According to Tiger, Male Studies emerged “from the notion that male and female organisms really are different” and the “enormous relation between . . . a person’s biology and their behavior.” To the Male Studies set, “Men’s Studies” has historically focused far too much on the social construction of masculinity, and not enough on the biological origins and purpose of “maleness.” The Foundation for Male Studies states that its focus is on studying “the male as male”:
― plax (ico), Friday, 9 April 2010 11:42 (seven years ago) Permalink
hmm pretty sure that field already is being plowed in the form of NAMBLA
― fuck in rainbows, ☔ (dyao), Friday, 9 April 2010 11:46 (seven years ago) Permalink
Male studies...because evolutionary psycology wasn't producing enough bad science for the Daily Mail set?
― Christine Green Leafy Dragon Indigo, Friday, 9 April 2010 13:14 (seven years ago) Permalink
lol @ this tho
i did that and got 26% gay which seemed disappointing?― plax (ico), Monday, April 5, 2010 11:26 AM (2 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink^^^is not camp or stereotypically homo in his outward behaviour at all, really― william mcgonadal's tay ridge disaster (acoleuthic), Monday, April 5, 2010 11:32 AM (2 months ago)
― plax (ico), Monday, April 5, 2010 11:26 AM (2 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
^^^is not camp or stereotypically homo in his outward behaviour at all, really
― william mcgonadal's tay ridge disaster (acoleuthic), Monday, April 5, 2010 11:32 AM (2 months ago)
― plax (ico), Saturday, 5 June 2010 23:07 (six years ago) Permalink
― harbl, Saturday, 5 June 2010 23:28 (six years ago) Permalink
maybe u will bring out the diva in plaxico
― Mark Ronson: "Led Zeppelin were responsible for hip-hop" (acoleuthic), Sunday, 6 June 2010 00:10 (six years ago) Permalink
― property-disrespecting Moroccan handjob (Trayce), Sunday, 6 June 2010 04:25 (six years ago) Permalink
― oscar, Saturday, 8 January 2011 23:52 (six years ago) Permalink
― Mark Ronson: "Led Zeppelin were responsible for hip-hop" (acoleuthic), Sunday, June 6, 2010 12:10 AM (7 months ago)
― plax (ico), Sunday, 9 January 2011 14:59 (six years ago) Permalink
― buzza, Tuesday, 24 May 2011 19:49 (five years ago) Permalink
The couple's other two children, Jazz and Kio, haven't escaped their parents' unconventional approach to parenting.
― \(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 19:54 (five years ago) Permalink
Sounds like a Hyundai dealership. :(
― Back up the lesbian canoe (Laurel), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 19:55 (five years ago) Permalink
But Stocker and Witterick's choices haven't always made life easy for their kids. Though Jazz likes dressing as a girl, he doesn't seem to want to be mistaken for one. He recently asked his mother to let the leaders of a nature center know that he's a boy. And he chose not to attend a conventional school because of the questions about his gender. Asked whether that upsets him, Jazz nodded.As for his mother, she's not giving up the crusade against the tyranny of assigned gender roles. "Everyone keeps asking us, 'When will this end?'" she said. "And we always turn the question back. Yeah, when will this end? When will we live in a world where people can make choices to be whoever they are?"
As for his mother, she's not giving up the crusade against the tyranny of assigned gender roles. "Everyone keeps asking us, 'When will this end?'" she said. "And we always turn the question back. Yeah, when will this end? When will we live in a world where people can make choices to be whoever they are?"
― \(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 19:55 (five years ago) Permalink
The people sound insufferable.
― \(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 19:56 (five years ago) Permalink
Also that baby looks male to me. Now I want to know if I'm right just out of curiosity.
how come nobody ever asks, is it deterwomened? think about it
― still driving steen, banning deez, gettin my dick xhuxked (Curt1s Stephens), Sunday, April 4, 2010 11:39 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― D-40, Tuesday, 24 May 2011 19:57 (five years ago) Permalink
Comments 1 - 10 of 7218
― buzza, Tuesday, 24 May 2011 20:03 (five years ago) Permalink
Tbf, the comments are all pretty butthurt
― Concatenated without abruption (Michael White), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 20:04 (five years ago) Permalink
OMG people commenting on some internet article are awful and dumb? You don't say!
― \(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 20:06 (five years ago) Permalink
Jazz is going to really hate his parents come puberty
― Tom Skerritt Mustache Ride (DJP), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 20:08 (five years ago) Permalink
the parents say that they are trying to limit the influence of social "messages" on their kids, that the two boys are free to choose whatever clothing/hair they want, and that they both happen to choose pink clothing and long hair (surprise!). i have no reason to doubt that, but given the intensity of parental disdain for "conventional" gender roles, you have to wonder how many warm fuzzies the boys get for dressing girly. i mean, i appreciate the basic nobility of the parents' quest, but have questions about the execution.
people are exhausting.
― contenderizer, Tuesday, 24 May 2011 20:38 (five years ago) Permalink
If you have to home school you're kids, you've already gone too far in your intellectual conceits
― Concatenated without abruption (Michael White), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 20:52 (five years ago) Permalink
I think you mean "unschool" Michael. Get it straight. ;p
i mean, i appreciate the basic nobility of the parents' quest, but have questions about the execution
Well, yeah. Exactly. There's no way this could actually be accomplished but that's sort of irrelevant here I guess. I'm sure that Storm and Rio or whatever it was get plenty of praise for embracing their girly sides. Every quote in that article makes them sound like the most tedious people on the planet.
― \(^o\) (/o^)/ (ENBB), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 20:55 (five years ago) Permalink
if home schooled kids can't grasp basical grammatical structures, do you blame the parentheses?
― ♪♫ hey there lamp post, feelin' whiney ♪♫ (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 20:56 (five years ago) Permalink
kids are weirdly obsessed with gender and gender rules--im sure most of that derives from still learning how to "perform" their particular gender. I can't help but think the parents in this story are doing their kids a diservice, getting along and coping with the BS of society is an important skill in its own right, so raising kids as if they live in a gender utopia is maybe not such great parenting.
― ryan, Tuesday, 24 May 2011 21:03 (five years ago) Permalink
maybe I'm just cynical, but I tend to assume that mainstream online news articles that deal with "unconventional" elements of sex, gender, and sexual orientation (this, the pregnant man, the boy who wore a dress for his Halloween costume, transgendered kids, etc.) are bigot bait packaged to get as many irate comments (= hits = ad revenue) as possible without explicitly shaming the subjects in the text of the article. while I appreciate this kid's parents efforts to challenge gender norms, I doubt sharing their story with the world will make the world a more tolerant place when news networks are using them in much the same way as they used the balloon boy family. admittedly, Yahoo isn't Fox News and the article (and even many of the comments) probably isn't totally ill-intentioned.
― gtforia estfufan (unregistered), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 21:06 (five years ago) Permalink
lolziest part is somehow trusting their other two kids to keep the secret
― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 21:07 (five years ago) Permalink
sometimes, though, it's good parenting to allow your kids to express themselves in abnormal ways (w/r/t gender, sexual orientation, race, or whatever) even to the point where they risk getting ostracized and picked upon by other kids (or even adults). no matter how old you are, the price of being confident and having a strong sense of self is confrontation, and it's more worthwhile to learn how to face or defuse confrontation than it is to avoid it altogether at the expense of your individuality. mind you, I'm not saying parents should put their kids in controversial places merely for the sake of generating controversy, which is often the way it works when the media gets involved in people's personal lives.
― gtforia estfufan (unregistered), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 21:16 (five years ago) Permalink
thing is: how did this become "news" in the first place? like, did they call the paper and say "you know we'd just like to put this out there" or what?
― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Tuesday, 24 May 2011 21:18 (five years ago) Permalink
yeah i get you, and i think i agree. surely that can be done in a way that says "be whoever or whatever you want" but also "this is how society may react, and how closed minded people are, and perhaps here's how to try and get along with them."
― ryan, Tuesday, 24 May 2011 21:20 (five years ago) Permalink
― buzza, Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:42 (five years ago) Permalink
This post continues from here, emil.y's Feminist Theiry & "Women's Issues" Discussion Thread. I'm jumping threads because I felt like my interest in discussing the biological basis of what we perceive as "gender" was not really appropriate for that thread. Anyone who's interested in that topic(hey, surfing!) or who would simply like to discuss gender in a differently framed space (ENBB, VegemiteGrrl, aimless, anyone) is welcome to join me here.
More to come...
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:23 (five years ago) Permalink
Oh, right. Frame it as "discuss gender without those pesky feminists distracting us with their facts" = really not classy way to do this.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:30 (five years ago) Permalink
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:32 (five years ago) Permalink
WCC, come on, surely you can see that Con is taking his subject of interest here also not to derail the previous thread.
― Flag post? I hardly knew her! (Le Bateau Ivre), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:34 (five years ago) Permalink
Um I totally intend to be all up in this thread with feminist facts FWIW and I don't think Contenderizer is against that?
I read this as the other thread has gravitated (that's probably the wrong word but y'know) towards talking about social constructs and privilige and I felt the same, like I would be having a separate conversation at the same table if I talked about biological sex and constructing a working model of the relationship between the body, the brain and the mind's sex / gender uh.. stuff... so moving this conversation seems OK to me?
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:36 (five years ago) Permalink
it's framed as a open discussion of gender, WCC, that's all. and i'm only attempting to move a certain portion of the discussion because i felt as though i was intruding into the other thread by constantly bringing up the stuff i wanted to talk about. i didn't want to be a irritant or a boor. beyond that, a few other people had mentioned feeling nervous abt bringing up their viewpoints in that thread, so i hoped that this might provide a more comfortable space for them.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:37 (five years ago) Permalink
but hey, we're off to the races...
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:38 (five years ago) Permalink
That "differently framed space" crack was pretty dumb, you have to admit. I think the initial post was judgier than it had to be under the circumstances. But I'm interested to see what's discussed here, because this kind of reading material is stuff I'm prob never going to tackle on my own!
― one little aioli (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:39 (five years ago) Permalink
It's not the reviving of the thread, or the addressing of the topic, it's the "hey! List of ppl who clashed w WCC & Laurel on the other thread, we got a new clubhouse here!" that irks.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:40 (five years ago) Permalink
So... WCC lent me this book called "Delusions of Gender", I can't copy-paste every paragraph because boring, illegal and tl;dr, but I want to talk about it LOTS. It is very interesting and stuffed with proper citations. I'm only a chapter in but would highly recommend.
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:41 (five years ago) Permalink
WCC, perhaps this is in deference to your 'owning' the other thread and ppl not feeling comfortable about contradicting or disagreeing w/you there or even commenting questioningly. I certainly don't; it's been made clear that ppl of my accidental stripe are suspect.
― le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:47 (five years ago) Permalink
i think one of the more interesting books i've read on gender and biological determinism is "Demonic Males"-- it cries out for a feminist critique, however.
― ryan, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:51 (five years ago) Permalink
― le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:52 (five years ago) Permalink
I don't "own" the other thread. I didn't even start it.
And that "Demonic Males" although I read it, was picked apart pretty thoroughly by other primate scientists so I don't think much "feminist" critique is needed.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:56 (five years ago) Permalink
so, the first thing i wanna do is to restate my take on gender and biology from that previous thread, as i'd like to know what others think:
gender's odd. it's clearly a cultural construct, both in a hazy, general sense that exists outside any specific individual and in the various ways we all individually (re)construct & perceive it. but that's not all it is. unlike "race", there's a substantial biological component to gender, at least to the extent that sex and gender are related. of course, we can only understand what "biological gender" might mean at several levels of remove, as filtered through a thicket of complex inherited constructions from which we can't even sensibly hope to extricate our perspectives.
speaking personally and not necessarily scientifically, it seems to me that biological gender probably does in certain respects "drive" human behavior and that these drivings do sometimes correspond at least partially with the dubious cultural constructs we've inherited. men, for example, seem in general to be more openly and aggressively violent than women, to the extent that male violence is a serious problem the world over. the fact that male violence has been a problem in every society and historic epoch i know of suggests to me that it probably has at least some basis in human biology.
with that in mind, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that the relationship between testosterone and male competition might have something to do with this, as competition often expresses itself in aggression, and aggression in turn in violence. this is not to say that men are intractably violent, of course, or that women can't be violent themselves...
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:57 (five years ago) Permalink
Oh and if you're going to trot out the tired old "feminists be making men all suspect bcuz they'd like them to acknowledge privilege" wow you are really taking the retro thing a bit far there.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:58 (five years ago) Permalink
Just from the PW review of that book, ryan, I will certainly not be reading it.
In their analysis, patriotism breeds aggression, yet, from an evolutionary standpoint, they reject the presumed inevitability of male violence and male dominance over women.
How enlightened and helpful of them. I'm so glad they took that first step toward actually doing something about a culture of rape and violence--they rejected its inevitability!
― one little aioli (Laurel), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 20:59 (five years ago) Permalink
ah. well i read it a long time ago and it popped into my head on the "gender/biology" question. im not intending to defend it. not helpful bringing it up here, i guess.
― ryan, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 21:03 (five years ago) Permalink
That "differently framed space" crack was pretty dumb, you have to admit. I think the initial post was judgier than it had to be under the circumstances. But I'm interested to see what's discussed here, because this kind of reading material is stuff I'm prob never going to tackle on my own!
― one little aioli (Laurel), Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:39 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Wednesday, February 15, 2012 12:40 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark
okay, that's fair. guilty as charged. i was feeling a bit shut out in that last thread (and perhaps prickly in response) and i got the feeling that at least a few others were on the same page. could have been a bit more politic about it itt, though.
anyway, i don't in any way mean to frame this thread as "not feminist". my hope was that it would feel like a free and open space to all, including WCC & laurel & anyone else.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 February 2012 21:03 (five years ago) Permalink
I guess the main thing that tells me is that generally I was in my own little world when I was a kid and didn't pick up on a lot of pop culture or societal stuff that most other people just absorbed.
― kinder, Thursday, 23 February 2012 03:50 (five years ago) Permalink
This is really deeply part of the problem, that yeah, trying to get the ideas in books like Delusions of Gender into discourse is like pulling teeth - while I bet that if you tried to get a copy of, say, Women Are From Pluto, Men Are From Outer Space, you would find half a dozen copies in circulation. People are really deeply attached to these stereotypes.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Thursday, 23 February 2012 08:38 (five years ago) Permalink
holding on to stereotypes of your own gender/sexuality seems almost like a comfort blanket for some people. it probably smooths certain situations. that, more than anything else, might be the biggest barrier to breaking down those stereotypes.
i had good friends in school who were female and physics/maths-leaning - including the girl widely acknowledged to be top of the year in all those subjects - i don't recall her feeling that being a girl was a barrier in any way. (but then we had a good proportion of female maths/science teachers, including the head of maths who was one of the most brilliant teachers i encountered, and did a lot to coax me through my own maths fear) (and also i genuinely don't recall any sort of pink-princess-girly-girly culture when i was growing up?!). i mean, there are so many environmental factors to consider as well - type of school, location blah blah blah.
also the type of student you are? if you're a straight-As pupil, male or female, you're going to develop an innate assumption that you should be good at every subject even if you don't have a feel for it (like, i stayed in the maths top set throughout school without ever really understanding any of it). if you're a middling student you might feel that your lack of feel for a subject might be down to gender?
hmmm i also just remembered that while many of the maths/science-leaning boys in our school went on to jobs in engineering, that girl i mentioned never did go into academia like she wanted, and is a school teacher now, and i'm not sure she's entirely happy with the way things turned out :/
― lex pretend, Thursday, 23 February 2012 08:58 (five years ago) Permalink
btw i am enjoying zora's posts but haven't yet been able to take them in *and* formulate a worthwhile response
― lex pretend, Thursday, 23 February 2012 09:00 (five years ago) Permalink
There honestly wasn't as much pink-princess-girly-girly culture when I was growing up. I know I'm about 10 years older than you, Lex, but I was very much a product of a 70s childhood when my mother's generation were coming from their consciousness raising groups and NOW meetings and actively trying to dismantle gender stereotypes in their own lives, as well as the lives of their kids. I think, on the whole, this was a good thing.
But also, on another level, childhood just hadn't been commercialised in the same way it has now. That there was one set of toys, everyone wore each others' handmedowns and that was that. And now toy companies realise that they can make twice as much money by selling a blue version and a slightly shitter pink version of the same toy, and so this stuff gets actively promoted.
It was one of the things that I noted in those books, that round about the age that kids start to notice that they Has A Gender, they become interested (usually, not always) in figuring out what it is, what it means, and how to (for lack of a better word) perform it. You can nudge kids into accepting gender roles, you can nudge them into wider ideas about gender. Apparently, one of the influential factors in developing ideas about gender is actually whether one has a closely aged sibling of a different gender. (That girls with a brother and boys with a sister tended to be more relaxed about gender roles.)
But yes, individual circumstances certainly play a role - and we're talking about averages, not absolutes here. "An average of 15% drop" can mean that some girls won't drop at all, and some girls will drop by as much as 30%. These things aren't that useful on an individual level because individuals in populations vary, that's what they do.
That yes, I had a protective influence because I had parents that said "your one grandmother was a mathematician, your other was a scientist, one of your great aunts was a code breaker at Bletchley Park, it would be very surprising (and you would bring shame on our family) if you turned out not to be good at maths" and lo and behold, I, too, do if for a living. But that does not mean that the stereotypes don't exist and aren't powerful to people who did not have situational factors like that.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Thursday, 23 February 2012 09:12 (five years ago) Permalink
Yeah, I for one always wanted Merzbow's Music for Bondage Performance type stuff unpacked; and never trusted Whitehouse (hated the little I heard of their music anyway)...thing is no one seemed to bother to question, it just had this polarising effect (and w/music like that y'know..)see, I think EV's defense of Whitehouse is OTM. There's a sense of humor/irony behind their aesthetic that seems pretty blatant to me compared to some newer noise musicians who flirt with the same imagery & are a lot more serious about it.― Big Mr. Guess U.S.A. Champion (crüt), Wednesday, 22 February 2012 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
see, I think EV's defense of Whitehouse is OTM. There's a sense of humor/irony behind their aesthetic that seems pretty blatant to me compared to some newer noise musicians who flirt with the same imagery & are a lot more serious about it.
― Big Mr. Guess U.S.A. Champion (crüt), Wednesday, 22 February 2012 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Can you give me an example of this, btw? At the time I just thought it was a blatant apolitical free for all. Granted, all a very fine line which could get misinterpreted by idiots down the line but if you give 'em rope..
― xyzzzz__, Thursday, 23 February 2012 12:06 (five years ago) Permalink
I don't want to derail anybody's discussions, but this seemed like the appropriate thread for this - a great post at Jezebel about gendered marketing of LEGO products, and what happens when you switch the audio on the commercials.
― A Full Torgo Apparition (Phil D.), Thursday, 23 February 2012 15:47 (five years ago) Permalink
my own personal experience with gender/sci: both parents are highly educated with tons of graduate degrees, working in sci or health. my older sis ended up collecting master's degrees in the sciences. i was expected to excel in sci/math and i did, although i still had enormous anxiety about it. i tested better in sci/math than humanities when i did any sort of standardized testing. but my biggest class problems were always in sci and math. my honors chem teacher in HS used to say that i was really smart but i got in my own way.
i was never consciously aware of any discouragement or implication that i might not be great at sci/math--but it freaked me the fuck out. and i believe that it was partially due to gender bs that i absorbed, although i tried to reject it. (wearing men's clothes, etc)
― JuliaA, Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:18 (five years ago) Permalink
I had a young cousin once that posted on facebook that she did well on a math test once and it scared her.
― Jeff, Thursday, 23 February 2012 16:20 (five years ago) Permalink
been thinking abt gender and expectations of academic performance...
it seems to me that we've seen, over the last few decades, the emergence of new stereotypes regarding gender and things like general intelligence and ability in math/science. in characters like hermione granger and lisa simpson, we see a girl who easily excels her male peers in these areas, but who is comparatively straightlaced and "uptight". the "nerdy girl" is smart and academically accomplished but socially unskilled and often unhappy/dissatisfied. she is a stickler for rules and order, and is often seen as "annoying" by those around her, adults and children alike. she's basically a modern version of "bossy" and/or "goody-goody" midcentury female comic strip characters like lucy (peanuts) and margaret (dennis the menace), but much more sympathetic and clearly "bright".
the emergence of the nerdy girl runs parallel to a much remarked-on shift in american sitcom family dynamics, where adult male husband/father characters over the same few decades have become increasingly childlike, foolish and irresponsible, exaggerating in their television wives the same "straightlaced" and "uptight" rule-enforcing and behavior monitoring characteristics we see in characters like hermione and lisa. the sitcom wife is not typically (ever?) pictured as truly brilliant, especially not when it comes to things like math and science, but she is often, clearly, a good deal more sensibly intelligent than her husband.
in certain respects, the stereotype of the "less smart woman" is perhaps beginning to be traded out for "smarter, but less fun".
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Friday, 24 February 2012 15:51 (five years ago) Permalink
i think we've also seen the emergence of an adult version of the nerdy girl character in stereotypical portrayals of the "corporate woman", a character who is typically portrayed as occupying a management position. she is extremely capable, but also rather ruthless and even cruel, a sort of evil twin to the "good" sitcom wife.
a lot of this stuff seems to reflect changing power dynamics in american society, and anxieties about the same.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Friday, 24 February 2012 16:17 (five years ago) Permalink
This trope is at least as old as Jane Austen. It exists, but it's hardly a new development.
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Friday, 24 February 2012 17:35 (five years ago) Permalink
yeah, what i was going to say. thinking young maggie tulliver in mill on the floss
― horseshoe, Friday, 24 February 2012 17:36 (five years ago) Permalink
yeah, i'm not saying that any of this is newly invented (it's not, obviously), but these sorts of images do seem to have gained a fair amount of cultural prominence in the last few decades. in the states, anyway.
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Friday, 24 February 2012 17:39 (five years ago) Permalink
Well actually it was one of the principle objections to female education down through the ages! That educating women to use their minds will make them un-womanly and possibly sterile! This was a classic Georgian to Victorian complaint (I bet you could probably find it as far back as the Classical period.)
― White Chocolate Cheesecake, Friday, 24 February 2012 17:41 (five years ago) Permalink
yeah, but hermione, for instance, isn't exactly "unwomanly", and lisa clearly vaccilates on that point (probably depending on who's writing the jokes). in these characters and the contemporary sitcom mom/wife, intelligence is, to some extent, positively associated with femininity.
again, not entirely new ("sensible" sitcom wives and "smart, prissy" young girls go back quite a ways), but i see a greater and more positive emphasis on such characters than in the recent past. more thinking aloud than making an argument...
― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Friday, 24 February 2012 17:49 (five years ago) Permalink
and then there's everyone's favorite manic pixie dreamgirl!
― sarahell, Friday, 24 February 2012 17:55 (five years ago) Permalink
I need to get back on track with my chapter précis, and then come back and demolish this fucker.
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Thursday, 15 March 2012 17:44 (five years ago) Permalink
It is very interesting and stuffed with proper citations.
― k3vin k., Tuesday, 7 August 2012 01:07 (four years ago) Permalink
― undermikey: bidness (Autumn Almanac), Tuesday, 7 August 2012 01:13 (four years ago) Permalink
I want to add additional gender options to a form that parents fill in about both themselves and their children. I'm not sure about the best wording.
A colleague who wants to write 'other' and have people write in what they want, but that is 1. not practical for data collation reasons - we need to automatize that - and 2. sounds dismissive to me. Is it? In any case I suspect she is not suggesting this from a place of inclusivity, but I can't be sure.
I suggested adding 'transgender' to the existing 'Male' and 'Female'. Would having just those three options be appropriate? Are there more that should be included? Re the children, another colleague suggested adding 'intersex' but I think parents of intersex children would tick the box corresponding to their child's presenting gender.
― ljubljana, Friday, 4 April 2014 11:46 (three years ago) Permalink
Please avoid "Other" at all costs. It's literally Othering as all hell.
The problem with suggesting "transgender" as a gender is that: 1) it erases the difference of M to F and F to M because "transgender" singular is not really the identity, "trans man" and "trans woman" are the identities. and 2) it disregards non-binary genders and 3) specifying out, if you are going to use "trans" you should really use "cis" as well, but that gets into the bad kettle of fish of forcing people to out themselves. There is considerable debate as to what you should call a third gender option. Personally, I like "non-binary" because there are differences between people who identify as "genderqueer" (both) or "agender" (neither) or something else entirely. Most people agree a third or maybe even fourth option is necessary, but there is disagreement on what it should be.
What is more important is how you phrase the question. The problem is, that the most inclusive language you can use "what gender do you identify as?" or "what gender do you present as?" are the questions which will most confuse cis people (also, ending questions with "as" = grammatically clumsy). I'm sure there are resources out there about good ways of phrasing this question, and a third option in an open and inclusive way that doesn't make cis ppl too upset? I will look for some.
Sorry, this is not a good answer, but basically, I'm mostly aware of what options to avoid, rather than what options are preferred.
― Branwell Bell, Friday, 4 April 2014 12:14 (three years ago) Permalink
Sorry for multiple posts, but this just occurred to me... the other consideration is, indeed, why are you asking the question? Because there are circumstances under which you are not looking for the person's gender, you are looking for their sex - very specific circumstances, usually involving medical treatment. In which case, M, F, Intersex would be preferred (and possibly some trans options). If you are just asking about gender, consider why you need to know gender at all.
― Branwell Bell, Friday, 4 April 2014 13:13 (three years ago) Permalink
the other consideration is, indeed, why are you asking the question?
^ not saying this has relevance to ljubljana's situation but lots of places collect info without thinking, I've tried to phase it out of records at previous employers
― ogmor, Friday, 4 April 2014 14:36 (three years ago) Permalink
Thanks, BB, that's extremely helpful. I really like the possibility of having a 'non-binary' option.
Currently there is no question as such - just 'Gender' and a list. I'll give that some thought.
Ogmor, you're right, we always need to keep an eye on whether we really going to use the data. I'd rather not say too much on here about the actual studies, but we're interested in parents' gender because of an interest in how that might correlate with the ways they do specific activities with their children. We're interested in children's gender both for that reason, and because there are established (but small) developmental differences in language and other cognitive development.
― ljubljana, Friday, 4 April 2014 15:06 (three years ago) Permalink
OK, that is a perfectly valid and reasonable reason to be interested in gender. (It's the "what gender should we ~market~ to you as" questions that really irritate me.)
Maybe use "non-binary" with some examples ("e.g. agender, genderqueer, genderfluid, bigender") so that cis people don't get too confused? It's too bad you can't use a freetext for gender, but I understand that would make data collection an absolute nightmare.
― Branwell Bell, Friday, 4 April 2014 15:15 (three years ago) Permalink
Why do you keep assuming cis ppl're going to be confused
― sonic thedgehod (albvivertine), Friday, 4 April 2014 15:22 (three years ago) Permalink
can you just put a blank space for people to write in whatever they want?
― coops all on coops tbh (crüt), Friday, 4 April 2014 15:31 (three years ago) Permalink
Our first "NOT AAALLLL CIS PEOPLE!!!!" comment. Yay!
― Branwell Bell, Friday, 4 April 2014 15:33 (three years ago) Permalink
― sonic thedgehod (albvivertine), Friday, 4 April 2014 15:37 (three years ago) Permalink
Omg, my co- worker who did not even bother coming to the meeting about re-doing the questions is fighting me on this and directing me to census categories. I suspect religious grounds are behind that. Nnnnnggggg. 20 emails and counting.
Crut - that would be great but would cause us probs with auto-categorizing the data.
― ljubljana, Friday, 4 April 2014 16:08 (three years ago) Permalink
Everyone agreed yesterday to change the question, bar the co-worker who skipped the meeting. We just needed to sort out wording. Today no-one except me is responding to her emails saying we mustn't add any other options. Her reasons: (bear in mind we are asking parents as well as children about their gender):
Again, I think g3ender should be m@le/fem@le. If there is a consensus to have third option, which I d0n't think there is, then the third opti0n should just be blank. I don't think w3 are in a position to get into terminology that is p0tentially confus1ng (children aren't usually transg3nd3r and p@rents don't necessarily choose a different g3nder for young childr3n). It becomes too pol1tical as well.
I responded to that by saying I disagree but would go along with the results of a vote, so please let's have show of hands. No-one responded, and the person trying to get the new questionnaire together has now asked our supervisor to decide. I think I know which way it'll go, unfortunately. I could still be wrong.
― ljubljana, Friday, 4 April 2014 21:31 (three years ago) Permalink