gender

I enjoy football (American) when I am watching it with friends who know more than me – that is most of my friends - and add the value of a soundtrack or emotional pulse and interactivity. fwiw, my mom and aunt are the football fans in my family - my dad could give a rat's ass for any game except competitive ice skating (?).

You know what makes me really angry and could probably either fit somewhere in here or in the IA thread - fan gear made for women that is all pink and rhinestoned and ridiculous. I hate it to the point where if I see some girl/woman wearing that sort of thing I will automatically assume I'd hate her. I realize that isn't necessarily true but the mere existence of that stuff bothers the hell out of me let alone the people that actually by it.

the Patriots / Susan G. Koman stuff is espesh egregious

I am somewhat tired of ppl who say something about a pink shirt. A simple nice shirt/tie combo would be sufficient, if you have to say something, but 'brave', 'gay, wink, wink' and 'in touch w/my feminine side' are perfectly ludicrous.

communal experiences enhance stuff i already like but if it's something i don't enjoy on some level already, i'm either gonna be left cold or just be annoyed if i have to endure it with other people. football is a very good example of that

It's so patronizing to 'feminize' sports gear as if a fan wouldn't wear the normal color scheme. Come to think of it, I know lots of normal American women who wear Am fb shirts on Sundays.

It's incredibly patronizing. I work right by Fenway Park so see a lot of basball fans during the season and (I mean I guess this is why they make it) but lots of women love that stuff! It's amazing to me how much of it is sold/worn. I HATE IT. /rant

If there's anything that cheapens, it's friggin rhinestones.

"I like shiny things!"

somebody's not getting a vajazzler for x-mas

Where is zora to haul us back around by the head to an actual gender discussion? I want to know more about that book.

I am somewhat tired of ppl who say something about a pink shirt. A simple nice shirt/tie combo would be sufficient, if you have to say something, but 'brave', 'gay, wink, wink' and 'in touch w/my feminine side' are perfectly ludicrous.

― le ralliement du doute et de l'erreur (Michael White), Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:45 AM (28 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

How about 'fratty fratty bo-batty'?

I'm just starting to wind down my day at the office. I'll try and make myself post something before I run for the car.

those aren't rhinestones, michael, they're swarovski crystals.

Zora's thoughts on Delusions of Gender (Cordelia Fine, 2010)

1. The Introduction

This is the 'why I wrote this book' story and hurrah! Fine was obviously as furious about Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus as I was, and SHE actually got off her arse and wrote the riposte I only dreamed of writing.

She starts off by quoting a lot of deterministic accounts of the male-brain female-brain dichotomy. Books like The Female Brain, Why Gender Matters, Leadership and the Sexes and What Could he Be Thinking? Quotes like this, from the first in the list:

Maneuvering like an F-15, Sarah's female brain is a high performance emotion machine - geared to tracking, moment by moment, the non-verbal signals of the innermost feelings of others.

The thrust of these texts, as we probably know or could guess, is that women are hard-wired to be good at one set of things and men at another. Although Simon Baren-Cohen, when talking about 'male' and female' brains doesn't say that only men can own male brains, he has nevertheless chosen to use these words as labels for two distinct types of brain that humans can possess. Female ones, good at empathy. Male ones, good at 'understanding and building systems'.

Having read on a bit, though, I think the key reference in terms of the way Fine builds her themes, is this, from 19th century cleric Thomas Gisborne (I have elided the quotes here and the underscores are me summarising Fine, where you'd usually use square brackets but the bbcode won't let me):

The science of legislation, of jurisprudence, of political economy; the conduct of government... the abstruse researches of erudition... the knowledge indispensable in the wide field of commercial enterprise... these, and other studies, pursuits, and occupations, assigned chiefly or entirely to men, demand the efforts of a mind endued with the powers of close and comprehensive reasoning, and of intense and continued application.

_These qualities should be imparted_ to the female mind with a more sparing hand, _because women have less need of such talents in the discharge of their duties... When it comes to performance in the feminine sphere,_ the superiority of the female mind is unrivalled, _enjoying_ powers adapted to unbend the brow of the learned, to refresh the over-laboured faculties of the wise, and to diffuse, throughout the family circle, the enlivening and endearing smile of cheerfulness.

Fine then says, "What awfully good luck that these womanly qualities should coincide so happily with the duties of the female sex."

She's dry; I like her.

Fine then whizzes us through the history of the search for sex differences in the brain, including all that hilar stuff about calipers and scales. Finally, she starts to unpack what she intends to do in the book, which hinges on the idea that our minds, our sense of ourselves, our behaviour and the whole shebang are indeed physical but are not discrete or stable. She says:

...we can't understand gender differences in female and male minds -the minds that are the source of our thoughts, feelings, abilities, motivations and behaviour - without understanding how psychologically permeable is the skull that separates the mind from the sociocultural context in which is operates.

She's talking about self-fulfilling prophecies. Tell people that men are good at systems thinking and women are good at being cheerful & smoothing the menz' furrowed brows, and both women and men will not only believe it (often against their conscious beliefs and best efforts) but will actually become better at those things. And it's not only a cumulative effect that leaves you with a certain set of propensities that are relatively stable, it's dynamic and surprisingly immediate.

Best of all, she does a pretty good job -based on what I've seen in the first chapter-and-a-half - of backing these assertions up with scientific citations. She also seems to have a good grip on what makes good science vs. bad science.

It's bound to be selective, nobody could reflect *all* the work that's been done in the field, but at the moment... I'm inclined to trust her. I would like to be challenged to defend my trust, because it feels too easy; my gut feeling back in 1991 when my uni profs (mostly male) were crowing about 'proven, meaningful' sex-differences in brain function, was that this couldn't possibly be the way the world worked, it went against everything I held dear. I also know that people find it very hard to accept opposing viewpoints no matter how strong the evidence or argument is, and very easy to accept supporting viewpoints even when the evidence or argument is weak.

Anyway, enjoying it v. much. thoughts on chapter 1 later.

that sounds great! and is an excellent summary; thank you!

I am glad you are getting something good out of that book. When I first read it, I wanted to buy a copy for everyone I knew. So clearly written, concise, so properly researched and well-cited - the first place I saw it reviewed was the New Scientist so it holds up under examination.

She talks about self fulfilling prophecies, but she backs it up with loads of studies about e.g. Stereotype Threat, talks about how the control groups were run (and how things like Baron-Cohen fell down on lack of double blind / control group) Obviously you can't have control groups of non-gendered children, but accounting for observer bias is always critical.

Anyway I'll melt away again so no one gets ~put off~ by my presence but I cannot recommend that book (and the developmental science counterpart, Pink Brain Blue Brain) if you are interested in gender and science.

Also you can see the difference between the prose Z quotes and Judith Butler and why I'd rather read the former?

I know what you mean about *wanting* to believe books you agree with, though. When I first read Demonic Males, it felt so truthy, I really wanted to believe its premise - it took some overcoming of mental resistance to accept that it wasn't as straightforward as the author posited (the group of chimps they studied were in a precarious environment, in danger, and being provided with most of their limited food by researchers, while the bonobos were in a much more stable environment - it would be analogous to comparing the behavior of humans in a famine-torn warzone to those in prosperous farmland, and comparing which group of humans were "naturally" violent. Not that we can't learn a lot from primate studies when conducted properly, but there were lots of unaddressed concerns in that book. So that taught me to not believe research just because you *want* to.

re: pink stuff. i'm a guys, so i'll try to tread lightly here, but...

It's incredibly patronizing. I work right by Fenway Park so see a lot of basball fans during the season and (I mean I guess this is why they make it) but lots of women love that stuff! It's amazing to me how much of it is sold/worn. I HATE IT. /rant

― wolf kabob (ENBB), Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:03 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

isn't one of the signals sent by pink/blingy lady fan stuff that "feminine" coded dress & behavior are acceptable in a traditionally male-defined space? i mean, it's not like most "normal" sports gear doesn't very clearly code as "guy stuff". it very strongly does. is it better to implicitly demand that women dress and behave like guys when they're in male space, or to accept that they might want "girly" versions of the costume? i don't think there's a clear answer.

the pink shiny crap seems insulting when we assume that it represents an externally imposed and demeaning expectation or costume, but we could also view it as an assertion of pride in the feminine (however we unpack that word). it's all but impossible to shorthand a group identity without recourse to familiar, shared symbols. i don't really know what i'm trying to say here, except that this shit is really, really complicated, and there doesn't seem to be any clear way to "get it right".

P.S. sorry for "girls" above. i was trying to oppose it w "guys", but if i'd thought it through, i would have chosen my words a bit more carefully.

i think it's more that the pink stuff is...not the team colors so it's weirdly setting female fanhood in a space apart.

Yes, exactly. I got a Pats shirt recently that I'm pretty sure is a women's shirt insofar as that it's cut and sized to be for women but it's red and white and the design is the same as ones on some of the mens' shirts. That's not at all the same as the pink stuff imo.

red and blue - not white

i think it's more that the pink stuff is...not the team colors so it's weirdly setting female fanhood in a space apart.

― horseshoe, Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:58 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

ok, yeah, that makes sense. it's hard to sort out, though, cuz "normal" sports gear is so strongly coded as masculine. it's not just that we think of it as that, but that it bases itself on other masculine coded stuff, and exerts a profound influence on masculine culture as a whole.

do all teams have these? That just seems really weird to me, like, a team's colors are an integral part of their brand, part of their identity, it's almost like it's a different team. I dunno, I just remember being 11 years old and thinking i was so cool for owning a silver & black Raiders hoodie. And now that I live in Oakland, I don't think I've ever seen any femme-y colored Raiders gear.

the idea of wearing pink raiders' gear is particularly tragic. but yeah, pink gear definitely exists for all of the nfl franchises afaik

http://tradebenefit.com/pic/NFL-Oakland-Raiders--2320-McFadden-Pink-Women-Jersey-7316.jpg

was just going to link that which, btw, is called the: 2010 Women's Zebra Field Flirt Fashion Jersey

how you going to mess with the baddest-looking uniforms in the league like that

2010 Women's Zebra Field Flirt Fashion Jersey

― wolf kabob (ENBB), Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:09 PM (19 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lololol

whoa! Have never seen anyone on the street sporting anything like that! Maybe it's a bedroom item?

I bet if you went to a game you would.

i feel like that shit must just not sell to raiders fans. the whole point of being a raiders fan is looking cool y/n?

that's a good question for Veg. Grrl iirc?

I don't know anything about the Raiders so HS may be right but I still you might spot some in the stadium.

i did totally crush on Jim Plunkett when I was 11, so weird.

plus there's a whole line of team-colored tight bedazzled UGHHHH boobalicious tshirts for Raider chicks...I have had the hardest time finding team stuff that I like

but this is kind of a mega derail from
z's observations so...

The workers at my local grocery store are allowed to wear jerseys on game days, and since we have purple down here, the pink and purple mix felt kinda advent-y to me.

no i'm sure you would, i'm just saying if you don't want to be part of the sea of silver and black i would like to sic the ghost of al davis on you

xxp to E

oh sorry I forgot we're not allowed thread derails on ILX

i feel like that shit must just not sell to raiders fans. the whole point of being a raiders fan is looking cool y/n?

― horseshoe, Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:10 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you and i, i think, have different definitions of the word "cool"

I'd go for boobalicious and team-colored though. It's the pink stuff, that's like, wtf?

the whole point of being a raiders fan is looking cool y/n?

― horseshoe, Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:10 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

sure, but "looking cool" is masculine coded, almost without exception. in that sense, pink raiders shit seems kind of awesome.

it's only masculine coded in the sense of the dominance of the "male gaze" - there are male and female coded versions of "looking cool"

you and i, i think, have different definitions of the word "cool"

― max, Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:13 PM (28 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

haha cool in a mad max-y apocalyptic crazy future pirate way

contenderizer i recognize what you're talking about. i don't have contempt for pink in general. (i have a pink puffy winter coat! it's v kelly kapoor.) i think it's hard to argue against the patronizing nature of pink fan gear marketed to women, though.

but yeah, Raiders fan wear for women looks like it plays to a bad stereotype but the amount of women I see wearing that stuff to games, it's a very weird chicken/egg situation imo

(I didnt want to get in trouble for raider-talk, I was just trying to cover my ass re derail comment, lol)

re: the shirt

you could call it a feminine violation of cool/tough/dudely raiders-ness just as easily as an ostraciziation of women from the team. but yeah, i get horseshoe's point.

like, it just is weird. the whole point of sports fandom is an irrational feeling that you represent the team/are being represented by the team. if you're wearing a pink jersey you're just representing a very rigid notion of femininity?

Veg, are the women wearing the pink shirts, or just blingee silver & black boob-accentuating stuff?

xp I think the subtext is that they assume you don't care about the team.

totes