(Untitled)

[richenza]

Related to yesterday's post -

Jack said something in our discussion of same that struck me as true:

There is nothing inherently wrong with posessing a gender identity, only in enforcing negative patternsI think this has some merit to it. Any one "gender-charged" item isn't inherently bad - makeup, dresses, toy guns. The problem is the baggage

Comments

[richenza]

I suppose. I did edit the comment somewhat, to clarify what I'd meant.

This is one of those things that periodically annoys me, and I guess it's on my mind lately. I definitely present as a girly-girl, and sometimes I get tired of hearing that my high heels are a "tool of the patriarchy" instead of a silly accessory.

[richenza]

I guess what irritates me about the whole thing is the presumption of moral superiority.

The kind of people who will very likely judge me for choosing to dress a certain way are the same people who will carry on at length about how image-obsessed we are as a society and how oppressive that is. I just want to yell at them - "you're a fucking hypocrite!"

Of course, I don't actually have to spend time with the specific culprits anymore, or pretend that they don't irritate me to keep the peace. Really, this post is just a semi-random rant. But wht else is LJ for?

[robdamnit]

He makes a great point.

Damn, the crack-head is deep.

[tpjones105]

How about letting the child play, and be happy, and not worry about what the world thinks?

These issues only become issues when adults interfere. Sure, there should be sensible boundaries (don't let Finster beat on other children; share; golden rule; no group sex until the age of consent; etc.), but play is play, and it is healthy, and kids find their own way.

/Billy Elliot, anyone?

[tpjones105]

Conditioning is what you make it. Such are the stuff of breakthroughs.

In your defense, tho, not everyone is that strong, nor able to live free enough to find out what they really want.

/"It's not heights I'm afraid of. . . it's PARENTS!!!"

//Mel Brooks, "High Anxiety"

[jjaynes]

Alright, I'll play the contrary feminist for this round. I'm not clear what you mean by "possessing a gender identity." To me, the very idea of differentiating between "men" and "women" is problematic, because we live in a patriarchy where women are frequently valued less and viewed as sex objects or caretakers. I don't see your enjoyment of dresses and hats as a gender identity, I see them as a perfectly reasonable personal preference, and one that I share. It seems to me that, as we do still live in a patriarchy, no gender identity, that is, "I am a man, not a woman" or vice versa, is free of prejudices, expectations, and harm. But I want to know how you are defining gender identity, because I think we define it differently.

[richenza]

gender identity, that is, "I am a man, not a woman"

I think we are defining it pretty similarly, though our conclusions may be different. I think it is reasonable to say "I am a woman, not a man", accepting that both terms come with baggage, but not necessarily holding the claim ticket for that baggage.

[jjaynes]

Huh. Well, why do you think it's reasonable? It seems to me like the only definitions I have for "woman" and "man" are a set of arbitrary gender roles, or a near meaningless definition of "when looking at you, people assume that you have a penis/uterus," which is pretty irrelevant to almost everything (talking, working, making dinner, etc) except trying to make a baby.

[richenza]

I don't know. There's a certain solidarity in being a memebr of a group. A group can share experiences and wield politcal power.

Why shouldn't I take pride in belonging to my group? I take pride in lots of other groups I belong to. I don't want to be neuter. I want to be a woman. A woman who gets paid as much as a man.