Re girls only

A thread about this thread: Girls thread cont.

Because I respect the girls-onlyness and I find some of the topics interesting.

ARGH. The meta is killing me.

But I totally respect the dudes who read that thread and don't post. I rlly do.

I have to leave work and I don't want to thumb-type a bunch of shit, but I just want to say FT OTM and also there were some other topics that I had views about before, but I forget what they were, but some people were OTM and others weren't as much.

Riveting beginnings!

I do kinda sometimes wish that we could have a thread where we could all, like, maybe discuss some of those issues together (mostly issues about the commodification of gender and gender neutral linguistics and stuff like that) but, y'know, under the same kind of attitudes that are expressed in that thread (i.e. being as polite and trying to accommodate that different ppl have differing experiences and ppl's own conclusions about their own experiences are valid!) but I don't know how that would ever work on regular ILX.

Like, I think that all the women on that thread do actually work quite hard to accept and understand one another, even when we don't always agree. It would be great if we could meet in a gender-neutral way to do the same thing. But it does actually take quite some effort to create that kind of space.

Thanks, tho. :)

I do kinda sometimes wish that we could have a thread where we could all, like, maybe discuss some of those issues together (mostly issues about the commodification of gender and gender neutral linguistics and stuff like that) but, y'know, under the same kind of attitudes that are expressed in that thread (i.e. being as polite and trying to accommodate that different ppl have differing experiences and ppl's own conclusions about their own experiences are valid!) but I don't know how that would ever work on regular ILX.

i think it would work fine. inevitably there will be some smart-aleky comments, but there will also be lots of people happy to discuss things straightforwardly/seriously.

Ha, the only time I ~really~ wanted to post on the girls thread was when Amanda posted about vocal fry.

I read that Girls thread - zero inclination to post on it but it's interesting

yeah i always want to post but i mean obvious reasons

i feel like i could maybe have snuck in there if i had kept my mouth shut about mark ruffalo, but that kindof gave the game away.

I can't remember exactly what it was you said that made me figure it out even before the Mark Ruffalo thing - I think it might have been a post on a visual artists thread, but ha! yeah.

I insulted your favorite band.

(while dropping inside info on their US tour plans)

By "insulted" I mean "engaged in amateur rock criticism."

do you think every post is addressed to you then ckdexterholland?

Judith, he has ~become~ you.

really i am just an abstraction

do you think every post is addressed to you then ckdexterholland?

good grief please refer to him by his given legal name: gabbneb.

Nah, I just didn't read that one closely. I do think I am free to respond to any post without limitation, as everyone should be.

Bcuz I'm not gonna start Str8splaining on the Gay Thread, I just gotta say...

oh is he tall?

― judith, 43 seconds ago

well, I gotta ~look up~

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltb2zvTuF91r0o130o3_250.gif

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltb2zvTuF91r0o130o4_250.gif

oh i get it! well i am p short but stevie knows how tall i am. not that this really matters or anything. i'm having some regret that i intended for a little romance this year but nothing materialised and i'm starting to project this onto everything.

It's a good thing you didn't ask what colour were his eyes. ;-)

Is romance something you can *intend* for, or is it something that just kinda happens? I never can work that out. But you still got 4 days left... you never know.

i think you just make things happen

i apologize for posting on the girl thread

I think I'm kinda better at making things not happen.

Maybe 2012 will be the year I stop being an asexual?

aww - a sandbox version of that other thread!

I'm loath to open the Ruffalo thread -- could someone give me the Cliffs Notes version?

gabbneb mansplains that women like him because he is "unthreatening", spends rest of thread backpedalling

him = Ruffalo

cuz you see he meant IN THE ACADEMIC SENSE, and not, y'know in terms of why any of the people in the thread who had expressed an attraction to Ruffalo were attracted to him

And in the process of backpedalling keeps managing to come out with more and more o_0 bizarre gender assumptions, while claiming to be living in some post gender paradise?

good thread

Huh...think I'll skip it. Thanks, y'all.

gabbneb mansplains that women like him because he is "unthreatening", spends rest of thread backpedalling

Respectfully, I would suggest that you really have a reading comprehension problem when it comes to what I write.

him = Ruffalo

Oh.

I'm loath to open the Ruffalo thread -- could someone give me the Cliffs Notes version?

I attempted to understand what made Ruffalo attractive. Other people decided that I was saying something other than what I was saying, and sexist. They then explained that I couldn't actually explain what I was actually saying, because doing so was sexist. Then they explained that even if that was actually what I meant, it was sexist too.

Never mind that I was adopting an arguably anti-sexist frame from the beginning. That's sexist too, because other people are.

And always will be.

^^^ Ruffalo stance

your anti-sexist frame doesn't make any sense! we weren't talking about equitable relationships, we were talking about hot dudes! i don't think you were being sexist anymore but your explanations about how you think men and women should be equal in relationships seem to have no relevance to the original context of the thread.

xxp

Huh...think I'll continue skipping it. Thanks.

xxp

maybe charging for bandwidth use isn't such a bad idea

we weren't talking about equitable relationships, we were talking about hot dudes!

Uh, you're talking about what women want from men. Perhaps you are suggesting that women only want them for their bodies?

There is this Actual Thing where ~only men~ get to pretend like gender doesn't exist or that they get to speak in an *ungendered* manner.

And it is sexist, because it assumes that male is somehow the ~default gender~

You are NOT speaking in a genderless manner. And it's it's your male privilege speaking that you even get to *pretend* that you are.

it assumes that male is somehow the ~default gender~

*rolls eyes* It's one or the other, huh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciS5GikZ5Jo

i didn't mention anything about what women want from men. and i started the thread. just sayin!

Perhaps you are suggesting that women only want them for their bodies?

― illegal crew member (C.K. Dexter Holland), Tuesday, December 27, 2011 7:56 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

i refuse to opine on What Women Want as though we're a breed and not a bunch of different people but some of the time some women want men's bodies. are you for real?

You are just determined to keep proving everything I say, aren't you?

I'm not going to bother saying anything any more. You keep just making the points for me.

i don't even understand what's happening anymore

Sorry horseshoe that x-posted to CK.

oh no, you were not the source of my confusion!

This guy is just in a reality tunnel so far from mine it's impossible. And I should really be asleep.

yeah me too but vertigo is on late tonight and i'm considering staying up for it.

Don't back down gabbneb! Its your manly tenacity that makes you irresistible to all women of the world.

Irresistible!

xxp

that's what jimmy stewart said

fuck's sake u lose yr topicality to some weak gbebneb zings

i refuse to opine on What Women Want as though we're a breed and not a bunch of different people but some of the time some women want men's bodies. are you for real?

I think it's obvious my question was rhetorical. Is it really such a stretch to posit that a dude's relationship potential is a factor in his hotness?

Its your manly tenacity that makes you irresistible to all women of the world.

I think it's obvious what I'd be doing if that were what I were going for.

I was gonna finish watching If... tonight but I think my head's just in too weird a place now for schoolboy violence.

What channel is Vertigo on???

Hi-Fy

rté 1

2 channels at once is a giddying prospect

If only I were on that side of the Atlantic.

2.15 am fuck that i'm throwing fifa on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOEIQKczRPY

yeah babel is p boring and might send me to bed a lot sooner

babel? u playin as stuttgart or holland?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHaA1beOwrY&ob=av3e

i only started watching it because gael garcia bernal is in it and i find him v nonthreatening.

he is interesting but not annoying imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPGiLsdWZdo&feature=related

what are you doing

what is julie lagger at now, is this an avant-garde protest against refereeing calls

i only started watching it because gael garcia bernal is in it and i find him v nonthreatening.

― judith, Tuesday, December 27, 2011 8:16 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Permalink

haha also you have excellent taste

i just like well-dressed gennlemen debating feminism tbh

Clár faisnéise ceoil ina mbeidh Neil Young- TG4 fyi

gael garcia bernal is threateningly sexy

i just like well-dressed gennlemen debating feminism tbh

― i am mad cool cos i don't like coldpay (Julie Lagger),

fuck sake but christopher nolan is really struggling for plot at this stage

nolan's never met a lady so he doesn't count

gael garcia bernal is actually julia roberts side-project

no ladies in the "no ladies" thread

can't help but feel if anybody from Sailor is still alive they cd bring a decent copyright case against Franz Ferdinand

i have posted twice to the girls-only thread. i don't regret the first one (a link) at all, but the second post (today) was unnecessary shit-stirring directed at a male (though in reference to an earlier discussion on that thread).

at any rate, i like to think i am respectful of everyone, though i suppose it is just like a guy to barge in, no matter how respectfully. so, sorry about that.

and while i do think it's fair for gabbneb to be able to respond when shit is being talked about him, no matter the thread/board, i may have kind of started it on that thread. sorry about that too.

Ha, the only time I ~really~ wanted to post on the girls thread was when Amanda posted about vocal fry.

― jaymc, Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:25 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark
haha!

Friend on fb (a grade school teacher) shared this recently.
http://togetherforjacksoncountykids.tumblr.com/post/14314184651/one-teachers-approach-to-preventing-gender-bullying-in

enjoyable anecdotage

No breast checks until post-menopause, though. Would sort of appreciate an exam because when I do a self-check I always feel like I have no idea what I'm looking for.

I took a women's health class in college in which we practiced breast exams on a fake breast that contained lumps. They were pretty clearly lumpy.

I don't get embarrassed very easily, but after the other two guys dropped, I was the only man in the class, so the breast exam day was kind of awkward, and the day we were each issued a clear acrylic speculum was pretty terrible.

Do you still have that?

I'm wearing it right now.

(no. i did not move it here from north carolina!)

x-posts while I've written this, sorry...

I didn't get to read that "gender bullying" blog when it was originally posted on the Girl Thread coz I was having Cornish broadband issues. I'm having pretty mixed feelings about it, and struggling to articulate why.

On the most immediate level, obviously it's great that this teacher is doing their best to combat gender bullying, and try to challenge the relentless gender stereotyping. I think the lessons that Tempel is teaching are v v important, and were taught in an accessible way.

But on another level, I think that I really kind of recoil from labels like "gender variance" in the first place. Because it gives that kind of relentless pinkification/commodification of childhood gender a kind of legitimacy which I really don't think it deserves. It's also the horrifying realisation that if I were a child today, I'd be labeled as "gender variant" instead of just being left to get on with mud and frogs. But is that the fault of the label itself, or the commodified bifurcation of childhood which really didn't exert the same kind of pressure when I was that age? Like, I definitely feel like it was more OK to just be a "tomboy" in the 70s when all kids wore dungarees in unisex colours? (Though, that said, young kids certainly found other things to bully me about in grade school - being an English person with a stupid accent in an American school being number one, what, are you going to call that "Accent Variance" now?)

But I often feel like a cranky old person when confronted with the exploding plethora of labels. Like, labels might be good if they give people a name for something they thought was abnormal or "I'm the only one" before - but at the same time, labels are, always, kind of limiting.

I think what this teacher did, for this child, and this class, was great. It's fantastic to teach kids to resist this kind of commodification of gender pressure, and early. But at the same time, it doesn't really get at the root issues. Like, *why* is gender bifurcation being pushed so much harder and so much earlier? Oh, that's right. Because you can sell twice as many toys if you manufacture one pink one and one blue one, instead of like it was back in the 70s, when my brother and I got one unisex toybox we had to share. What is driving this construction of gender - and gender (as opposed to sex) *is* a construct, it varies so much from culture to culture (which, to me, makes a mockery of the idea of "gender variance" - ALL gender varies) - but I know, just because gender is a Construct, that doesn't mean that Constructs don't have power. Like, *money* is a total Construct, but it's one of the most powerful things on earth (hell, even *power* is a total construct.)

For a supposed "feelgood" article, it's raising a lot more questions for me than it answers.

But I am a curmudgeon.

variating from what.

Yeah, that is precisely it.

What is this monolithic GENDER from which kids are supposed to be varying? Who made it up? And can I have a word with them?

And by "a word" I mean "a punch in the nose"?

:D

i dunno - i think there might have been a period in the 60s/70s that were more relaxed in terms of gendered toys for kids. I struggle to believe that things were better in that regard in the early 60s and prior.

I have thought about this article a fair amount since reading it, too.
I think that is a good thing.

As far as it raising more questions than it answers. It seems like the only way to get around accepted notions of gender stereotyping are to challenge them.

this is all classically foucauldian, that the response to any disruption of regimes of gender is to just keep producing new categories. "variant."

this is probably better than just straight up gender policing but yeah id definitely opens up a its own set of problems.

Not the sort of problems that mean you shouldn't talk about/explore it, though? Doesn't the discourse have to work through some levels to get closer to an "ideal" level?

I think it really depends where? Meaning, in what culture? And under what circumstances? And in which class? And when? (Remember that little boys were dressed in dresses for their early years until just over a century ago.) There were so many ways in which gender is coded differently. This idea of "gender variance" includes this idea of a unified gender construction which is just so manufactured itself.

x-posts to Sarahel

i think the idea behind "variant" isn't new categories, but referring to there being a spectrum or continuum of gender, with "variant" perhaps being a statistical reference to variations from the mean.

I have been experiencing a lot of trouble with "Gender" recently (LOL not Judith Butler) and just really... argh. I don't even know where to begin. But I think labels are part of the problem for me.

Variations from the mean? Who decides what the ~mean~ is, when it's all been made up? Mostly for maximising profit, these days?

while i feel that it is important and necessary to challenge these gender norms, i think it's also important to make kids aware of their existence. i think there's been a significant emphasis in the past 10? years in American education of teaching kids to fit in socially, but in an empowering way, as opposed to a "thou shalt not color outside the lines" way. And it's more, what you would call, holistic than when i was a kid, where as long as a kid was doing their work and not making or being involved in trouble, if they were weird and other kids disliked them, the teacher would generally ignore the issue. And in the spirit of "no child left behind," it tries to assimilate (in as neutral a way as possible) every kid, as opposed to writing off those on the extreme ends of the spectrum.

It seems to follow the trend, as i see it, of the school system doing the jobs of parents.

god bless them for it because the parents of the kids who bullied me incessantly throughout elementary + middle school certainly weren't doing the job

Yeah, I totally see the point of making kids *aware* of the existence of gender expectations (I think that expectations prob is a better word than norms) in order to challenge them - or in order to stop the bullying of kids who do not meet those expectations. I think this is a totally worthwhile thing to be doing.

And I don't know if the shifting of that role from "parents" onto "teachers" is such a bad thing either, because the nuclear family is such a recent invention itself that I'm not sure why "parents" got that role in the first place. (This is a whole nother kettle of fish.)

I guess my problem is with the translation of gender expectations into gender *norms* - I don't think it's just a semantic quibble, though I really lack the ability to adequately express why at the moment.

i'm not saying that shifting that role from parents onto teachers is a bad thing, however, that's a lot of responsibility to put on teachers, who have so much as it is, and don't get paid nearly enough. Also, there's only so much a teacher can do without the parent's cooperation/support.

Well, I have watched two girls grow up into the people they wanted to be.

Key, to me anyway, should be: Not that we are "all the same really", but that "we are all different"

I was a pretty weird kid (socially awkward tomboy with hyperactive imagination) and I feel like if 6y/o me was in school these days I would probably get diagnosed as having... something

so I am kinda on the fence abt whether it was better for me to suck it up and tentatively grope my own way towards not getting yelled at in the street, or whether it would've been good to have it explained to me how to walk past strangers without being spat on, or how to organise myself and learn something while unattended in college instead of dropping out, but also have official validation that I shouldn't be expected to be anything other than weird and other people should get used to it, not me

these are things I think about as I am vaguely, terrifiedly considering parenthood, and wondering what I should do if my children are diagnosed with the things I was not

this is not a gender post, but since 80% of the things yelled at me during my teenage years started with "are you a boy or a girl" (and since my college experience involved rocking up on a 90% male course and finding myself without a support network) it possibly could be

god bless them for it because the parents of the kids who bullied me incessantly throughout elementary + middle school certainly weren't doing the job

appropos of nothing, i suppose, but i had this problem throughout high-school, and i know how terrible it can be. sorry to hear you had the same generally problem.

same "general" problem. senility is creeping in fast.

Easiest way to think about it as an adult is just to project the idea to kids that injurious behavior is never acceptable from anyone, but after that problem is eliminated, it's all pretty much ok by you. Kids pick up on this quickly and the more explicit you are with this message, the stronger the effect it will have.

In regard to bullying, it is impossible to eliminate it for the same reason that you can't stop people from lying: it is an obvious strategy that kids will discover no matter what adults model for them. All you can do is be vigilant about it and stop it whenever and wherever you see it happening, and give kids as many alternative tools to work with as you can, for when you aren't there to be the cop.

its been noticed that the growing need to pathologise "gender variance" in children, has risen as that kind of language has been retracted from adult sexuality. an acute illustration of this is the fact that the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to contain an entry for childhood gender identity disorder was also the first not to mention homosexuality. i mean i think what bothers me is the introduction of this new terminology of "variant."

its kindof impossible to think through this example without the context of gender policing children in general (it's interesting that its a "tomboyish" girl as well. people are a lot more comfortable with tomboys that with sissy boys). The only way to escape from these gender categories is to produce this new category of variant. and i disagree that its not really making a new category. to say it is just opening a spectrum of positionality doesn't really get away from the fact that all positions are defined in terms of differentiation. this solidification of a "type" under a specific name gives rise to a whole technology of integrating the child into a class of "normal" boys and girls.

i mean obviously there is a lot that is positive that can be taken away from this. the strategy the teacher is using is pretty empowering, the dislocating objects and behaviours from specific gender coding.

so is the issue one of "naming" something that was already viewed as an inferior "other," but not defined?

naming is just part of a process by which these children become the object a particular set of scrutinies.

but it isn't like they weren't subject to a set of scrutinies before the term was defined/pathologized.

it is just changing the dynamics of the problem, rather than creating a problem that didn't exist before.

i think the history of gay and trans rights have shown the negative effects that this patholigisation can have. this kid is lucky that this particular school is obviously very liberal (there's nothing in it about parents objecting or the principle freaking out) but not all proactive reactions to "gender identity disorder in children" are quite so positive and reinforcing. medicine, in these contexts, has traditionally had a worryingly normative influence and children are particularly vulnerable to these interventions. these various prescriptions come in tandem with diagnosis which has a lot to do with this "naming."

I think Judith there might be a point that the pathologising of children's gender expression might be serving for a repository for anxiety about adult sexuality, but I'm just not familiar enough with the subject. It just feels instinctively right, that "won't someone think of the children" is actually often a way of demarking tension around a subject that ppl can't really address or even *see* in adults. (See also the hysteria about the "sexualisation of children" which is also actually mostly tension around the commodification of sexuality in adults, it just seems more noticable and therefore grotesque when it's pole-dancing and nipple-tassels for 9 year olds when it's much more uncomfortable to confront whether it's desirable in 19 year olds because of the complicating aspects of Agency.)

But it's also touching for me on those issues of how people think around gender policing, and when societal attitudes give in one place, they tighten in another.

I get a lot of confusion in mine own head over this, so I apologise if I say this in a clumsy manner. There has been over the past few years a rise in the discussion and push for acceptance of trans issues (or maybe it's just me noticing it more, but I do actually think it has increased) - which is, obviously, a very very good thing. The rise in visibility and acceptance is a sign of progress (though obviously there is still a lot of progress to be made.)

BUT - and these are only my feelings, I don't claim to speak for anyone else. To me, it feels like, in some ways, to some people, the acceptance of trans people almost pushes for reinforcement of the gender binary, rather than this bold new scribbling all over it. Because it seems like other people (not trans people themselves, but the "gender police" type people) almost have this new thing now, of, if you are one of those "gender variants" then that's unacceptable - that if you're not comfortable with your birth gender, you should transition to the other one, you still can't go scribbling outside the lines of the established gender roles. And this, to me, I dislike. I dislike being *told* that I'm "genderqueer" or whatever - no, I'm just me. Labels, to me, are an attempt to push people into categories that make other people comfortable. Rather than accepting someone in the full and complicated mess that they are.

But on the other hand, I've been hanging out on a forum dedicated to discussing a certain minority sexuality and there are a *lot* of trans ppl and genderqueer ppl and neutrois ppl there - and they themselves seem to be scribbling all over the lines quite happily, esp the genderqueer and neutrois ppl. (Though it is weird that the ppl who identify under those two labels were mostly born female - I don't know if this is because it's easier for females to identify that way, or if it's because females are more oppressed by gender roles to start with - or if it's not true at all, but just because of the general gender slant of the forum itself attracting more females.) So obviously this is way more personal for me than a story about children in a school. Because as much comfort and succor as I have found in feminism and the company of women, being in an environment where I was free to identify as non-gendered (which should really be a giveaway in itself) I have found that my personna and interests make me code to other people as "male." Which is interesting. I don't know what that shows, that even among gender neutral people, gender or at least the perception of it still has a clinging kind of stink.

I don't know what the point of all this. Probably that ppl project onto children, and stories told about children, all kinds of fears and tensions about their adults selves. Maybe.

(I hate when I type something out that looks like a reasonable length and then I post and it turns up as a wall of text. Argh.)

And that KLANG when a massive and overthought post hits the bottom of the thread and the conversation dries up into an awkward silence.

Not knowing whether to carry on talking bcuz you had another THOT or if you'll be shouted at to get a livejournal bcuz no one wants to have conversations with YOU you poxy FULE.

Realised with a bump why it is that so many more women than men specifically *identify* as neutrois or agender. I think it's because our culture so overwhelming has appointed Male as default - whether that be dress / appearance or English pronouns or just simply representation. So that a man doesn't really have to do much to dodge the issue of gender, because, when the gender of male is taken as default, they are already in the default (i.e. not-gendered) category. It's much easier for men to sidestep the issue of *removal* of gender.

I *do* think that men have it much harder taking on the characteristics of "female" gender - to be a sissy-boy or a fop/dandy is to be marked as taking on "additional" characteristics which are relegated to women (and therefore identified as bad). But for men to inhabit a space which is read as agender is much, much simpler, when your gender is already generally considered the default gender.

So for women, becoming "without gender" actually involves the removal of external gender-defining characteristics (mostly that's physical, such as long hair/dresses or breasts) and therefore has to be made as a conscious decision to go against what you've been assigned, and therefore is more likely to be adopted as an *identity*, a conscious opting out, rather than a just being.

Sorry if this is all "My Gender Workbook" 101 but I'm trying to puzzle this stuff. But for gods sake don't tell me it's not worth talking about blah blah blah. {/automatic ILX defensive twitch}

Not challenging, just clarifying: Are you saying that since male is the gender default, for women to step outside of gender, they have to remove the outer trappings of femaleness, whereas for men to step outside of gender, they just decide they are stepping outside of gender? Since "gender neutral" looks like "gender default" which is male?

Yes I think that's a good summary of what I'm trying to posit (as a hypothesis, mind)

Though I'd probably say "since male is usually SEEN as the gender default" in the first sentence.

Also I'm not even sure it has to be a conscious decision for men in the way it is for women since they aren't obliged to perform gender in the same way (hence why male nerds are often claiming to be speaking "outside gender" even while enjoying male privilege.)

(I recognise that last paragraph is problematic as I'm trying to theorise about a group I'm not part of from observation of their behaviour. Maybe nerd males do have to make a conscious decision to step outside gender - but I dont think they have to strip away quite so much to get there)

i know plenty of guys that get called faggot in the street who might have something to say about the pressure to perform masculinity.

Well, to these 'naive' eyes, it seems that thesedays being 'different' is tolerated to a wider degree than before.

My wife did say once "don't take offence mind, but you do have a slight fem way about you", to which I replied "well, maybe because I never ever felt I was either gay or trad masc, I never felt I had to prove anything to people I felt I had to prove anything to"

e.g. You can have the football and go wor at Farrah Fawcett-Majors, etc. I'll have the other more interesting things...

i know plenty of guys that get called faggot in the street who might have something to say about the pressure to perform masculinity.

― judith, Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:26 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

I don't doubt this. Hence why I did say it was undoubtedly harder for men to be not-men (I.e. feminine or queer)

But positing that there might be a salient difference between not-men (meaning feminine or queer) and not-gendered (meaning default gender, usually *depicted* as male-ish)

I am just wondering if it's easier to not have to claim to be *without* gender to be non-gendered if your gender is perceived as being the "default" one.

Probably not-masculine is a better term than not-men but I'm trying to save keystrokes on a cranky iPhone

When one is already the "default gender" I think it's a lot easier to not have to deal with or think you're somehow beyond gender.

Bear in mind this line of questioning started with "why is it ppl who identify as 'agender' on the Internet were overwhelmingly born XX by about 5 to 1" and specifically NOT "who gets the rougher deal out of the performance of gender" which is rlly kinda tomato/tomahto depending who you're asking.

i know plenty of guys that get called faggot in the street who might have something to say about the pressure to perform masculinity.
― judith, Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:26 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

I don't doubt this. Hence why I did say it was undoubtedly harder for men to be not-men (I.e. feminine or queer)

But positing that there might be a salient difference between not-men (meaning feminine or queer) and not-gendered (meaning default gender, usually *depicted* as male-ish)

I am just wondering if it's easier to not have to claim to be *without* gender to be non-gendered if your gender is perceived as being the "default" one.

― Sheaths of ClammyCloth (Fotherington Thomas), Thursday, 29 December 2011 14:54 (10 minutes ago) Permalink

When one is already the "default gender" I think it's a lot easier to not have to deal with or think you're somehow beyond gender.

― Sheaths of ClammyCloth (Fotherington Thomas), Thursday, December 29, 2011 7:00 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

Bear in mind this line of questioning started with "why is it ppl who identify as 'agender' on the Internet were overwhelmingly born XX by about 5 to 1" and specifically NOT "who gets the rougher deal out of the performance of gender" which is rlly kinda tomato/tomahto depending who you're asking.

― Sheaths of ClammyCloth (Fotherington Thomas), Thursday, December 29, 2011 7:06 AM (5 seconds ago) Bookmark Permalink

Facepalm.

It's not an awkward silence! I'm listening! Anything I said on this topic wd be dumb and obvious so don't mind me, I'm just taking notes in the corner.

Shut up, gabbneb.

^^

Let's not do "who has it worse" as we'll end up in Biafra...

Who has it "bad enough" is sufficient.

For the life of me I can't figure out why someone would be more likely to claim to be "agender" (I suppose that's supposed to be a reference to me? It's wrong, thanks) if they are more likely to be deemed to be the "default gender" (whatever that means) or if their speech is impugned (or sought to be silenced) because of their gender.

Well, in the past, 'masculine traits' seemed confined to Football, Beer and leering at 'birds' whereas fem traits were babies, fashion and so on.

Actually, whether gay or straight, the whole "Hunters" vs "Gatherers" was more accurate wrt male/female aspects, so I have found.

Maybe the 'agender' was due to not having the old-style male stereotypical content, and yet not being atracted enough to the stereotypical female ones.

OK, gibberish typing from me at a close.

Until the next message, obv.

in the past, 'masculine traits' seemed confined to Football, Beer and leering at 'birds' whereas fem traits were babies, fashion and so on.

Actually, whether gay or straight, the whole "Hunters" vs "Gatherers" was more accurate wrt male/female aspects, so I have found.

A lot of advanced, useful analysis here.

For the life of me I can't figure out why someone would be more likely to claim to be "agender" (I suppose that's supposed to be a reference to me? It's wrong, thanks) if they are more likely to be deemed to be the "default gender" (whatever that means) or if their speech is impugned (or sought to be silenced) because of their gender.

What you're saying is, "I can't understand why anyone in a position of power would give up power!". I can imagine lots and lots of reasons for not wanting un-"earned" power (as much as gendered power is earned, which it isns't) if it means identifying with something you don't feel similar to, or don't want the repercussions of.

What you're saying is, "I can't understand why anyone in a position of power would give up power!"

I don't really understand your response. Perhaps it helps to understand that my post dripped with I thought obvious sarcasm?

xpost (up 2) should I automatically assume sarcasm there?

Or is that your way of saying I'm in over my head with regard this subject, and be quiet and listen?

You might want to work on that obvious sarcasm thing.

xp

I've known a few people who perfected the art of sarcasm.

And you know what? They got everything they ever wanted in life.

Um, wow. That was unexpected. (~sarcasm~) I was actually talking about a group of women on that minority sexuality forum that I mentioned briefly above, but as usual INTERRUPTINGCOW has decided it is all about him, and is going to moo all over the joke. I mean thread.

In a funny way, this bears out what I was saying about the "hunters/gatherers" thing. Some may well see a series of thoughts and information, and some might look for one conclusion, see none, and decide there's nothing to see.

Et Set.

Damn! Am offline for a couple days and don't even know where to start reading. You've been busy!

I don't really find "hunters" vs "gatherers" to be a particularly useful dichotomy when trying to address "masculine" vs "feminine" because, well, actual studies of genuine hunter-gatherer societies (as opposed to cossetted academics ~imagining~ hunter-gatherer societies from the safety of their post-industrial homes) has shown that it's by no means simple or clear cut. Also, hugely cultural, and changes, society to society.

Also, dichotomies in general are just *unhelpful* because most lifestyles and indeed most *people* involve a mixture of *BOTH*.

I'm mostly wondering if this "agender" tag is a useful thing to try on myself, despite my horror of labels. But I just don't think it's a realistic demand. I just find it really interesting that it's predominantly women who label themselves that way. (Because, really, all a man has to do to be considered "gender: default" is to not be overtly feminine.)

What I would like is the *freedom* to be able to operate in a default mode without gender, where my gender isn't even a salient issue. But I don't think that's Agender, that's just Male Privilege. But I don't want to be ~a man~ (though it would be *interesting* to be a man for a day or two, just to see how it all works) I just want to operate in a sphere where gender (either or any gender!) is not the first thing anyone sees. Which is I guess impossible.

There are more new women hunters each year than male hunters these days, from what I've heard.

I guess I'm just fascinated by this 'agender' thing that these women are exploring, even if I'm not sure I could ever apply it to myself.

(Kind of in the same way that I am *fascinated* by lesbians but was p hopeless at being one myself.)

There are more new women hunters each year than male hunters these days, from what I've heard.

What about grabblers?

http://cbswycd.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/miranda_buck-e1288260433120.jpg?w=385

Well, of course no definition/dichotomy ever works 100% of the time.

It's more that when a male decides to transgender towards becoming female, they have to live 'as' for a year before any operation is offered. So they do 'lessons' in walking 'right', and so on.

Is this reinforcing the cliche?

FT, what are the implications of the 'agender' term? If you start w/ Butler, gender always exists whether it is explicitly masculine, feminine, genderqueer, etc. There's no getting away from it since there's not way of getting away from cultural mediation/construction. Is agender refuting both traditional performances of gender AND the idea of gender itself? If you're agender are you making a claim of a-culturality? Does agender have anything to do with an absence of affect?

Mordy, those are all really great questions and I'll try to think of a non-confrontational way of asking these people if they have personal answers to them.

I have asked a couple of times if there is some resource or wiki about agender - there is for Neutrois but that seems a lot more ... hard core for a better word. Like it's actually trying body modification in a similar vein to trans ppl, in order to rid themselves of physical gender. But this agender thing seems to be something which is almost being made up as they go along (that is not a criticism - that's its strength, that it's self defined, not a label that others put on them.)

I like the idea of something that is about resisting stereotypes and saying "these boxes don't apply to us, please take them away" a lot more than I like the idea of having to change one's body. That's just personal, though. I'm fine with my body, I just dislike other people's ideas about what the secondary characteristics of my body *mean*.

Do any of these posters also relate to, or consider themselves asexual, or is this something entirely different?

Well, given that it is a forum dedicated to asexuality, many of them are on the asexual spectrum. But asexuality and agender are absolutely not the same thing at all.

Although there seem to be a much higher proportion of trans, genderqueer and agender ppl in the asexual population than the general population (perhaps because if one is questioning one set of identities it makes sense to also question the other) but they do not appear to be *correlated* much at all - i.e. not all agender ppl are asexual, not all asexual ppl are agender.

So, yeah, it's something different, even though exploring that particular avenue does seem to lead to people also questioning the other.

It's more that when a male decides to transgender towards becoming female, they have to live 'as' for a year before any operation is offered. So they do 'lessons' in walking 'right', and so on.

Is this reinforcing the cliche?

― Too Many Headphones (MarkG oo la showaddywaddy), Thursday, December 29, 2011 3:51 PM (2 hours ago)

i mean, there are various concrete examples of how the idea of gender "variance" consolidates a straight binary understanding of gender. the very regulation of these "transitions" from one to the other is the most obvious example. although trans might be understood as a gender in and of itself, and by that i mean that there are many trans people who self-identify as trans, these same people would be denied treatment unless the goal of a transition is to be a "real" woman or man.

it just seems pretty unhelpful to try to understand why a certain group of people have this desire more so than others. i mean surely we should just work to create a space of openness about gender (which is what that teacher was doing that i was into) rather than trying to account for or explain or i guess diagnose certain ways of performing gender.

The only reason I'm even trying to understand why a certain group of people have a certain identity more so than others is because I'm trying to figure out if it might be a helpful term or descriptor or identity or way of understanding myself.

Like, I am also reading a super-interesting book about recent studies of Sexual Fluidity, and how it looks as if it might be very prevalent in women. And knowing that it is prevalent in women, and knowing that I was born female help me to fit together the pieces of whether that is something which might ~apply~ to me.

I do actually find this helpful for myself. Like "are people who are similar to me, doing this thing as a way of dealing with something that *I* find difficult" - anything beyond that is I guess problematic bullshit theorisation and I should leave it off. But trying to find out more about this thing to see if it fits me, I find that helpful.

It probably doesn't fit, nothing ever does, but I don't think it's unhelpful for me to try to explore it.

Girls thread cont.

Kind of an unfortunate thread title

cuntinued

Lady, Love Your Cont.

a friend of mine:
http://www.kveller.com/blog/parenting/the-c-word/

Alright, I've never heard that Essentially, the point of that book was that the word “cunt” used to be an honorific term for the female ruler of a country before and if true, it's awesome, but also kinda sad. Because it can just join the long list of terms (see Dale Spender) of female-specific words that started off neutral (or part of a pair like master/mistress or courtier/courtesan) but they got turned into sexual slurs basically.

I think in that case it's a very fortunate thread title.

the future of the word actress maybe? O:)

I would be interested in seeing documentation of that outside of that guys blog or reblogs of that guys blog.

(just because I searched that book for relevant terms and various permutations in Google books and didn't turn anything up).

page 5 of that book:

"Cunt" is related to words from India, China, Ireland, Rome and Egypt. Such words were either titles of respect for women, priestesses and witches, or derivatives of the names of various goddesses

and then it cites Barbara Walker's The Women's Encylopedia of Myths and Secrets p. 97

The word "actress" has pretty much already been through that kind of degradation in the previous 400 years or so. It's not really until the 20th Century (and I suspect that the Cinema had a lot to do with this) that the word actress *stopped* being a synonym for whore. It p much was for most of the 17th, 18th, 19th Centuries.

There are still a lot of usages where it retains a problematic or unsalubrious connotation ("AMW" or "actress/model/whatever" springs to mind) so it's hardly as if it's just an innocent little word.

How many of the "actress" negative connotations were rooted in the past theatre where men played all roles?

To an earlier point: I think that men who present in some way that is perceived as "feminine" are definitely more attacked than men who fit a traditional masculine role, but those roles are so defined by place, time, and social group that it's easy to be insulted in a way that questions your gender or sexual preference by crossing boundaries.

I mean, woman-on-woman insinuation of homosexuality as a slur isn't unheard of, but it's kind of the go-to insult for man-on-man challenges. It might just be that women are more clever and socially schooled in the "pushing out the social outlier" language and actions, but braindead men will be yelling "faggot" forever.

Well the reason that only men played all the roles was because it was considered shameful or disgusting for women to go onstage at all - so, again, misogyny. The term "actress" meaning woman going onstage only really dates from the 17th century. Actors in general were never considered salubrious but of course only the female of the word pair took on the negative sexual connotation.

There is tons of documentation on this stuff - that Dale Spender book I keep recommending for a start.

I don't even want to get into why slurs involving sexuality are so gendered. As someone who was repeatedly called "lesbian!" (usually by boys not by girls, before any of us were even old enough to have a sexuality) for "inappropriate" gender presentation - that phrase certainly is in the insult repertoire though nowhere near as common. I suspect, again, that the implication is that "being *like* a woman" (I.e. a "fag") is far more shameful to the heteronormative masculine mindset than is *loving* women (even though loving something as shameful and disgusting as women in a misogynist society is still considered pretty vile.)

I'm not sure that homophobia and misogyny can really can really be teased apart in heteronormativity - they are v different things but both come from the same original prejudice and value set. They are usually fellow travellers (tho obv they can appear separately and differently)

(I constantly feel like I'm mansplaining in this thread bcuz I feel like this is such basic entry level feminist discourse - I deeply apologise if I ever come off that way, or appear patronising. I have no formal education in any of this stuff so I constantly worry that ppl w advanced gender studies degrees are totes eyerolling at me.)

I was trying to make a similar point (about the link between homophobia + misogyny) during a discussion on old-ilx about the etymology of the word 'faggot' (in the Louis CK thread re that particular episode). A character on his show had made the claim that the word came from the bundles of sticks used to burn gay men. It seems like the etymology actually comes from a derogatory term for old women (who were imagined to be hunched over carrying bundles of sticks around) which was then transmuted to become a slur for homosexuality. The point being that there is this very strong association between misogyny + homophobia, and often its the former being repossessed for the latter.

forgive my ignorance but what is "mansplaining"

let me google that for you

http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2010/01/you_may_be_a_mansplainer_if.php

got it

Ha ha ha <3 Mordy.

And yes, as noted on the girl thread proper, yes it's kind of a misandrist term bcuz 1) not all men are mansplainers and 2) it's not just men that mansplain, also White ppl mansplain to PoC and straight ppl mansplain to queer ppl etc. etc. but no one's come up with a better term for it -it's not just explaining, it's not just explaining RONG but it's explaining RONG across that unique disproportionate gradient of Privilege where the Splainer is convinced they are innately better qualified on account of their engrained, unacknowledged assumption of automatic superiority despite a lack of relevant experience.

(Which is why, when a man calls me a "womansplainer" in a discussion of sexism, I laugh my head off at how badly he is missing the point, and also proving mine at the same time)

Anyway sorry I've been meaning to say something about that for some time coz I just started using the word without ever explaining it.

Also v v good point on "faggot" as insult.

I understand and accept the underlying concept - men are often patronizing toward women - but as with so many neologisms it's reductive and fuzzy. by simply attaching "man" to the neutral verb "explain" the term too easily implies that all men are condescending by nature. or maybe that's the point?

misandrist, ok i googled this one. learning stuff today, which IS the point.

I feel like the blogger's example comment for definition #1 was very on-the-money, actually. Probably doesn't fit within the definition of "mansplaining".

Also, it's a very annoying construction for a word.

men are often patronizing toward women

This is a little reductive, though tbf it is how the term is often used on the internet. Rebecca Solnit's essay "Men Who Explain Things" gets into the problem deeper and more broadly: http://articles.latimes.com/print/2008/apr/13/opinion/op-solnit13.

No no, the point isn't that *all* men are condescending, not at all. The point is that it's a certain kind of condescending which is deeply attached to male privilege.

Like, if one says that "prostate cancer is a male disease" it doesn't mean that all males have it! It means that it's a disease that 99% affects Cis men because of the structure of male anatomy?

(Cis meaning not Trans or intersex, biologically male and gendered male - sorry if this is more terminology bug just in case)

Misandrist = derogatory towards or showing hatred of men as a group. It's what a lot of ppl might call "reverse sexism" except the problem with that is that the term "Sexism" implies not just hatred of women (misogyny) but also a systematic and structural inequality that goes beyond individual prejudice. I know, it's complicated. Learning is good! :)

^^ That was a very clear explanation, FT, full of fine-grained distinctions which most people lack proper terminology to distinguish among. I am a bit unclear on one minor distinction, though. Would it be correct to say that the difference between 'mansplaining' and 'explaining' is that the first is an unsought and the second a requested explanation -- or does the difference lie elsewhere?

I don't think it's the difference between unsought/requested, it's the privilege gradient and assumption of automatic authority on the part of the 'Splainer that's problematic. It's that assumption in the mind of the Splainer, that the man always knows what they are talking about, and the woman doesn't, even and *especially* if what they talking about is something that the woman actually knows a heck of a lot more about, such as, for example, the fundamental differences of women's experiences from what men typically expect.

And funnily enough, while you were typing that question, I wrote out this big whole long post about what I mean by "privilege" which I shall now submit.

"Male Privilege" and indeed "Privilege" in this sense itself, is another term that could probably do with some explanation and clarification - I know of a fantastic resource on it, but unfortunately it's at work and (fortunately) I am not right now.

Because it's often incorrectly interpreted as being about an individual thing, and so people who are the beneficiary of Privilege will complain "but *I* don't get that! I have had individual experiences where that didn't apply!" when it's something that's structurally applied to a whole class or type or people (and against another whole class or category.) This is what raises a prejudice to an actual -ism like Sexism or Racism - the structural aspect.

And the thing is, people who have been the beneficiary of Privilege for their entire lives often interpret the *removal* of that Privilege as being "OMG reverse prejudice!" (which is another reason that I don't like using terms like "reverse sexism" and prefer misandry)

Privilege operates like... you want to go to a gig, but the venue has a policy that anyone wearing a suit automatically goes to the front of the queue and gets let in first, no matter how many other people are queuing. If you're not wearing a suit, you're out of luck, you have to go to the back of the really long-ass annoying queue and wait for so long that by the time you get in, all of the good seats are taken and you end up standing way at the back behind a column. You've got so used the idea that ppl in suits go straight to the front that you no longer even see the queue, you just think of it as deserved, because hey, it's always been this way, and if those other people really wanted to get in first, they should just bootstrap themselves into suits.

Now imagine that one time, you turn up and you're not wearing a suit. And the bouncer says "nope, go to the back of the queue." And you kick up a stink going "don't you know who I am!?!" And you scream and howl and complain because you don't get to go in first, and what's more, people in actual ~blue jeans~ are being let into the club ahead of you. So you insist "Hey! I am being discriminated against!"

When what has happened is that no, you are not being discriminated against, you're just being made to get in the queue with everyone else, and experience the same treatment that most people who are not in your category *always* experience, as a matter of course.

Now imagine that "the suit" is something you can't actually take off or put on - such as your gender, or your race, or your sexuality, or your class, etc. etc. And "the cool club" is actually "decent jobs, university, media representation, seats on yr government, even dumb shit like 'being Excelsiored on ILX' etc. etc." And that bouncer is the whole package of engrained Racism, Sexism, structural privilege, etc.

I'm sure that most progressive type people already kinda grok this, so again, apologies if I'm SPLAINING stuff you all already know, but I'm just realising now how much I chuck these words around without ever clarifying what I mean by them.

But that assumption - that one automatically gets to go to the front of the "expert" and "taken seriously" queue because one is male, even when talking about the very *different* experiences of females - is what gives SPLAINING its teeth and raises it from just annoying to actually A Problem.

i love the word "mansplaining"; it's hilarious and i hear it in my head a lot since i encountered it and i always know exactly what it means. men are encouraged to be authorities and a lot of men get their egos groomed thusly and many times the most non-threatening way to perform this is in front of a kind-hearted pretty woman; if she complies (feigned or not), automatic ego stroke. when it isn't insidious it's merely pathetic, like a dog chasing a frisbee. i think a lot of women play with this to their advantage, which whatever, some men never learn.

me and my partner have a good friend and over time i've come to see just how much i do this! she's very funny and sort of forgiving about it in the end, but i try not to do it anymore because it's condescending and gross but it's also dishonest and disrespectful to myself as well. i'd rather be always learning -- by myself and with others -- than declaring myself an authority on something.

xpost

one rule of thumb for me personally is that if i'm explaining/explicating/talking about something with somebody, it has to be of benefit to me first before it can be of benefit to the person i'm having the conversation with. i'm explaining myself, i'm not explaining something to somebody. it allows me to focus on the topic at hand and the other person talking about it and helps keep my ego out of the picture.

haha i didn't explain that very well