of the groups with the power to produce them."
SJ: What group (or should I say cabal) has the power to unilaterally produce social roles?
Notice that I said "groups." No group can unilaterally produce social roles. Groups that play or have played an important part in creating and perpetuating social roles:
mass media
organized religion
western governments
much of academia
etc.
I think you get the picture. Many of our modern institutions and practices are derived from explicitly gendered activity; without explicitly acknowledging this history, gendered assumptions will remain in our society.
Jonesatlaw:
"2. Women and men are biologically different and that difference includes differences in their brains, and consequently their thinking, emotions and view of the world."
The conflation of sex and gender is a substantial problem in my opinion. Even if biological differences are the underlying cause for every gender difference, it still doesn't explain the association of masculine characteristics with good and feminine with bad.
248. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 10, 1998 - 3:22 PM PT
Message #246
"The assumption that women are supposed to strive for private accomplishments while men strive for public surely limits one's opportunities."
My God, more ninnyism. That assumption does not exist. Period. It's your hallucination.
249. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 10, 1998 - 3:25 PM PT
Meyer: "it still doesn't explain the association of masculine characteristics with good and feminine with bad."
I've asked you about this. Explain this hallucination. Which "masculine" characteristics are considered good and which are "feminine" ones are bad?
"Even if biological differences are the underlying cause for every gender difference...."
No one has ever argued this, by the way.
250. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 10, 1998 - 3:26 PM PT
"Many of our modern institutions and practices are derived from explicitly gendered activity."
I'm not disagreeing, but I would like to know what your examples are. Your economics examples sucked.
251. davidmeyer - Dec. 10, 1998 - 3:45 PM PT
PE, re Message #226
"In addition to Slackjaw's question in Message #217, I would like to know precisely how these "social roles" are significant constraints on behaviour and how they protect powerful interests."
This really requires a pretty long answer, which I unfortunately have neither the time nor inclination to provide. In short though, social roles affect people's perception of what is desirable and what is possible. They affect (please note: they influence, affect and prod; they do not necessarily force, enslave, or control) the direction people head at every step in life.
Social roles protect the interests of the powerful primarily because people in power are largely responsible for the assignation of meaning and connotation to language. Consider the transgressive act of adopting traditional slurs as affective terms, like "queer" and "nigger." If you aren't disagreeing on the existence of "powerful interests," then I am curious as to what you mean when you say "power." At least one aspect of its definition seems to involve the ability to convince people of the rectitude of your position.
Well, I am leaving for Costa Rica in about an hour. I am going to spend two weeks down there, just being touristy. My significant other has been down there since August, teaching English to abused women.
252. davidmeyer - Dec. 10, 1998 - 3:51 PM PT Meyer, you're missing the point. You are stating that your social conditioning would DICTATE your course of action were you a woman. That's the same thing as saying you'd be a slave to your conditioning. Why can I object to your statement that you'd feel worthless as a woman? Well, I can't. It may be true. But it's stupid. How many ladies here feel worthless because they have breasts and a uterus? Come on, testify, lemme hear you sing. I think you've mistaken theory for reality. I'm not going to bother with the rest, because they all are similar, except for your insistence that people see masculinity and femininity, exclusively, in terms of the other -- that we break up all related traits into masculine and feminine oppositions. I do not agree that we all break up traits along lines of gender. That there are traits commonly associated with one sex and others with the opposite does *not* mean that we all think of those traits in those terms, or thqat we pair them up in all cases. I think most of those oppositions are as much a construction as anything. Hell, Meyer, ask around if you don't believe me. I think you've bought into a bunch of bullshit mixed in amongst the legitimate points to be found in postmodern criticism. 254. resonance - Dec. 10, 1998 - 3:58 PM PT sigh. It's bad enough being a postmodernist, even to the limited extent that I am, in this place without you coming in and laying down this sort of drek and claiming that it is all-pervasive. Get on the frickin plane. 255. Wombat - Dec. 10, 1998 - 5:21 PM PT 256. ChristinO - Dec. 10, 1998 - 5:32 PM PT 257. AdamSelene - Dec. 10, 1998 - 6:13 PM PT 258. LadyChaos - Dec. 10, 1998 - 7:32 PM PT 259. RyckNelson - Dec. 10, 1998 - 7:41 PM PT 260. LadyChaos - Dec. 10, 1998 - 7:53 PM PT 261. AdamSelene - Dec. 10, 1998 - 8:07 PM PT 262. chloel - Dec. 10, 1998 - 8:18 PM PT 263. AdamSelene - Dec. 10, 1998 - 8:25 PM PT 264. chloel - Dec. 10, 1998 - 8:38 PM PT 265. LadyChaos - Dec. 10, 1998 - 8:42 PM PT 266. AdamSelene - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:02 PM PT 267. CalGal - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:02 PM PT 268. AdamSelene - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:07 PM PT 269. CalGal - Dec. 10, 1998 - 9:27 PM PT 270. chloel - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:07 AM PT 271. marshame - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:12 AM PT 272. CalGal - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:31 AM PT 273. Seguine - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:34 AM PT 274. Adrianne - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:35 AM PT 275. Adrianne - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:36 AM PT 276. chloel - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:36 AM PT 277. marshame - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:51 AM PT 278. LadyChaos - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:52 AM PT 279. marshame - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:56 AM PT 280. LadyChaos - Dec. 11, 1998 - 9:58 AM PT 281. ChristiPeters - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:03 AM PT 282. LadyChaos - Dec. 11, 1998 - 10:07 AM PT 283. harper - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:51 AM PT 284. ChristiPeters - Dec. 11, 1998 - 11:56 AM PT 285. harper - Dec. 11, 1998 - 12:46 PM PT 286. toonces - Dec. 11, 1998 - 1:14 PM PT 287. ChristiPeters - Dec. 11, 1998 - 1:40 PM PT 288. seadate - Dec. 11, 1998 - 1:43 PM PT 289. ChristiPeters - Dec. 11, 1998 - 1:50 PM PT 290. toonces - Dec. 11, 1998 - 1:54 PM PT 291. LadyChaos - Dec. 11, 1998 - 2:00 PM PT 292. ChristiPeters - Dec. 11, 1998 - 2:03 PM PT 293. toonces - Dec. 11, 1998 - 2:22 PM PT 294. toonces - Dec. 11, 1998 - 2:36 PM PT 295. KurtMondaugen - Dec. 11, 1998 - 2:39 PM PT 296. toonces - Dec. 11, 1998 - 2:44 PM PT 297. KurtMondaugen - Dec. 11, 1998 - 2:47 PM PT 298. toonces - Dec. 11, 1998 - 2:55 PM PT 299. KurtMondaugen - Dec. 11, 1998 - 3:03 PM PT 300. toonces - Dec. 11, 1998 - 3:05 PM PT
PE: You don't believe that there exists a public-private dichotomy, with the public being construed as masculine and the private with feminine? If you won't even acknowledge this, there is little reason to discuss the topic with you.
IR:
“With its focus on the ‘high' politics of war and Realpolitik, the traditional Western academic discipline of international relations privileges issues that grow out of men's experience; we are socialized into believing that war and power politics are spheres of activity with which men have special affinity and that their voices in describing and prescribing for this world are therefore likely to be more authentic. The roles traditionally ascribed to women – in reproduction, in households, and even in the economy – are generally considered irrelevant to the traditional construction of the field. Ignoring women's experiences contributes not only to their exclusion but also to a process of self-selection that results in an overwhelmingly male population both in the foreign policy world and in the academic field of international relations. This selection process begins with the way we are taught to think about world politics; if women's experiences were to be included, a radical redefinition of the field would have to take place.
The purpose of this book is to begin to think about how the discipline of international relations might look if gender were included as a category of analysis and if women's experiences were part of the subject matter out of which its theories were constructed. Until gender hierarchies are eliminated, hierarchies that privilege male characteristics and men's knowledge and experiences, and sustain the kind of attitudes toward women in foreign policy that I have described, I do not believe that the marginalization of women in matters related to international politics is likely to change.”
Ann Tickner, *Gender in International Relations,* 1992
Message #246
Meyer,
Meyer:
Yes, yes, if women ran the world there would be no wars...Lysistrata, women of Lesbos...
I don't think mesdames Thatcher, Gandhi, Meier, etc. suffered from that crap. They were just victims of false consciousness.
Frankly, I doubt you are particularly comfortable being a man, either.
DavidMeyer,
I think the fact that you would feel worthless as a woman says loads about your personal sexual bias. The fact that you would feel out of place and uncomfortable as a woman hanging out with your guy friends indicates to me that perhaps you and your guy friends view women as significantly inferior to you.
Your comments put me in mind of whites who say things like "Those poor oppressed niggers aren't as good as us but they still shouldn't be enslaved."
As for the antics of comrades, I have experienced equally dangerous, titillating and stupid evenings in the company of both men and women. Drunken riots are not the sole domain of men nor are tearful heart to heart confessions the sole domain of women. That you think so only draws attention to your limited experience and your own apparent inability to be yourself before you are your gender.
Well. I've only just checked in and read the first couple of dozen posts and the last several. Not very enlighting.
Lady for a day? I'd probably masturbate myself silly in front of a mirror then go out for a walk pantyless in a miniskirt and cause accidents.
Lady for a year? Different story. Probably wouldn't live much differently than I do now, unless I'm greatly mistaken about all my friends and associates. Of course, my wife would think it rather strange.
Re: Message #171
Meyer's obviously never been to a dyke bar.
I wonder if Meyer has seen the Dikes of Holland?
marshame, re: Message #229
"It seems to me that we all go through a period or periods of time in life when we don't feel like we fit in, we're like outsiders looking in, etc. etc. But in the process of maturation, we learn that this is practically a universal phenomenon (the feeling of being a stranger in a strange land, etc.) and we move past it.
So I'm not always comfortable as a woman. So I wish I could be different some times. So I wonder why I find some of my women friends to be so tedious at times.
That's life, friend."
You are assuming that everyday, time and again feelings of inadequacy can be equated to what is obviously something entirely more profound. Gender dysphoria is not, as I've tried patiently to explain to you in the past, an occasional whim or passing fancy; it is, rather, a complete and total sense that one's everyday, minute by minute sense of self is in complete conflict with the role that is imposed by one's biological sex. You have to get past your shallow way of looking at it and try to imagine what your life would be like if nothing changed about how you see yourself (that is, as Marsha), but you had a male body, male name, and male social identity which you were obliged to fulfill lest you should cause yourself complete social, professional, and familial isolation.
LadyChaos,
That "obliged to fulfill" part is where I have problems. I agree that society pressures one into certain roles, but I think the greater pressure comes from within. We *want* to fulfill societies roles in order to reap societies rewards. Whatever.
Consider cllrdr, elliot, et al. Hell - consider libertarians. We either are what we are or we are what others want us to be. Some of us are well-versed in being ourselves *despite* what's expected (re: desired.) Male/female may be more entrenched, but it's conceptually no different.
Once one has trained themself to listen within rather than without, the rest is just exercise.
AdamSelene
LadyChaos did specify what enforced the 'obligation'; are you arguing that isolation from work and family doesn't happen, or that it's not important enough to be called 'obligation'?
And, anyway, as I understand it, some people listen within and within says "Wrong body." Fixing that could be as much an obligation to our flesh as finding light - we won't actually die without it, but most people would still call it a need, not a want.
chloel,
well - "important" is very ambiguous. it might be important to someone that their hair look nice - but that hardly makes it an "obligation."
Yes, yes, yes - most people feel that gender identification is a high priority, right up there on the self-respect meter. whatever. I was merely stating *my* perspective. subjective as hell, as intended.
Yes - some would have problems being the opposite gender, and some have problems being their current gender. and some (of us) could care less, except for the arousal thing.
AdamSelene
I meant the sentence in which "obliged" occurs:
"...social identity which you were obliged to fulfill lest you should cause yourself complete social, professional, and familial isolation."
Do you rank that with a bad hair day? Or with an obligation, like keeping your given word? If between, which is closer? (If I shouldn't assume you think your given word is an obligation, specify that...)
AdamSelene,
What you seem to be suggesting is that the love and acceptance of family and society, as well as the ability to function in this society in a productive manner without suffering constant discrimination, are privileges which are up to the individual to accept or reject. I rather see it as a Hobson's choice - either live up to the expectations imposed by your physical sex and die internally, or be truthful to yourself and lose most of the key relationships in your life.
Lady,
Hey, I was a late-60's child. I alienated my family and friends from the very beginning. Then I enlisted in the army in '74. Talk about your alienation!!! And then again in college afterwards.
But to be frank - yes, I can understand your point about Hobson's choice - but that only occurs *after* you've established your gender identity-based self-respect.
Anyway - I'm not sure why we're "arguing." My point (such as it is) is simply that one should look long and deep into the mirror before accepting societies' dictates. For those less strong-willed - it's proportionally more difficult to resist either early or late. Especially late, after one is accustomed to the benefits of an agreeable persona in their professional and personal lives.
Marsha says, "It seems to me that we all go through a period or periods of time in life when we don't feel like we fit in, we're like outsiders looking in, etc. etc. "
And that's true. So when someone else uses the same words to describe how they feel, it is natural to assume that it is the same feeling.
Apologies for being personal--for years, I would mention briefly some feeling I would have to a friend, who would nod sympathetically and say, yes, I've felt that way too. Which would then make me feel like an idiot for not being able to just shrug it off.
Some years ago, I began to be specific. So if someone said, I feel that way too, or oh yeah, that happened to me too, I would ask them--did you feel like X was true? And Y? And DEF? Or did JKL happen? Not in a challenging way, but because I was genuinely trying to figure out if we were feeling the same thing.
When I was specific, I got looks of absolute horror. No, that's not what they felt at all. And then they'd get very nervous about me. (g)
It is very frustrating to know that you can't talk about yourself or your feelings in words that convey the appropriate level of severity *without* having to go into such detail that you've appalled the person you're talking to.
Marsha, this is a long way of saying that the transsexual might be using words that suggest familiar feelings to you. They are exponentially *more* of all those feelings--to such a degree that they aren't the same thing at all.
CalGal,
You raise an interesting point. Perhaps it's very masculine of me to feel superior to those who don't accept me for what I choose to be. Perhaps it's very masculine of me to not need approval (beyond a wife and loyal dachshound) for who I choose to be. I always thought it was just the 60's child under my skin...
Adam,
No, it's not masculine of you to not need approval. It's a gender-neutral attribute.
I wasn't talking about need for approval, by the way. I was talking about any feeling.
"Perhaps it's very masculine of me to feel superior to those who don't accept me for what I choose to be."
No.
But again, you are talking an entirely different plane of alienation.
"Then I enlisted in the army in '74. Talk about your alienation!!! And then again in college afterwards."
Without denigrating your experience, can you really tell me that this has any bearing at all on what a transsexual goes through?
Feeling from a very early age that you were the wrong gender? That you could only, in your limited experience, imagine this meant there was something *wrong* with you? In ways that are completely basic to your identity?
It goes on from there. That's just the beginning. And already that dwarfs your experience. (I don't know if you saw battle while in the military; if so, I don't mean to belittle that. I'm speaking only of alienation.)
AdamSelene
I think I've quashed my snorting hysteria at a straight male boomer with a decent job recognizing himself for not needing social approval, but I admit to some bias... That is, I'm sure you had to assert yourself, especially going from implied hippiedom to the Army; I don't think one should have to assert oneself more than those require; but I don't think it's even vaguely comparable to knowing oneself as the other sex from childhood.
Your all-I-need-is-my-wife-and-my-dog is a masculine phrasing of a gender-neutral attribute. (Ruth and Naomi did it first and louder, yes?) In the more conservative half of my family, the men are convinced they're forceful and independent, and the women are convinced the men are "just big children" - on the grounds that it wouldn't otherwise take so much work to reassure them of their independence. You don't come across as nearly so Confederate, and this has never been my point of view, but I hear it as a loud echo behind what you said.
And truly, did you mean to compare getting disowned to a bad hair day?
Lady Chaos and CalGal
Lady, you say: "...a complete and total sense that one's everyday, minute by minute sense of self is in complete conflict with the role that is imposed by one's biological sex."
This is exactly my point. Look at the extraordinary degree of narcisscism you describe. To be totally self-conscious? Every minute of every day? What I am saying is that most people move past being totally self-absorbed as a process of maturation. They learn to accept whatever deficiencies, personal short comings, etc. that they may experience. They learn to shift their focus from themselves to others.
Cal
I agree with your approach. It is rather heartless to tell someone you know what they feel when you have never really experienced the same thing, i.e. the death of a child.
Marsha,
"What I am saying is that most people move past being totally self-absorbed as a process of maturation. "
"Most people" aren't tgs. So what you describe as "self-absorption" and "maturation" has nothing to do with the feelings she is describing.
You have *no* idea what she is talking about. You are taking her feelings and associating them to an experience that you've had and assuming they are the same.
"It is rather heartless to tell someone you know what they feel when you have never really experienced the same thing."
If you understand that, why on earth are you doing it in the same damn post?
Your comments to LC are *exactly* along the lines of telling a parent who lost their child to move on, cope with it. You've felt sad that time your fish died, so you know what they feel like. But you got over it. They can, too.
If you agree with my approach, then by your own standards you're being completely heartless. Certainly insensitive.
Marsha,
Let's rearrange your last post so the full contradictory impact of your remarks is clear:
"It is rather heartless to tell someone you know what they feel when you have never really experienced the same thing...
"Look at the extraordinary degree of narcisscism you describe. ...[M]ost people move past being totally self-absorbed as a process of
maturation. ... They learn to shift their focus from themselves to others."
Translation: Although she hasn't experienced it, Marshame understands what Chaos feels, and it reduces to an indicator of distasteful immaturity.
Gak, marsha, do you even read your own posts?
Well, sorry.
CalGal and Seguine said it first, better, and more completely.
marshame
I don't think "self-absorption" in the popular sense is what LadyChaos was getting at. Can you imagine it as analagous to, say, being Jewish in the wrong era, passing successfully in society, but knowing that being discovered would have dire consequences no matter what one did beforehand? Not something you have to think about, but a constant nagging unease?
that's two questions: would you call the Jewish example "self-consciousness", and can you imagine being transgendered as similar?
Loosing a child is an *experience* that few can understand except those who have been through it.
Being totally absorbed, every waking moment of every day with your own self consciousness is something completely different. I do not understand what Lady Chaos feels. That is why I am posting. If you had read my original post you would have seen me ask Lady Chaos (which she never addressed) whether narciccism as a manifestation of interrupted maturation has even been posited as an explanation. It has been used to explain homosexuality.
So you all think that I am a contradictory, heartless cad. Okay. But can we still discuss the topic of the thread?
Others have pointed out marshame's continuing self-contradiction.
While I would be the first to say that many transgenders are, at least on the surface, inordinately narcissistic, in their defense it is necessary to point out the importance of "passing" for a member of one's true gender. This is a difficulty that is easily dismissed by people who don't attempt to comprehend the tg mentality. To simplify the thought process: 1) I feel like a female, but; 2) I'm physically male; 3) I feel much more at ease with myself when others perceive me as a female, so; 4) as long as I can successfully present myself as a female, I'll be okay.
That last factor is what many critics (like marsha) get hung up on, but what they don't consider is the binary nature of a transgender's choice in this regard; that one (and I'm talking about a male to female, for the sake of this point) who doesn't appear to be female, but rather looks like a "guy in a dress," can expect to face the worst type of social censure, humiliation, even violence. That is a compelling dilemna for the transgendered person who decides that the best way to resolve his/her inner conflict will be to live as his/her preferred sex.
Lady Chaos
Thank you for addressing the issue I raised.
"Lady Chaos (which she never addressed) whether narciccism as a manifestation of interrupted maturation has even been posited as an explanation. It has been used to explain homosexuality. "
It has been used to "explain *away* homosexuality," I would say, by people who are ideologically opposed (usually for religious reasons) to homosexuality.
Long ago in this thread, I posted a link to the prevailing explanation for transsexualism. Here it is again for those who chose not to read it.
marshame -
One of the first lessons that I learned very very well in my childhood and wrote in my diary at the age of ten is:
"different is dead, different is dead"
This society is VERY in tolerant of differences. Sometimes changing the *real* you that is your core spirit in order to survive is worse than dead.
ChristiPeters,
That's a very good point. I sometimes liken it to having been "sentenced to life" in a biological/societal prison that was not of my own making.
Wombat: Message #241
You're absolutely right. At least for the earlier stages of the Civil War. The young, fittest men would have joined up and been accepted first. Later, as in WWII Germany, the army would take whatever it could get. When you're reenacting earlier periods when there wasn't a standing army, just mercenaries, or local militia, you can have people of all shapes and sizes.
lazygeorge:
Actually, there are a fair number of really dedicated reenactors who protry WWI soldiers. They've even dug miles of trenches, furnished them, and lived in them for the weekend reenacments. I myself have portrayed a Salvation Army volunteer and baked donuts (from the original recipe) over an open fire in a steady drizzle and then climbed into the trenches with a friend of mine, handing out hot tra and donuts.
I do English Civil War (mid 17th century) as a soldier (I hate to cook, so I've gotta do something useful). It's a way to get insight into a different mindset and try to understand the reasons for the conflict, the strategies and tactics, the culture of Europe at the time, etc. It's a learning experience. I "do" other time periods, but that's the only one where I cross-dress and go out as one of the guys. The units are small, so they need anyone who can march in step and fire a matchlock.
Jen:
I do not own a .357. It belonged to a friend. I own something a bit more up close and personal. And a reproduction 17th century matchlock and a reproduction 18th century Scottish pistol.
Jen, harper,
I don't own a .357 any more either. When I split up with my ex- I left all the guns with him. Some of my friends thought that was nuts, but he hasn't shot me yet. I just decided it was too dangerous to have them in a house with a small child. The main reason I had a handgun in the first place was to shoot rattlers when I was desert riding (NM, I *loved* the Land of Enchantment, rattlers and all, but I'm getting awful fond of Texas now.) Since I didn't have any horses left by the time we split, I didn't see the point in having a handgun.
Christi:
I originally learned to shoot because the guys I hung out with in one of the living history groups kept telling me that I was a knee-jerk gun-control advocate. I said I didn't have an opinion on gun control because I'd never shot one and if they'd like to teach me, then I'd have an opinion. So they did. I turned out to be a pretty good shot, much to their surprise. Then I bought the pistol and musket. It was one of those instances where I had to be "macho" to get the respect of my peers. It worked.
Gotta go now the dentist beckons.
An afternoon talkshow I happened to catch yesterday featured people who are sexually ambiguous. I felt like a voyeur watching a freak show at first, but it was surprisingly informative. Apparently, most people who are born sexually ambiguous, I think the term they used was 'intergendered,' are assigned a gender and immediately undergo surgery to make their genitals match their assignment. The problem is that the surgery is not medically necessary in most cases and causes needless suffering. It is performed on infants and young children for cosmetic reasons alone to make the parents and community more comfortable with the child.
Two of the guests in particular were interesting to watch sitting next to eachother. Both had been born as intergendered. One person was assigned a female gender at birth and underwent the extensive, painful surgery that left her sexually disfunctional. The other, who's parents were physicians, was allowed to grow up naturally. Listening to their stories and looking at pictures of each of them growing up, it was so clear that the person who was mutilated and turned into an ugly girl was essentially male, and the person who was allowed to develop naturally was a lovely, boyish woman. Both were adamant, as were all of the participants in the descussion, that people like themselves should be left to decide for themselves whether to have cosmetic surgery performed. They and their families insist they are perfectly happy being both sexes at once.
LadyChaos seems like an intergendered person to me, someone who is both sexes.
harper -
Well, I grew up in a family that hunted for meat. We didn't have a handgun in the house, though. I learned to shoot handguns the same place I learned to shoot the M-16 - the Air Force. I kept in practice after the Air Force because, at the time, I lived in an area with a healthy rattlesnake population.
I haven't shot Skeet or Trap since the late 70s and I haven't fired a handgun since 1990.
Christi
You use an M-16 to shoot rattlesnakes?
seadate -
Didn't phrase that very well, did I?
Of course if you had gone back and read *all* my posts, you would have seen that I already said I used a handgun.
That's what I get for not proofing my posts. How's this:
I learned to shoot Skeet and Trap and hunt growing up. I learned to fire the M-16 and handguns in the Air force. I kept in practice with my own handgun after the Air Force so I could shoot rattlers while riding in the Southern New Mexico desert.
(I am very proud that I usually got all my shots in the head so the meat wasn't spoiled. No, it doesn't taste like chicken, it tastes like rattler.)
Is this going to turn into a gun rights discussion?
I would rather read about sex.
toonces,
You missed the point of the talk show, completely. Inter*sexed* persons are those who are born with, as you say, ambiguous genitalia. This is a different problem from transsexuality (although they often overlap in their treatment techniques, such as genital constructive surgery and hormone therapy).
Think of gender as a state of mind; i.e., the sex you most strongly identify with internally. And think of sex as the primary and secondary physical manifestations - genitalia, height, skin texture, body hair, etc.
A transsexual is one whose gender is in conflict with their body. This is quite different from, though easy to confuse with, the dilemna of an intersexed person whose sex is ambiguous. I was born with perfectly normal male genitalia; it's my brain that's apparently messed up (see the link I posted above).
The problem with doing genital surgery on intersexed persons at a very early age (especially in infancy) is that the person's gender identity may swing the opposite way from the sex assigned at birth, but that identity may take some time to manifest itself. There are a number of intersexed persons who were assigned one gender after birth, but whose gender identity is the opposite. On the other hand, many intersexed persons are assigned to a sex that matches their gender identity, and they have few problems aside from the fact that they will never develop functioning reproductive organs.
The problems faced by intersexed persons, although they are a very small minority, seem to cry out for an end to the societal insistence that infants be identified and socialized as either one sex or the other. Perhaps there could be room for a third "sex," somewhere in between (though it would call for a new vocabulary).
"The problems faced by intersexed persons, although they are a very small minority, seem to cry out for an end to the societal insistence that infants be identified and socialized as either one sex or the other."
I'll "vote" for that!
&:o)
Re: Message #249
/*
Which "masculine" characteristics are considered good and which are "feminine" ones are bad?
*/
Idiot. Surely you are aware, throughout all of Western culture, one of the most derogatory things one man can call another is a lady.
LadyChaos -
/*
Perhaps there could be room for a third "sex," somewhere in between
*/
Healthy, sexually ambiguous intergendered people challenge society to accept gender ambiguity and gender choices. To me, your earlier experiences as a man make you seem sexually ambiguous in a way that is similar to an intergendered person. My awareness of healthy intergendered people makes your choice to change gender seem less remarkable.
Azure:
"To me, your earlier experiences as a man make you seem sexually ambiguous in a way that is similar to an intergendered person."
No, Lady Chaos just explained to you the difference. An intergendered person is one who is born with hermaphroditic or otherwise overlapping genitalia, and whose psychological gender identification is indeterminate. A transgendered person (like Lady Chaos) is one whose gender identification is in direct conflict with their physical gender . The two are not similar, really.
KurtMondaugen -
I understand that transgendered and intergendered people are different. I understand they are also similar, particularly in the way they are perceived by society. I don't perceive LadyChaos as a woman. I perceive her as both male and female.
"I perceive her as both male and female."
While this may be true in a base, technical sense, I tend to think this does LadyChaos a disservice in that she perceives herself as female, and would prefer that others perceive her as such (I don't mean to speak for MizK, but that's how I understand it at this point).
Might not be politically correct to say such a thing, but transgendered people are going to be percieved as both genders by most people. I'm pretty sure of that.
I also suspect being perceived as both male and female presents more of a social obstacle than being perceived as having changed genders. It would be worthwhile for a transgendered person to understand that they are dealing with being perceived as both sexes.
Isn't that a little like saying it would be worthwhile for a homosexual to understand that they're dealing with being perceived as inferior (in that for some strange reason most people in certain areas seem to think so)? Why should the burden of accomodation be on the transgendered and not on those who are uncomfortable with (or misunderstand) them?
Re: Message #253
"How many ladies here feel worthless because they have breasts and a uterus?"
Are you offended when a guy calls you a pussy?
next
home