Subject: (no subject)
From: anne (supaflu@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Sep 15 1999 - 17:02:09 CDT
ok, you say it in a better way chrissy but i still question. if we define
gender by genitals has been percieved as both at sometime, but if we define
gender as a representation that constructs a relationship between to
entities, than why pitch del in the female or male 'kind', putting down his
own 'kind'. i don't think it's him to do to put down any kind, it's to do
to stop thinking in a binary structure that put man opposed to women. if
gender constructs our relationships with people it's not about kinds
anymore. ok, i can see he generalized, but we shouldn't answer one
generalization with another. i'm still kind of amazed lindsey why you
didn't say anything. i think female characteristics have more to do with
those behaviours you might need to pass as a women, to me argumentive
behaviour could be one of those. generalizations are never personal
chrissy, it's not to put you or anybody in person in a kind either, there
lot's of ways to be, it's fluent, so we should try to find a way to talk
about gender without using these binaries that don't define well.
david wrote:
In my opinion, Del spread out much but clarified little. I could "see"
(meaning "observe?") her "pansexuality" just fine. I couldn't understand it,
though, and that's what I felt compelled to do because of the fact that she
spoke to us in an academic environment.
what do you mean? why didn't you ask? and why do you call him she?
anne
>Anne,
I don't think Lindsey’s point is necessarily because she feels uneasy around
Del because of who he is. I think that she is trying to say that it's kinda
odd that if any alpha male would have said that about a women, we would be
all over him and would have been quite offended...at least i know i would
have. However, because Del used to be a female, it was hard to know how to
feel because in a way he was talking about his own gender...or something
like that. And most people don't make it a tendency to put down their own
"kind" so to speak... So why does he have special permission to make
assumptions and generalizations about either gender? I think it is a lot of
these types of generalizations and stereotypes that are keeping the genders
into such separate categories, which I don’t particularly like because
although I am female, i fit very few of the characteristics. I don't think I
or anyone for that matter should have to be thrown into the huge lump of
the "female characteristics" and have to be seen or treated a certain way
because of it.
Just my opinion...
----chrissy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu Sep 16 1999 - 23:04:43 CDT