(no subject)
May. 28th, 2011 09:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
floorpigeonEvery time I see reference to something that's 'typically female', my brain draws a (resentful) blank... to the point where I feel I should write something just to remind myself what that is. I can probably tell you what's 'typically male' easily (rational, dominant/aggressive, hierarchal, controlled), but even thinking that the opposite is 'typically female' drives me into the preliminary stages of rage (it seems). The more I witness people monkeying with definitions any way they like, the more I think those people who think they're reincarnated anime characters aren't insane-- merely at a point further on a typical human spectrum.
It's funny especially 'cause I feel I can be 'masculine' all day long without wanting to be a man, and further that's expected as a 'successful woman' (if you have a career, say, or simply wanting to be good in physics class). However, if a man wants to exhibit feminine traits, it's not that they want to do something that makes sense (like compromising instead of dominating, or listening instead of rationalizing), but rather they often identify themselves or are culturally identified as 'feminine' or 'wanting to be a woman'. It hurts my head. Don't even get me started on 'feminine hobbies', such as cooking. Just how offensive is that-- let me count the ways. In a way, if a man wants to cook yet thinks he's getting soft/feminine by enjoying it, he's actually being a sexist asshole macho pig that doesn't deserve to be womanly, haha. To be honest, I often think I should accept people's being influenced by culture, as a nice liberal girl should, but it's just so stupid that I can't imagine anyone but an idiot would believe some of these stupid things no matter how they were raised.
In some ways, it's valid-- if you genuinely and honestly believe that gender is entirely cultural, I'm ok with you thinking skirts and pots are what makes one a woman. But if it's just an unquestioned assumption, it's just so offensive to me. I constantly battle with the whole 'social importance of dress/grooming' thing; my rejection of it is partly why it's like pulling teeth to get me to even bother with my appearance at all. I feel like I'm not just choosing to look better/neater/presentable, but suddenly choosing to play social/gender games and sending messages about my status and availability and even moral code, etcetc. I mean, at least if I look like a bum people just think I'm a bum. I actually like clothes a lot (that is, the artistic element of fashion), but to me it's just aesthetics, not ethics or socializing or communicating or self-definition. I can't imagine really honestly thinking that the way I dress defines me socially (vs showing people my taste/personality). Certainly, I can't imagine being ok with that. Certainly, I wouldn't easily wear a motorcycle jacket (say), but that's just 'cause I know it'd draw a certain kind of attention/assumptions. It's like, to me it's telling that these days both men and women may play sports-- but it's the men that would get defined by it. Women would 'just happen' to be in a volleyball team; men would be a 'volleyball player'. In general, the whole idea of a 'metrosexual' is that they care about their appearance and are therefore a bit 'off', or feminine. The truth is (I think), *most* men care about their appearance, but aren't honest with themselves and use different standards. Ugh.
I mean, sometimes I look at it and think, 'but all those so-called masculine traits are just excuses for idiocy, with the exception of rationality, but then who wouldn't want to be rational, and why does it have anything to do with gender'. I mean, to orient your gender around the need to kick things... I don't get it. Ok I get it, but it's so stupid, it's like pretending we're literally animals and/or have the IQ of children. No, children are smarter than 'typical men' sound like.
So yeah, I just don't get it. Maybe I don't want to get it. Maybe it's just that I know plenty of women who're nothing much like me, but are plenty 'feminine', and I think I'm equally 'female' or 'feminine' even if our behavior and beliefs differ significantly. I can only think it's that certain personality types are more common than others in males vs females? Plus the basic necessities of cultural expectations and family life? Or something. This is to say, I fully agree that there are mental aptitudes and hormonal tendencies that can be generalized by gender. But at the same time, it doesn't follow that if you display a different mental aptitude you're somehow the 'wrong' gender, or are behaving as a different gender. I don't see that at all. If I wanted to start a war tomorrow, that wouldn't make me manly, it'd make me homicidally insane. Or whatever. I feel like there's some sort of generalization fallacy at work somehow. If you're part of Group A by birth or choice, you may exhibit some properties of the group in general, but that doesn't mean you have to exhibit all the properties, or that if you exhibit properties not covered by Group A, you're suddenly Group B. I mean, what? The group != the individual.
Somehow I feel like I'll never get it. I mean, it's like if people said 'the French are so artsy, and the English so uptight', and suddenly you meet a French person that was uptight, does that mean they're suddenly 'really' English, or part-English, or even English-like? No, they're totally French. They're an uptight French person, that is all.
It's like this with everything, though, not just gender. People talk about how they're suddenly 'not really' their Myers-Briggs type if they exhibit different/new behaviors or skills. Like, people will say things like, 'I'm not totally emotional 100% of the time, so I can't be a Feeler, I must be a mixture of Feeler and Thinker'. No, you moron, you are a Feeler who can also think, just like every other Feeler. *headdesk*
It's funny especially 'cause I feel I can be 'masculine' all day long without wanting to be a man, and further that's expected as a 'successful woman' (if you have a career, say, or simply wanting to be good in physics class). However, if a man wants to exhibit feminine traits, it's not that they want to do something that makes sense (like compromising instead of dominating, or listening instead of rationalizing), but rather they often identify themselves or are culturally identified as 'feminine' or 'wanting to be a woman'. It hurts my head. Don't even get me started on 'feminine hobbies', such as cooking. Just how offensive is that-- let me count the ways. In a way, if a man wants to cook yet thinks he's getting soft/feminine by enjoying it, he's actually being a sexist asshole macho pig that doesn't deserve to be womanly, haha. To be honest, I often think I should accept people's being influenced by culture, as a nice liberal girl should, but it's just so stupid that I can't imagine anyone but an idiot would believe some of these stupid things no matter how they were raised.
In some ways, it's valid-- if you genuinely and honestly believe that gender is entirely cultural, I'm ok with you thinking skirts and pots are what makes one a woman. But if it's just an unquestioned assumption, it's just so offensive to me. I constantly battle with the whole 'social importance of dress/grooming' thing; my rejection of it is partly why it's like pulling teeth to get me to even bother with my appearance at all. I feel like I'm not just choosing to look better/neater/presentable, but suddenly choosing to play social/gender games and sending messages about my status and availability and even moral code, etcetc. I mean, at least if I look like a bum people just think I'm a bum. I actually like clothes a lot (that is, the artistic element of fashion), but to me it's just aesthetics, not ethics or socializing or communicating or self-definition. I can't imagine really honestly thinking that the way I dress defines me socially (vs showing people my taste/personality). Certainly, I can't imagine being ok with that. Certainly, I wouldn't easily wear a motorcycle jacket (say), but that's just 'cause I know it'd draw a certain kind of attention/assumptions. It's like, to me it's telling that these days both men and women may play sports-- but it's the men that would get defined by it. Women would 'just happen' to be in a volleyball team; men would be a 'volleyball player'. In general, the whole idea of a 'metrosexual' is that they care about their appearance and are therefore a bit 'off', or feminine. The truth is (I think), *most* men care about their appearance, but aren't honest with themselves and use different standards. Ugh.
I mean, sometimes I look at it and think, 'but all those so-called masculine traits are just excuses for idiocy, with the exception of rationality, but then who wouldn't want to be rational, and why does it have anything to do with gender'. I mean, to orient your gender around the need to kick things... I don't get it. Ok I get it, but it's so stupid, it's like pretending we're literally animals and/or have the IQ of children. No, children are smarter than 'typical men' sound like.
So yeah, I just don't get it. Maybe I don't want to get it. Maybe it's just that I know plenty of women who're nothing much like me, but are plenty 'feminine', and I think I'm equally 'female' or 'feminine' even if our behavior and beliefs differ significantly. I can only think it's that certain personality types are more common than others in males vs females? Plus the basic necessities of cultural expectations and family life? Or something. This is to say, I fully agree that there are mental aptitudes and hormonal tendencies that can be generalized by gender. But at the same time, it doesn't follow that if you display a different mental aptitude you're somehow the 'wrong' gender, or are behaving as a different gender. I don't see that at all. If I wanted to start a war tomorrow, that wouldn't make me manly, it'd make me homicidally insane. Or whatever. I feel like there's some sort of generalization fallacy at work somehow. If you're part of Group A by birth or choice, you may exhibit some properties of the group in general, but that doesn't mean you have to exhibit all the properties, or that if you exhibit properties not covered by Group A, you're suddenly Group B. I mean, what? The group != the individual.
Somehow I feel like I'll never get it. I mean, it's like if people said 'the French are so artsy, and the English so uptight', and suddenly you meet a French person that was uptight, does that mean they're suddenly 'really' English, or part-English, or even English-like? No, they're totally French. They're an uptight French person, that is all.
It's like this with everything, though, not just gender. People talk about how they're suddenly 'not really' their Myers-Briggs type if they exhibit different/new behaviors or skills. Like, people will say things like, 'I'm not totally emotional 100% of the time, so I can't be a Feeler, I must be a mixture of Feeler and Thinker'. No, you moron, you are a Feeler who can also think, just like every other Feeler. *headdesk*
