Some precisions on personal freedom vs the gender order
Ok, I couldn't just wait. I'm writing this while I should be working hard on some damn report that seems to have no end.
But here goes.
My take on manhood, womanhood, masculinity, feminity and that sort of thing.
I'm pretty much aware that this is a topic that touches on almost everyone's sensibilities. A topic on which we can very quickly get defensive or offensive, or a happy mix of both.
The premises:
A) I feel very strongly that personal freedom is very important, as long as it doesn't impinge on other people's. I know few would disagree with that. The problem is:
- it is sometimes hard to draw the line.
- othertimes we're not even aware our way of being is actually hurting other people.
- othertimes we don't want to ackowledge our way of being is hurting other people because we'd loose privileges or some feeling of security.
B) I happen to be someone who has been pushed towards the outskirts of normalcy quite a few times in my life to know that it hurts:
- being born with what the medical establishment deems to be abnormal genitalia.
- being a bit of a "tomboy" as a child.
- holding interests that were ridiculed by other women while I grew up (Dungeons and Dragons being one).
- doing stuff that is deemed to be deep into "male territory", etc: swordfighting.
- being a lesbian.
C) I happen to have had a father (he passed away) who was torn between his sensitivity - which had been a source of strong rejection in his youth - and some inner quest for what being a "real" man should be. Seing him hurting has deeply impacted on me. I wish I could have been of help throughout his ordeals, but I felt powerless to do so. What I do now is attempting to work at the root causes of what ends up hurting other "papa Guy"s in the world.
I could say much about section B). I know some items are traditionally associated with shame. Being a lesbian is less so nowadays, but being born outside the "normal" frontiers of binary sex still pretty much is. I must admit it is not easy to talk about this, because it is something that is very intimate. Trouble is, even though it is not on public dispay for everyone to see (Quite normally, people do not walk around showing their genitalia), the gender order can still get at you full force and wound you deeply.
How? When I was born, the medical gaze took a good look at me, and passed judgment: "this baby is a girl, but not totally, or not a 'real' girl, anyways, because she is somewhat abnormal". Clitorises of newborn babies shouldn't go over 3/8" or 0.8cm. Why 3/8" and not 1/2"? Why any measurement at all? Because of course, there must be clear sexual frontiers and intrinsic sexual differences, and we must make sure these farcical illusions can be maintained.
My mom did something few parents had the wisdom or the chance to do. She asked the doctors that they refrain from practicing surgery on me. She wanted me to make the choice. But then, while I grew up, I had to go see a doctor (eurologist) who would examine me. The doctor was very polite, mind you, but those sessions would gradually infuse a strong fealing of uneasiness in me. I began to learn there was "something wrong" about me. Something that "normal" girls don't have. Something that "shouldn't be there". Something I shouldn't speak of, something I should feel ashamed of, because of course, being a "normal" girl is soooo important.
Eventually, I asked for surgery. Just before I turned 18. Not because I deeply wished it, but because I thought the frontiers of normalcy were correct and feared rejection. I now think otherwise and regret it. But I cannot go back and change things. What I can do, though, is break the silence. Were it not for this fucking binary order, I would have grown up like anybody else, without ever having a thought there could be something wrong with the clitoris I was born with. I wouldn't have lost some sensitivity, too.
Now, with the tomboy thing and the non-traditional interests. Throughout my life, I've had both what people could call "traditional interests" and "non-traditional interests". I loved Star Wars, He-Man, Smurfs, Strawberry Shortcake (is that it in english?), My Little Pony, Transformers, Carebears, Legos, Hot Weels, etc. Didn't love dolls, didn't like playing house though. I couldn't see the interest in copying dull, serious stuff parents would do. I loved climbing trees, but sucked at sports. I didn't like competition, I didnt' like fighting. I was of the shy, laughed at and rejected type.
Growing up, I started having a very strong interest in RPGs. I had a good Dungeons and Dragons phase - that's before moving up to more serious RPGs ;) But I wouldn't show "normal" female adolescent interests: wearing make up, dressing up, shopping, talking about guys, reading romance novels and all the like.
This joyful list of unconventional interests was a source of scorn and disapprobation. Some women teachers made comments about how I was a "garçon manqué" (tomboy) with that disapproving look in their eyes. Some aunts would deliberatly offer me some "female" stuff I woudn't like. My mom and dad would say it was sad I didn't want to wear dresses (I don't mind nowadays, in some occasions). I was asked by girls why I wouldn't wear make up. I was told by girls seeing me read some D&D book that it was "a baby boys' game".
On the other hand, when I'm amongst some men and attempt to give a hand carrying stuff, I'm either ignored or they just come up to me and attempt to take my place, even though I didn't even express a need for help. If I stay and say I'm all fine, I'm often given that look with the quirky smile "All right, you want to play the strong feminist female and make your point. Go ahead and have your fun". For fuck's sake, I just like helping out with moving stuff. I just wish I didn't need to make a point showing I can do it. And don't worry, if something's too heavy for me, I'll say so and ask for help from someone who's stronger than I am. I just don't presume it's necessarily going to be a man. Good chances are, but I know women who are stronger than I am.
When it comes to swordfighting, I get several reactions. Most are good. Lots of men enjoy having women around who share common interests with them. The problem arises when you see some of them don't take you seriously, or take for granted that you know less than they do. So they feel entitled to come up to you and start giving you advice without having even taken the time of fighting with you or watching carefully what your techniques are. For instance, I had a guy coming up to me saying: "you're not holding your sword right" whilst I was in the middle of a fight. I looked at him, a bit befuddled: "what do you mean, I don't wear my sword right?" He then mimicked some katana-like sword-holding technique using both of his hands on the handle.
And I was currently using my short sword.
...
...
...
You know, shoooort sword...
...
as in "it's not in my interest to limit my reach". Plus, one doesn't need two hands to control properly a weapon of that size. The handle has been purposefuly made long, but only for the occasional case where two hands are needed to keep a good grip. When some person, for example, swings madly and full force with a two-handed sword, then I might want to have both hands on it in order to parry the blow with enough resistance. Also, the long handle can be used to shorten the reach in those cases when I want to close in on someone who's got a long weapon and keep him/her from having the proper room to swing back.
When I told that dude he was wrong and that I didn't need his advice, he looked all offended, saying I had ego problems. Well, dear sir, I was given advice by men before, and it caused me no problem. Difference is, they took the time to fight with me for a while, they weren't playing boasty with it, and I could tell their advice was sound. Funny, but something tells me that the you're-not-holding-that-sword-right-guy woulnd't have so eagerly "given advice" to another man.
But I digress. (And I could share more stories on swordfighting)
This whole portrayal of my outlandish position serves one aim: to show the hurt "normalcy" can have on people who are more different than others.
Now, I've been asking myself, a while ago, if it was possible to conceptualize sexuality and sexual diversity in such a way that nobody would feel excluded or hurt. Because I couldn't just start stating that wearing make up and playing with dolls was abnormal among girls, basically causing onto others the harm that was done to me. (Of course, that would be hardly possible to apply, but it remains unfair in principle). Neither can I say that heterosexual people are flawed, inferior and that kind of thing as a knee-jerk and angry reaction to the same judgment being passed on me by a fair number of them.
Considering the importance of personal freedom in selecting or keeping interests, here are basic statements I feel are correct:
"People don't need to share my interests for me to be accepted by them. And vice-versa."
"People shoudn't feel threatened by other people for them not sharing similar interests".
"People don't need to consider that some interests are more proper for a sex than for another."
The implications of the first statement is:
We shouldn't strive for some "ideal" where either:
Men look all alike, Women look all alike. Men and Women are different.
Men and women look all alike. We should all hold the very same androgynous interests.
I don't consider that men who love barbecuing or watching football should stop doing so for me to be accepted. I don't consider that women who love wearing make up and dutifuly match their clothes should stop doing so for me to be accepted.
The implications of the second statement is:
Women who love wearing make up shouldn't feel my not loving so takes something away from them or threatens them somehow.
Men who don't personaly like ice skating shouldn't feel some other men loving that sport takes something away from them or threatens them somehow.
The implications of the third statement is:
Women who love wearing make up don't need to consider it as more proper of women in general. They don't nead to attach a "real" to it, as opposed to what, "unreal" women who have "inproper" interests?
Men who love barbecuing don't need to consider it as more proper of men in general. They don't need to attach a "real" to it, as opposed to... "unreal" men who would have "inproper" interests.
Make up on a woman is not more "real" than make up on a man. It is more frequent, but intrinsically, make up is just frigging make up. You'll waste a lot of time trying to find some little vagina or penis attached to it.
Barbecuing is no more "real" to men than it is real to women. It is more frequently liked, but intrinsically barbecuing is just frigging barbecuing.
Often, people will use some amazing contortion of the mind to both claim the right to personal freedom, and the existence of a normative standard we should not err "too much" from. That's when we start using the funny idea of having a masculine side and a feminine side, à la Jung.
This idea, popularized by new-agish philosophy, makes it appear as if no restraints were put on self-expression among men and women. "Yes, yes", they say, "you can be who you want". "Every woman has a masculine side" and "every man has a feminine side".
...
Pray tell me, why do we bother dividing things up this way then? Why would I need to mention that my loving swordfighting is "my masculine side", for example. How would it be relevant? Does it give you or me something, at the end of the day?
Let's take a closer look at it now. Let's talk, say, not of an interest this time but of some attribute: empathy. I know some people feel women are intrinsically more caring and empathical than men. It seems they have it in themselves, somehow.
- Whereas men would be intrinsically more brutish??
"No, no", some people will answer me. They can show empathy, too. "It is their feminine side".
OK. Now consider the fact that we constantly repeat and reiterate this association between empathy and femininity. What do you think is the result of this? Deep down, people associate empathy with women on a more intrinsical level than with man. It's as if empathy was always some superficial characteristic in men.
Underneath this jungian, new-agish division, there is an assertion of the gender order. It is more flexible than lots of traditional models, but there remains the idea that some interests and attributes are more "real" in women and more "real" in men, therefore laying out standards proper to each sex. You can have a "masculine side", but don't stray too much from your feminine core.
What's more, this whole division defies logic. Let's say I come up and announce: "Hey guys, look at what I discovered! Humanity isn't actually divided up in genders, but in some other deep way:
First, there are the bong-bongs, who share characteristic X, Y, Z
Then, there are the woop-woops, who share characteristic A, B, C
"But" You might tell me, "some people possess characteristic A, B and Z; or X, Y and C; or A, Y, and Z; or A, Y, and C, and so on.
"Oh yes, of course", will I answer, "All bong-bong people have their woop-woop side. And all woop-woop people have a bong-bong side"...
Scientifical value: 0
Does that mean I consider we should not even use the distinction woman/man? No. It all depends on how we do it. We just don't need to constantly stress the idea that some attributes and interests are more real when present in one or the other sex. Some attribues or interests might have been more encouraged in men or in women - that, we can point out, because it reprensents a social reality . Plus, it's not saying some traits are more real per se, and infringing on personal freedom.
As for physical sex, it is very important that we don't conceptualize it in a strict binary manner. Bodies are approximate. Man is an approximate notion, woman, as well. Like almost every other word or concept in our vocabulary, for instance.
Once we'll accept that notion and keep it in mind, we'll have more room for all of us.