Musings on Gender

[j_forias]

So, I've got to plan a disseratation in about three weeks. I've decided to do it on some kind of feminist take of Defoe's Moll Flanders, looking at Moll's voice. It's a really fascinating issue for me, particularly as I'm writing a first person novel in a female voice (or trying!).

Comments

[ex_jo_blogs]

I wish you luck in trying to get away from technical jargon in feminist theory :)

What do I think of gender? I think, when in doubt, turn to wikipedia:

"In social sciences, subjectivity (the property of being a subject) is an effect of relations of power. Similar social configurations create similar perceptions, experiences and interpretations of the world. For example, female subjectivity would refer to the perceptions, experiences and interpretations that a subject marked as female would generally have of the world."

Except then, of course, I'd have to ask - what do you mean by 'similar'? What do mean by 'generally'? You'll have to excuse me, I've just been to a sociology of knowledge seminar.

[j_forias]

Sociology of knowledge? I've probably asked this before, but what is it you actually do? For some reason, I've always just assumed you're doing a PhD in Fanfiction as Literature, or something like that. :D But I realise now that's silly. Is it an MA in Literature, too?

Actually, the sociology of knowledge must be fascinating. The way that knowledge is organised as a network of societal stories, with stereotypes and typifications. Really interesting, I bet!

But yeah, those are the words to highlight. Surely we all have radically different perceptions, experiences and interpretations, regardless of gender...

[ex_jo_blogs]

I'm doing a PhD, so my topic is pretty much up to me. My areas of interest are sociology of knowledge, technology, gender, and that wizard boy

[ehnel]

Your icon is made of sparkly, shiny awesome. *loves*

[ehnel]

And does gender matter at all? Should we think of ourselves as just people?

I like the idea that there's a distinction between gender and sex (only English does not have adequate words to express said distinction). This theory came up in one of my archaeological theory modules last term. Looking at the man/woman thing through this light, you have a male or female biological sex, but your gender (masculine, feminine, other) is a role determined by society/yourself. Which I think is nice, and to some extent true as well

[j_forias]

I agreed with everything you said so much that its scary!

The distinction between gender and sex is very important. But I'm fascinated that you studied it in relation to archaeology. Do you mind me asking how it related? Does archaeolgical theory have a heavy focus on culture?

And yes, completely agree about thinking of a person as a person and as a man/woman/transman/whatever. Plus with the gender being so much a part of us. Being a man is part of who I am. I'll never escape that and I don't think I'd ever want to.

Hmm, yes, the two halves. Like how you can't truly understand the idea of light, without knowing what darkness is? I do think that a lot of truth comes with balancing two "things". We kind of test one against the other, and we get something unique out of the process. Like mixing blue and yellow to make green. Or something like that.

My apologies. I'm rambling!

[ehnel]

But I'm fascinated that you studied it in relation to archaeology. Do you mind me asking how it related? Does archaeolgical theory have a heavy focus on culture?Hee. Yes. No. Sort of. Some of it focusses on culture, some of it focusses on the actual practise of archaeology. There are lots of different kinds of theory, and their emphases vary - there's gender archaeology, Marxist archaeology, structuralism, contextualism, processualism, culture history, nd loads more

[ehnel]

Hmm, something else I thought of: a lot of archaeological theorists are interested in how your own assumptions/prejudices are reflected onto archaeological interpretations. At the most basic level, it is VERY basic. You excavate what looks like you to be a pot made of clay: therefore you assume it served the function of a pot or a container, because you have pots in your everyday life. But it might not have seemed that way to the person who made it. So, that interpretation could be right. But it could be wrong. At its more complicated level, these assumptions ARE complicated. Perhaps you excavate a skeleton that you cannot sex using the bones, and there was a sword buried with it. Most people would immediately assume this to mean the skeleton is male, because swords are almost exclusively associated with men in this culture. Could be right. Could be wrong. Ditto if you excavate an unsexable skeleton with an infant's skeleton. The automatic assumption might be that it's a female adult skeleton buried with her baby. Could be right.

[emelye916]

what's the link?!

[j_forias]

Are you asking for the link? Or are you asking what it is?

[emelye916]

I'm asking for the link :)

[j_forias]

https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17250354&postID=116292375566872968

I'm linking direct to the post, because the author may have surrounding posts that are 'R' rated. I had a quick glance around her blog and she does seem to be quite open about discussing sexuality, even though this particular post is PG-13 at worst.

[kit_the_brave]

Do you know the story of James Tiptree, Jr, aka Alice Sheldon? Alice Sheldon was a famous sci-fi writer writing as James Tiptree, Jr. "He" was very reclusive and never made appearances at sci-fi conventions. Finally Sheldon admitted who she really was because she was getting praised by critics for being a man writing such believable women characters, and she thought it wouldn't be fair to let them go on thinking she was a man... which brings up all kinds of questions about what a "believable" woman character is, and why it's amazing that a man could write one, and whether a man could write one, since James Tiptree, Jr, wasn't actually a man, and why Alice Sheldon decided to take a male pseudonym, and... :D

[j_forias]

*laughs* That's a really interesting story. I think it is hard sometimes, depending on how in detail the writer focuses on the female characters.

I know I don't write believable female characters. :P That's why I have female "editors" who get to critique me. Dernhelm in particular finds plenty of fault with my female characters! Which is really very helpful. One can only learn.

[j_forias]

I think it is hard sometimes, depending on how in detail the writer focuses on the female characters.
Correction: "the male writer". :)

But yeah, there's a big hullabaloo about how men don't understand women, and I think there must be some truth to that. Which makes it harder to write. But, like with all writing, it depends a lot on ones particular personal experience. I'm sure there are men with very good understanding of certain categories of female characters.

[stubefied_by_gd]

Gender is so annoying. No, that's wrong. Gender is a very userful term in experimental psychology. One of our practice experiments for our methods class involved looking at the different responses we got from "masculine males," 'feminine males," "masculine females," and "feminine females." It was fun. But people who can't talk about it without talking about oppression? I wanna show them some oppression! *looks tough*

So, is J.K. Rowling oppressing men by revealing that's she's not really a man?

It all goes back to natural selection, anyway. Everything does. Gets a bit annoying, really.

[j_forias]

So, is J.K. Rowling oppressing men by revealing that's she's not really a man?
*squints at the question*

*looks at it from different angles*

Er... I don't think so...

But truthfully, almost everyone oppresses everyone they meet. We exert influence on each other. Influence is power. Using power is oppression. Kinda...

What gets annoying? Going back to natural selection everytime you want a jar of pickles opened? :p

[stubefied_by_gd]

"prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control"

That's what my dictionary says oppression is. But it has come to just mean power, yes, in the mouths of people who think everyone who isn't them is running around oppressing.

About natural selection, it just gets tiring when all the cool questions in psychology have the same blah old answer. It's all about sex. Sex, sex, sex.

[j_forias]

Sex, sex, sex.
Wow, you sound like the inside of my head. :P