Basically the Title. This somewhat interesting article is particularly focused on children for whatever reason. I found this on r/MensLib, perhaps unsurprisingly. This part about companies...
Basically the Title. This somewhat interesting article is particularly focused on children for whatever reason. I found this on r/MensLib, perhaps unsurprisingly.
For his birthday this year, my 5-year-old son asked for a My Little Pony sweatshirt. He didn't know that it was categorized as girls' clothing, only that, like his beloved Rainbow Dash, it was polychromatic, glittery, winged and perfect.
The hardest part of this conversation will be what, inevitably, will follow. He, a scrupulous monitor of fairness in matters large and small, will ask whether there are also things people think girls shouldn't wear. I, remorsefully, will have to tell him "no."
Today, there's not a single traditionally masculine thing a girl can do that would raise eyebrows. Join a sports team? Over half of them do it. Play with toy guns? Nerf makes a line just for them. Cut their hair short? Celebrities Katy Perry, Janelle Monae and Scarlett Johansson all have locks that measure under half a foot. Interested in STEM? On trend. Pretend they are superheroes? Last year's "Wonder Woman" is one of the highest-grossing superhero movies of all time.
Meanwhile, there's still not a single traditionally feminine thing a boy can do that wouldn't raise eyebrows. A boy who likes wearing jewelry or makeup, twirling in a tutu or caring for baby dolls is at best the subject of conversations conducted sotto voce. At worst: a bully's target.
This part about companies marketing stuff to women to pay lip service to their independence is somewhat exaggerated bit I think the general point stands.
Girls get to flip through books like "Strong is the New Pretty," but no publication is telling boys that typically feminine traits like caring for others or, yes, taking an interest in beauty (which is often tsked tsked in boys) is the new strong.
Girls have been told that they can do anything, be anything, and they largely can, without judgment. However -- and here's the catch -- that's true only if they are physically strong and career-oriented and eschew most of the traditional trappings of femininity. In short, they will gain respect if they act like boys.
"It's about mobility. Girls who act like boys are moving up the social ladder. Boys who are acting like anything but masculine are moving down and risk losing their status," Kimmel said.
Some people have said women bosses in the corporations they run often emulate many/most traits associated to toxic masculinity, which makes sense and ties in to social justice framework.
The answer is as simple as it is depressing: Girls are less desirable, so a girl acting masculine is "bettering" herself, while a boy acting feminine is "lowering" himself.
The answer is as simple as it is depressing: Girls are less desirable, so a girl acting masculine is "bettering" herself, while a boy acting feminine is "lowering" himself.
Or, good ol' sexism in different clothes. The stubborn lie that what is 'female' is inferior or merely good in service of what is 'male,' the vaulted superior. Which is an ongoing frustration, yah.
Or, good ol' sexism in different clothes. The stubborn lie that what is 'female' is inferior or merely good in service of what is 'male,' the vaulted superior.
Which is an ongoing frustration, yah.
I'll tell you why: Cause it's a big problem for parents. I haven't read the article yet, but I've noticed it's ok, and even encouraged (even among progressives) for girls to like "boy" things like...
This somewhat interesting article is particularly focused on children for whatever reason
I'll tell you why: Cause it's a big problem for parents.
I haven't read the article yet, but I've noticed it's ok, and even encouraged (even among progressives) for girls to like "boy" things like trucks, blue, and pants. But the reverse is not exactly true for boys.
I have noticed something strange in generally more-progressive circles. A boy would be supported for doing feminine interests, but a girl would not. As if female-femininity is bad while male-femininity is good. An inverse of the article, but strange and worrying in its own right.
It's like we've hit a point in certain circles where "heteronormativity" is considered...undesireable, I guess. I have overheard "I'm glad I don't have any cis white men as friends." Like there's a lot of effort spent on "Boys do Girl things" and "Girls do Boy things," but little effort discussed regarding dispelling the very notion of Girl/Boy Stuff. To the point I've heard some self-described gender-fluid folks describe their gender-mood purely within the confines of heteronormative stereotypes.
I'm honestly rambling a bit, but in short, raising children is hard. Trying to juggle the gendered culture, the trans-gender counter-culture, a desire to shed both entirely (because I think they feed each other) is damn near impossible.
In what way is the girl not supported? I think it's absolutely fair for to provide extra support for someone doing the very thing which society tells them not to do. A boy doing feminine things...
I have noticed something strange in generally more-progressive circles. A boy would be supported for doing feminine interests, but a girl would not. As if female-femininity is bad while male-femininity is good. An inverse of the article, but strange and worrying in its own right.
In what way is the girl not supported? I think it's absolutely fair for to provide extra support for someone doing the very thing which society tells them not to do. A boy doing feminine things needs support for the very reasons the author went into - they can face bullying by children and parents alike and are at a real threat for violence. A girl doing feminine things doesn't face the same potential discrimination and as long as the parents aren't discouraging this behavior, extra support doesn't seem necessary? Or is something else happening I don't understand?
I have overheard "I'm glad I don't have any CIS white men as friends."
What does this have to do with the article and why do you interpret this statement as 'heteronormativity is undesirable'?
little effort discussed regarding dispelling the very notion of Girl/Boy Stuff. To the point I've heard some self-described gender-fluid folks describe their gender-mood purely within the confines of heteronormative stereotypes.
I think you make a great point here - gender is a social construct. If we deconstruct gender at a social level, does it continue to exist? If so, how would it exist? As someone who doesn't understand gender in the first place, I'm not the person to be answering this, but I have heard of the idea of splitting gender into identity and expression to capture some of the nuances of how humans behave, but is identity merely a reflection of how someone wishes to be perceived and treated by society? If society treated everyone equally, can one even have a gender identity and if so what would it look like?
Similarly if we deconstruct heteronormativity, would gender still exist? I suspect it would as people tend to have some strong ideas about what is masculine or feminine that perhaps are more accurately described by personality traits. Perhaps gender would shift more into the space of personality typing if we remove the heteronormative aspects of gender interpretation.
I am talking about support in the context of encouragement and discouragement. I'll illustrate with a completely gender-neutral hypothetical: Swimming. What I'm describing is if a boy and girl...
I am talking about support in the context of encouragement and discouragement. I'll illustrate with a completely gender-neutral hypothetical: Swimming. What I'm describing is if a boy and girl wanted to learn to swim, the boy would get paid private swimming lessons, and the girl would get chucked in the water and said "ah you'll figure it out." One outcome is likely to lead to a successful swimmer, and the other not so much.
Support means showing interest in and helping fund and make time for their child's interest. Lack of support is equivalent to discouragement in the context of parenting. And I notice that opposing gender norms in these circles will get far more support than keeping with them, the same way my wife will get judged for choosing to be a homemaker. And I'm not saying this is common at all, but if this is the behavior seen in more progressive groups, it's no more healthy than the status quo discussed in the article.
Bullies gonna bully. I got bullied as a 4th grader for daring to have less-than-perfect vision. And having a dorky laugh. Or having giant zits on my face a few years later. If you're worried about violence, better learn to throw a punch.
What does this have to do with the article and why do you interpret this statement as 'heteronormativity is undesirable'?
Well, because it's just as exclusionary of a statement as "Ugh that trans kid is gross." I'm a (relatively) emotionally secure adult, so being dismissed didn't really bother me, but if I was a 12 yr old pre-teen trying to fit in? That kinda shit makes you hole up in your room and build resentment. Undesireable might not have been the right word (hence the "I guess"), but I can't think of a better one.
I think the bigger problem faced by society, moreso even than dissolving heteronormativity, is that femininity is still seen as lesser than masculinity. Hence why trans men are virtually invisible in the broader discussion. Or, as the article says, that boys can't do girl things.
Okay but how does this apply to pursuing feminine things as a boy or girl? Your example is about acquiring a skill and one sex receiving better funding, etc. to acquire said skill. Can you give an...
I am talking about support in the context of encouragement and discouragement.
Okay but how does this apply to pursuing feminine things as a boy or girl? Your example is about acquiring a skill and one sex receiving better funding, etc. to acquire said skill. Can you give an example which you've seen which relates to 'a boy would be supported for doing feminine interests, but a girl would not.'
Also with regards to your skill example, boys are still much more likely to get support from the community to learn and get better at sports. If you were to look at the prospects of an athletic girl twenty years ago you'd see even less support. Having parents financially support something which bucks the norm would actually be beneficial here and a force to help even the playing field so to speak. I'm not so sure this is a bad thing, but I'm still unsure what exactly you are talking about here.
because it's just as exclusionary of a statement as "Ugh that trans kid is gross."
Do you feel similarly about a black person complaining about white people and the analogous alternative, a white person complaining about black people? What if it were a group of women complaining about men or the reverse? I don't think it's fair for society to make a minority's life objectively worse, and then also tell them that they aren't allowed to publicly complain about it and that it's creating a hostile environment because of exclusionary statements. That seems quite unfair to individuals in the minority group.
I think the bigger problem faced by society, moreso even than dissolving heteronormativity, is that femininity is still seen as lesser than masculinity.
Absolutely - I believe that society was willing to let women into men's spaces, but the compromise was that they continued to devalue them in other ways. Sure, you can be a mechanic, but even if you dress like men, talk like men, show up to work indistinguishable from a man, we will find a way to keep you lesser by deriding the fact that you might wear makeup (which we will shame you into doing, if you dare show up without it on), have hobbies which other men do not, care about the needs of others, or any other number of traits we have decided are feminine and thus worth less. Or at least, that feels like one of the adjustments that some sexist people were able to make given the social push to change.
Hence why trans men are virtually invisible in the broader discussion. Or, as the article says, that boys can't do girl things.
They certainly don't face the same threats of violence, that's for sure. And you're right, I do believe that many trans men feel that they stepped up a rung in society by transitioning. I read a fantastic article some time ago about the experiences of trans men, and that was one universal theme among all of them.
However, I think there's more to it than just that. I think society often still treats trans men as women, and thus less important to history or appearing in narratives or stories, and this contributes to their erasure and absence from the public eye. I don't know how much this contributes, but I also know many trans men for whom a large part of their transitioning is a desire to be perceived less - they are tired of being catcalled, of being seen as an object to be acquired, etc. Finally, trans men are less common than trans women, and I would not be surprised if a decent amount of that is because there are many masculine women who are comfortable with themselves and how society treats them. Unfortunately we are not at a point yet where feminine men can be treated in a similar fashion outside of very niche places such as high profile artists.
This might seem arbitrary, but in the realm of kids play, which is what I'm most engaged in at the moment. A mom was debating buying her daughter a dollhouse after being asked for one, but was...
Can you give an example which you've seen which relates to 'a boy would be supported for doing feminine interests, but a girl would not.'
This might seem arbitrary, but in the realm of kids play, which is what I'm most engaged in at the moment. A mom was debating buying her daughter a dollhouse after being asked for one, but was extremely hesitant because she was afraid of instilling gender norms associated with doing so. When prompted with "Would you have any hesitance if it was your son asking?", the reply was quite illuminating: "Huh, I hadn't thought about it like that."
And that's what mean by the strange progressive space. Because it's the exact inverse of the status quo, and I think what I'm getting at is that inverting the status quo is not inherintly better. Particularily when discussing raising children who don't have positive/negative connotations with these things.
Do you feel similarly about a black person complaining about white people and the analogous alternative, a white person complaining about black people?
Yes, for all your examples. In part because the definition of minority/oppressed can change depending on your zip code.
I agree it's problematic, especially since so many pretend systemic discrimination doesn't exist. I don't have answers, and I'm pretty sure there's a Nobel Prize in it for anyone who does.
I will say that on occassion punching up does improve awareness, but that seems far rarer than people digging in and complaining more.
Gender will always exist. We can eliminate men and women, eliminate masculinity and femininity, make everyone equal, but it'll still pop back up because people love making labels. It simplifies...
If we deconstruct gender at a social level, does it continue to exist? If so, how would it exist? As someone who doesn't understand gender in the first place, I'm not the person to be answering this, but I have heard of the idea of splitting gender into identity and expression to capture some of the nuances of how humans behave, but is identity merely a reflection of how someone wishes to be perceived and treated by society? If society treated everyone equally, can one even have a gender identity and if so what would it look like?
Gender will always exist. We can eliminate men and women, eliminate masculinity and femininity, make everyone equal, but it'll still pop back up because people love making labels. It simplifies conversations by providing shorthands for certain characteristics, for better or worse. We might see more than two dominant labels pop up if we approached gender with a clean slate (and being trans carried no societal stigma) and gender would likely be defined along much different lines (see: the changing gendering of clothing and colors over the years), but we will always have gender in some form. And gender doesn't need concrete definitions, either - we can generally tease out the meaning, given a few examples.
This is anecdotal, but something written down in my baby book was that, when asked if I was a boy or a girl, I always responded "girl," and this continued for some time until I caved to the "corrections" others offered. I was (at most) three years old when this happened.
Back then, my understanding of gender was based on how I saw those around me and what I related to more. I knew my mom was a woman and my dad was a man because I was told they were, but I wasn't told the defining characteristics of men and women - it was left for me to infer. And, like many other kids, I figured out the difference, which allowed me to accurately identify what I was, even if it was at odds with what others believed.
All this to say that gender (and gender identity) is innate, but the words we used to describe it are very much a product of the culture we are brought up in, and given a different vocabulary, we may identify in ways radically different than we do now as we figure out the language which describes us.
I really believe that we’re close to ending gendered thinking in at least some circles. The world at large will continue to harm people that dare to do what they love, but at least there will be...
I really believe that we’re close to ending gendered thinking in at least some circles. The world at large will continue to harm people that dare to do what they love, but at least there will be some ungendered spaces in America and beyond.
I mean, a solid 1/3 or more of our current societal issues stem from blowback of the gains made in the 60s/70s/80s. We've made progeress yea, but the right has also neutered the voting rights act...
I mean, a solid 1/3 or more of our current societal issues stem from blowback of the gains made in the 60s/70s/80s.
We've made progeress yea, but the right has also neutered the voting rights act and is working on circumventing Roe v Wade so...
Not doubting you, but where do you live? That is so far from any IRL experience I've ever had, I always thought people just talked like that on the internet.
I have overheard "I'm glad I don't have any cis white men as friends."
Not doubting you, but where do you live? That is so far from any IRL experience I've ever had, I always thought people just talked like that on the internet.
Suburbs of Philadelphia. From a young college student. If a very large percentage of your time is spent interacting on the internet, is there any wonder that it bleeds over? The young...
Suburbs of Philadelphia. From a young college student.
If a very large percentage of your time is spent interacting on the internet, is there any wonder that it bleeds over?
The young millenial/old genz are the first to have internet-culture replacing a lot of the local culture of the past, for better or worse.
I see it in my own parenting. My wife and I both have childhood trauma in various fashions, so we're trying to overcompensate extremes (neglect for her, smothering for me), which causes us to butt...
I see it in my own parenting. My wife and I both have childhood trauma in various fashions, so we're trying to overcompensate extremes (neglect for her, smothering for me), which causes us to butt heads and talk about it, which I think we both benefit from, because even though we won't always pick correctly, we're less likely to hit an extreme.
I have no kids myself, but my mother was raised by my pre-silent generation grandparents. It was a deeply repressed childhood. As a consequence, my mother had an aversion to rules, and everything...
I have no kids myself, but my mother was raised by my pre-silent generation grandparents. It was a deeply repressed childhood. As a consequence, my mother had an aversion to rules, and everything associated with masculinity. As a very cis-kid, it was not fun growing up under her care.
Great point. I have the same challenge teyokg to define athiesm/agnosticism to religious types. "Yes, it concerns your believes insofar as it's absent of them. If telling you that my belief system...
Great point. I have the same challenge teyokg to define athiesm/agnosticism to religious types.
"Yes, it concerns your believes insofar as it's absent of them. If telling you that my belief system is that yours and anything like it doesn't exist, that's not me oppressing you. That's me expressing myself"
Concerning girls being told they can do anything, on the condition that they adopt "masculine" traits and don't display traditional feminity. There are many successful women around me. Each is, I...
Concerning girls being told they can do anything, on the condition that they adopt "masculine" traits and don't display traditional feminity.
There are many successful women around me. Each is, I would agree, career and/or goal oriented. I think that might just be a selector for success in general.
Each also has traditionally feminine traits, interests, and hobbies, although probably kept more to their private lives. There is definitely a seperation between work and personal lives, but I think that is not uncommon of successful people.
They often talk about empowerment and making sure girls grow up knowing they can be strong and independant; a very personal event for one woman was when her (extremely traditional IMO) mother marched to school and told the teachers her daughter could wear shorts if she wanted to, after she had been told to change and sent home.
So I think some of this "emulating men to be successful" thing is really just a product of a large generation of successful women who had to fight gender norms just to have agency over their own lives.
And maybe they have a tendency to see young girls eschewing some of the things they weren't permitted to do growing up not as a personal choice, but as still struggling under deeply entrenched gender ideas.
I do think it is bad, and there is a lot of room for improvement, but if I may be a little mean, I think a lot of this still stems from a "not like other girls" mentality. Most women I know used to or continue to think like this, IMO. Anyone who use to and is self aware knows how bad it can be :(
There's more to it than that, it's quite easy to show that women who display masculine traits in workplace settings are more likely to succeed. There's quite a bit of research which supports...
So I think some of this "emulating men to be successful" thing is really just a product of a large generation of successful women who had to fight gender norms just to have agency over their own lives.
There's more to it than that, it's quite easy to show that women who display masculine traits in workplace settings are more likely to succeed. There's quite a bit of research which supports gender expression, or rather certain traits which we tend to associate with masculinity in western cultures (such as competitiveness) being tied to a number of economic outcomes. I don't think it's so much 'fighting gender norms' as it is teaching their children how to be successful in a world which prioritizes men over women in a myriad of ways.
Also, ideas of masculinity in the west have long been tied to success, so I find it hard to look at the traits tied to success as being intrinsically masculine. I imagine masculinity could just as...
Also, ideas of masculinity in the west have long been tied to success, so I find it hard to look at the traits tied to success as being intrinsically masculine. I imagine masculinity could just as easily have self selected for success, just as some women have now, considering I know a few "house husbands".
Do entrenched social structures prioritize men? Yeah. But are the things that make men successful naturally masculine or was masculinity forced to fit what was successful?
Although I suppose I've put forward the idea that as success changes, masculinity is reconstructed or changed to continue to fit success (excepting cases where a society or culture's construct of...
Although I suppose I've put forward the idea that as success changes, masculinity is reconstructed or changed to continue to fit success (excepting cases where a society or culture's construct of masculinity doesn't match success, if that actually exists), it would be possible for society to alter success to fit the constructed masculinity, just like it tends to alter success to fit the successful, creating a bizzaro world feedback loop. But the principle is the same.
Considering the gendering of certain career fields as wages in them have risen and fallen over the years, I believe it is inevitable that masculinity will adapt to whatever is seen as successful...
Considering the gendering of certain career fields as wages in them have risen and fallen over the years, I believe it is inevitable that masculinity will adapt to whatever is seen as successful in a patriarchal society.
Part of my point is that being more career-oriented and capable of supporting themselves is an intrinsic part of their identity. I don't know if that is good, bad, or neutral, just my observation....
Part of my point is that being more career-oriented and capable of supporting themselves is an intrinsic part of their identity. I don't know if that is good, bad, or neutral, just my observation. If they hadn't worked their asses off they wouldn't have had the opportunities and agency they do, and it was important enough for them to do so.
So they definitely want girls to be successful like they were, and maybe that is by developing "masculine" traits, but they don't see it that way. Those traits are the fruits of their labor and evidence of their hard work starting from nothing.
I don't mean to suggest girls should have to develop like this to be successful. I just think the successful women I know see girls that don't have the traits they have and assume they aren't interested in being able to support themselves, and are content marrying and being housewives, and judge those girls for that. And as older women who have found success and want those girls to not be dependant on someone who might not have their best interests at heart, want to encourage them to develop in such a way that they will be successful perhaps because they "know better" with their experience, even though that is also a personal decision.
Maybe it is a consequence of trying to be successful in a world which prioritizes men, as you say. I think of it like LGBT rights, where early advancement used the idea that science would show it was natural and normal, in contrast to the prevailing criticism that it was a choice, and wrong. Now, we should also make sure everyone knows that even if it was a choice, it wouldn't be wrong.
Women have found success by emulating what makes men successful. Now we should make sure women can find success however they are. It's a gradual process and women who have already found success won't necessarily see anything wrong with how they did it. They are happy and confident and want that for every young girl, not realizing it might not be what the young girl wants.
Do you think this is exclusive to women? In my experience the idea of being career-oriented and capable of self support seems to be a societal thing, pushed on both men and women equally. I...
Part of my point is that being more career-oriented and capable of supporting themselves is an intrinsic part of their identity.
Do you think this is exclusive to women? In my experience the idea of being career-oriented and capable of self support seems to be a societal thing, pushed on both men and women equally. I believe its a consequence of the world we live in and capitalistic values being socially reinforced.
I just think the successful women I know see girls that don't have the traits they have and assume they aren't interested in being able to support themselves, and are content marrying and being housewives, and judge those girls for that.
I think I see this just as much as men doing the same towards men who pursue careers which don't make money such as arts, or who want to marry and become house husbands. I don't think it's fair to ascribe this purely to women, its a societal push towards careers in general and self sufficiency. I think the latter is important for everyone, but the former isn't necessarily a need or even a want of many.
Now, we should also make sure everyone knows that even if it was a choice, it wouldn't be wrong.
Absolutely, but I don't think society is really ready for some of the discussions that need to happen here. People often simply do not have the emotional intelligence to be able to imagine a world in which someone has a different set of desires than they do on a fundamental level. I think a great example of this are people who are homeless by choice; many people are unaware that there are people out there who do not want a career, or money and instead value something else. Another good example, perhaps a bit more accessible to most, are artists. Many artists know quite well that they are pursuing a career unlikely to make them significant wealth, but to them the happiness of pursuing what they like holds more primacy.
They are happy and confident and want that for every young girl, not realizing it might not be what the young girl wants.
I think the phrasing of this needs to be updated - I believe most people want to be happy and confident, the problem is that they are assuming that what makes them happy and confident will also apply to others. This assumption is the problem.
Haha my second comment I think brings us both very close in thinking. I think the sooner we get society to recognize LGBT rights as not being "wrong" in any way the better. I'm amazed at how much...
Haha my second comment I think brings us both very close in thinking.
I think the sooner we get society to recognize LGBT rights as not being "wrong" in any way the better. I'm amazed at how much it has gone from something to keep out of public eye, and stigmatized to put on display, to something that just is. So making sure everyone knows it is also okay is the next step.
I'm not sure I need to change my phrasing. Maybe they assume what makes them happy will make every young girl happy. Or maybe they just can't see that a young girl actually wants something else. There isn't a functional difference. It just seems like semantics to me, both seem reasonable ways to describe my experience.
Edit: the second paragraph was just about LGBT, although the original point was generalized, as you rightly applied it. I think the same thing applies; no reason not to promote understanding that people have different aspirations in life right now. Putting it off just delays making advancing the acceptance.
Edit: it isn't just capitalistic; societal ideas of success are pushed onto gender ideas in most cultures. Whatever the benchmark for success is, can be pushed.
Parents often want more than just happiness and confidence. Security in life, independence, safety, etc. Many of these can be linked back to their values but not necessarily pursuits for which the...
I'm not sure I need to change my phrasing. Maybe they assume what makes them happy will make every young girl happy. Or maybe they just can't see that a young girl actually wants something else. There isn't a functional difference. It just seems like semantics to me, both seem reasonable ways to describe my experience.
Parents often want more than just happiness and confidence. Security in life, independence, safety, etc. Many of these can be linked back to their values but not necessarily pursuits for which the child cares about or holds in the same regard. They may push for their child to be successful in the workplace because they believe that will bring them happiness, or because they want financial independence for their child. By phrasing it as happiness and confidence you are distilling down a complicated social issue too much and losing the nuance which is important because we are talking about a group of individuals for which said nuance is important to both how they are perceived and how they are treated by society.
it isn't just capitalistic; societal ideas of success are pushed onto gender ideas in most cultures. Whatever the benchmark for success is, can be pushed.
You're right, but how success is measured is influenced by capitalism. What makes a person successful to the eyes of their peers in a western capitalistic culture is quite different than in an eastern socialistic or communistic culture. It's also quite different depending on where you are located and the influence of other cultures, such as religion. A great pastor might not make much money, but may be seen as successful and highly useful to the local society in which they reside. Similarly even within a capitalistic culture, artists which do not make money may be seen as successful among their artist peers for other reasons.
They aren't specifically parents, it is an attitude towards young girls in general. And yes, you are right, but I wasn't trying to distill it down to only two things. It will even vary from person...
They aren't specifically parents, it is an attitude towards young girls in general. And yes, you are right, but I wasn't trying to distill it down to only two things. It will even vary from person to person, and I feel like I touched on a few of the items you list, like independence. So I don't feel like we needed to dig so much into that. I'm not trying to make the definitive statement, but convey the idea.
I'm pretty sure "judged", in the context of the article, includes everything from the mild to the aggressive and violent. All the way from shaking your head and giving a glare briefly to... Well,...
I'm pretty sure "judged", in the context of the article, includes everything from the mild to the aggressive and violent. All the way from shaking your head and giving a glare briefly to... Well, yes, violent, persistent bullying. The one leads to the other leads to the one leads to the other.
Basically the Title. This somewhat interesting article is particularly focused on children for whatever reason. I found this on r/MensLib, perhaps unsurprisingly.
This part about companies marketing stuff to women to pay lip service to their independence is somewhat exaggerated bit I think the general point stands.
Some people have said women bosses in the corporations they run often emulate many/most traits associated to toxic masculinity, which makes sense and ties in to social justice framework.
The answer is as simple as it is depressing: Girls are less desirable, so a girl acting masculine is "bettering" herself, while a boy acting feminine is "lowering" himself.
Or, good ol' sexism in different clothes. The stubborn lie that what is 'female' is inferior or merely good in service of what is 'male,' the vaulted superior.
Which is an ongoing frustration, yah.
I'll tell you why: Cause it's a big problem for parents.
I haven't read the article yet, but I've noticed it's ok, and even encouraged (even among progressives) for girls to like "boy" things like trucks, blue, and pants. But the reverse is not exactly true for boys.
I have noticed something strange in generally more-progressive circles. A boy would be supported for doing feminine interests, but a girl would not. As if female-femininity is bad while male-femininity is good. An inverse of the article, but strange and worrying in its own right.
It's like we've hit a point in certain circles where "heteronormativity" is considered...undesireable, I guess. I have overheard "I'm glad I don't have any cis white men as friends." Like there's a lot of effort spent on "Boys do Girl things" and "Girls do Boy things," but little effort discussed regarding dispelling the very notion of Girl/Boy Stuff. To the point I've heard some self-described gender-fluid folks describe their gender-mood purely within the confines of heteronormative stereotypes.
I'm honestly rambling a bit, but in short, raising children is hard. Trying to juggle the gendered culture, the trans-gender counter-culture, a desire to shed both entirely (because I think they feed each other) is damn near impossible.
In what way is the girl not supported? I think it's absolutely fair for to provide extra support for someone doing the very thing which society tells them not to do. A boy doing feminine things needs support for the very reasons the author went into - they can face bullying by children and parents alike and are at a real threat for violence. A girl doing feminine things doesn't face the same potential discrimination and as long as the parents aren't discouraging this behavior, extra support doesn't seem necessary? Or is something else happening I don't understand?
What does this have to do with the article and why do you interpret this statement as 'heteronormativity is undesirable'?
I think you make a great point here - gender is a social construct. If we deconstruct gender at a social level, does it continue to exist? If so, how would it exist? As someone who doesn't understand gender in the first place, I'm not the person to be answering this, but I have heard of the idea of splitting gender into identity and expression to capture some of the nuances of how humans behave, but is identity merely a reflection of how someone wishes to be perceived and treated by society? If society treated everyone equally, can one even have a gender identity and if so what would it look like?
Similarly if we deconstruct heteronormativity, would gender still exist? I suspect it would as people tend to have some strong ideas about what is masculine or feminine that perhaps are more accurately described by personality traits. Perhaps gender would shift more into the space of personality typing if we remove the heteronormative aspects of gender interpretation.
I am talking about support in the context of encouragement and discouragement. I'll illustrate with a completely gender-neutral hypothetical: Swimming. What I'm describing is if a boy and girl wanted to learn to swim, the boy would get paid private swimming lessons, and the girl would get chucked in the water and said "ah you'll figure it out." One outcome is likely to lead to a successful swimmer, and the other not so much.
Support means showing interest in and helping fund and make time for their child's interest. Lack of support is equivalent to discouragement in the context of parenting. And I notice that opposing gender norms in these circles will get far more support than keeping with them, the same way my wife will get judged for choosing to be a homemaker. And I'm not saying this is common at all, but if this is the behavior seen in more progressive groups, it's no more healthy than the status quo discussed in the article.
Bullies gonna bully. I got bullied as a 4th grader for daring to have less-than-perfect vision. And having a dorky laugh. Or having giant zits on my face a few years later. If you're worried about violence, better learn to throw a punch.
Well, because it's just as exclusionary of a statement as "Ugh that trans kid is gross." I'm a (relatively) emotionally secure adult, so being dismissed didn't really bother me, but if I was a 12 yr old pre-teen trying to fit in? That kinda shit makes you hole up in your room and build resentment. Undesireable might not have been the right word (hence the "I guess"), but I can't think of a better one.
I think the bigger problem faced by society, moreso even than dissolving heteronormativity, is that femininity is still seen as lesser than masculinity. Hence why trans men are virtually invisible in the broader discussion. Or, as the article says, that boys can't do girl things.
Okay but how does this apply to pursuing feminine things as a boy or girl? Your example is about acquiring a skill and one sex receiving better funding, etc. to acquire said skill. Can you give an example which you've seen which relates to 'a boy would be supported for doing feminine interests, but a girl would not.'
Also with regards to your skill example, boys are still much more likely to get support from the community to learn and get better at sports. If you were to look at the prospects of an athletic girl twenty years ago you'd see even less support. Having parents financially support something which bucks the norm would actually be beneficial here and a force to help even the playing field so to speak. I'm not so sure this is a bad thing, but I'm still unsure what exactly you are talking about here.
Do you feel similarly about a black person complaining about white people and the analogous alternative, a white person complaining about black people? What if it were a group of women complaining about men or the reverse? I don't think it's fair for society to make a minority's life objectively worse, and then also tell them that they aren't allowed to publicly complain about it and that it's creating a hostile environment because of exclusionary statements. That seems quite unfair to individuals in the minority group.
Absolutely - I believe that society was willing to let women into men's spaces, but the compromise was that they continued to devalue them in other ways. Sure, you can be a mechanic, but even if you dress like men, talk like men, show up to work indistinguishable from a man, we will find a way to keep you lesser by deriding the fact that you might wear makeup (which we will shame you into doing, if you dare show up without it on), have hobbies which other men do not, care about the needs of others, or any other number of traits we have decided are feminine and thus worth less. Or at least, that feels like one of the adjustments that some sexist people were able to make given the social push to change.
They certainly don't face the same threats of violence, that's for sure. And you're right, I do believe that many trans men feel that they stepped up a rung in society by transitioning. I read a fantastic article some time ago about the experiences of trans men, and that was one universal theme among all of them.
However, I think there's more to it than just that. I think society often still treats trans men as women, and thus less important to history or appearing in narratives or stories, and this contributes to their erasure and absence from the public eye. I don't know how much this contributes, but I also know many trans men for whom a large part of their transitioning is a desire to be perceived less - they are tired of being catcalled, of being seen as an object to be acquired, etc. Finally, trans men are less common than trans women, and I would not be surprised if a decent amount of that is because there are many masculine women who are comfortable with themselves and how society treats them. Unfortunately we are not at a point yet where feminine men can be treated in a similar fashion outside of very niche places such as high profile artists.
This might seem arbitrary, but in the realm of kids play, which is what I'm most engaged in at the moment. A mom was debating buying her daughter a dollhouse after being asked for one, but was extremely hesitant because she was afraid of instilling gender norms associated with doing so. When prompted with "Would you have any hesitance if it was your son asking?", the reply was quite illuminating: "Huh, I hadn't thought about it like that."
And that's what mean by the strange progressive space. Because it's the exact inverse of the status quo, and I think what I'm getting at is that inverting the status quo is not inherintly better. Particularily when discussing raising children who don't have positive/negative connotations with these things.
Yes, for all your examples. In part because the definition of minority/oppressed can change depending on your zip code.
I agree it's problematic, especially since so many pretend systemic discrimination doesn't exist. I don't have answers, and I'm pretty sure there's a Nobel Prize in it for anyone who does.
I will say that on occassion punching up does improve awareness, but that seems far rarer than people digging in and complaining more.
Definitely agreed there. Thanks for the example, absolutely fascinating to me.
Gender will always exist. We can eliminate men and women, eliminate masculinity and femininity, make everyone equal, but it'll still pop back up because people love making labels. It simplifies conversations by providing shorthands for certain characteristics, for better or worse. We might see more than two dominant labels pop up if we approached gender with a clean slate (and being trans carried no societal stigma) and gender would likely be defined along much different lines (see: the changing gendering of clothing and colors over the years), but we will always have gender in some form. And gender doesn't need concrete definitions, either - we can generally tease out the meaning, given a few examples.
This is anecdotal, but something written down in my baby book was that, when asked if I was a boy or a girl, I always responded "girl," and this continued for some time until I caved to the "corrections" others offered. I was (at most) three years old when this happened.
Back then, my understanding of gender was based on how I saw those around me and what I related to more. I knew my mom was a woman and my dad was a man because I was told they were, but I wasn't told the defining characteristics of men and women - it was left for me to infer. And, like many other kids, I figured out the difference, which allowed me to accurately identify what I was, even if it was at odds with what others believed.
All this to say that gender (and gender identity) is innate, but the words we used to describe it are very much a product of the culture we are brought up in, and given a different vocabulary, we may identify in ways radically different than we do now as we figure out the language which describes us.
I really believe that we’re close to ending gendered thinking in at least some circles. The world at large will continue to harm people that dare to do what they love, but at least there will be some ungendered spaces in America and beyond.
The closer we get, the bigger the backlash. We're like a rubber band. We've stretched so far, but that's exactly what makes it hard to go further.
I mean, a solid 1/3 or more of our current societal issues stem from blowback of the gains made in the 60s/70s/80s.
We've made progeress yea, but the right has also neutered the voting rights act and is working on circumventing Roe v Wade so...
Not doubting you, but where do you live? That is so far from any IRL experience I've ever had, I always thought people just talked like that on the internet.
Suburbs of Philadelphia. From a young college student.
If a very large percentage of your time is spent interacting on the internet, is there any wonder that it bleeds over?
The young millenial/old genz are the first to have internet-culture replacing a lot of the local culture of the past, for better or worse.
Overcorrection is a real problem...
I see it in my own parenting. My wife and I both have childhood trauma in various fashions, so we're trying to overcompensate extremes (neglect for her, smothering for me), which causes us to butt heads and talk about it, which I think we both benefit from, because even though we won't always pick correctly, we're less likely to hit an extreme.
I have no kids myself, but my mother was raised by my pre-silent generation grandparents. It was a deeply repressed childhood. As a consequence, my mother had an aversion to rules, and everything associated with masculinity. As a very cis-kid, it was not fun growing up under her care.
Overcorrection is a bitch.
Great point. I have the same challenge teyokg to define athiesm/agnosticism to religious types.
"Yes, it concerns your believes insofar as it's absent of them. If telling you that my belief system is that yours and anything like it doesn't exist, that's not me oppressing you. That's me expressing myself"
rodger rodger... (it's "cis", it's just a regular word.)
Fixed, ty.
Concerning girls being told they can do anything, on the condition that they adopt "masculine" traits and don't display traditional feminity.
There are many successful women around me. Each is, I would agree, career and/or goal oriented. I think that might just be a selector for success in general.
Each also has traditionally feminine traits, interests, and hobbies, although probably kept more to their private lives. There is definitely a seperation between work and personal lives, but I think that is not uncommon of successful people.
They often talk about empowerment and making sure girls grow up knowing they can be strong and independant; a very personal event for one woman was when her (extremely traditional IMO) mother marched to school and told the teachers her daughter could wear shorts if she wanted to, after she had been told to change and sent home.
So I think some of this "emulating men to be successful" thing is really just a product of a large generation of successful women who had to fight gender norms just to have agency over their own lives.
And maybe they have a tendency to see young girls eschewing some of the things they weren't permitted to do growing up not as a personal choice, but as still struggling under deeply entrenched gender ideas.
I do think it is bad, and there is a lot of room for improvement, but if I may be a little mean, I think a lot of this still stems from a "not like other girls" mentality. Most women I know used to or continue to think like this, IMO. Anyone who use to and is self aware knows how bad it can be :(
There's more to it than that, it's quite easy to show that women who display masculine traits in workplace settings are more likely to succeed. There's quite a bit of research which supports gender expression, or rather certain traits which we tend to associate with masculinity in western cultures (such as competitiveness) being tied to a number of economic outcomes. I don't think it's so much 'fighting gender norms' as it is teaching their children how to be successful in a world which prioritizes men over women in a myriad of ways.
Also, ideas of masculinity in the west have long been tied to success, so I find it hard to look at the traits tied to success as being intrinsically masculine. I imagine masculinity could just as easily have self selected for success, just as some women have now, considering I know a few "house husbands".
Do entrenched social structures prioritize men? Yeah. But are the things that make men successful naturally masculine or was masculinity forced to fit what was successful?
Gender is a social construct, I see no evidence to suggest anything but the latter.
So we are in agreement?
I believe that gender is a social construct, yes.
Although I suppose I've put forward the idea that as success changes, masculinity is reconstructed or changed to continue to fit success (excepting cases where a society or culture's construct of masculinity doesn't match success, if that actually exists), it would be possible for society to alter success to fit the constructed masculinity, just like it tends to alter success to fit the successful, creating a bizzaro world feedback loop. But the principle is the same.
Considering the gendering of certain career fields as wages in them have risen and fallen over the years, I believe it is inevitable that masculinity will adapt to whatever is seen as successful in a patriarchal society.
This might parallel "whiteness", as its definition and the groups to which it is applied have also repeatedly mutated.
Part of my point is that being more career-oriented and capable of supporting themselves is an intrinsic part of their identity. I don't know if that is good, bad, or neutral, just my observation. If they hadn't worked their asses off they wouldn't have had the opportunities and agency they do, and it was important enough for them to do so.
So they definitely want girls to be successful like they were, and maybe that is by developing "masculine" traits, but they don't see it that way. Those traits are the fruits of their labor and evidence of their hard work starting from nothing.
I don't mean to suggest girls should have to develop like this to be successful. I just think the successful women I know see girls that don't have the traits they have and assume they aren't interested in being able to support themselves, and are content marrying and being housewives, and judge those girls for that. And as older women who have found success and want those girls to not be dependant on someone who might not have their best interests at heart, want to encourage them to develop in such a way that they will be successful perhaps because they "know better" with their experience, even though that is also a personal decision.
Maybe it is a consequence of trying to be successful in a world which prioritizes men, as you say. I think of it like LGBT rights, where early advancement used the idea that science would show it was natural and normal, in contrast to the prevailing criticism that it was a choice, and wrong. Now, we should also make sure everyone knows that even if it was a choice, it wouldn't be wrong.
Women have found success by emulating what makes men successful. Now we should make sure women can find success however they are. It's a gradual process and women who have already found success won't necessarily see anything wrong with how they did it. They are happy and confident and want that for every young girl, not realizing it might not be what the young girl wants.
Do you think this is exclusive to women? In my experience the idea of being career-oriented and capable of self support seems to be a societal thing, pushed on both men and women equally. I believe its a consequence of the world we live in and capitalistic values being socially reinforced.
I think I see this just as much as men doing the same towards men who pursue careers which don't make money such as arts, or who want to marry and become house husbands. I don't think it's fair to ascribe this purely to women, its a societal push towards careers in general and self sufficiency. I think the latter is important for everyone, but the former isn't necessarily a need or even a want of many.
Absolutely, but I don't think society is really ready for some of the discussions that need to happen here. People often simply do not have the emotional intelligence to be able to imagine a world in which someone has a different set of desires than they do on a fundamental level. I think a great example of this are people who are homeless by choice; many people are unaware that there are people out there who do not want a career, or money and instead value something else. Another good example, perhaps a bit more accessible to most, are artists. Many artists know quite well that they are pursuing a career unlikely to make them significant wealth, but to them the happiness of pursuing what they like holds more primacy.
I think the phrasing of this needs to be updated - I believe most people want to be happy and confident, the problem is that they are assuming that what makes them happy and confident will also apply to others. This assumption is the problem.
Haha my second comment I think brings us both very close in thinking.
I think the sooner we get society to recognize LGBT rights as not being "wrong" in any way the better. I'm amazed at how much it has gone from something to keep out of public eye, and stigmatized to put on display, to something that just is. So making sure everyone knows it is also okay is the next step.
I'm not sure I need to change my phrasing. Maybe they assume what makes them happy will make every young girl happy. Or maybe they just can't see that a young girl actually wants something else. There isn't a functional difference. It just seems like semantics to me, both seem reasonable ways to describe my experience.
Edit: the second paragraph was just about LGBT, although the original point was generalized, as you rightly applied it. I think the same thing applies; no reason not to promote understanding that people have different aspirations in life right now. Putting it off just delays making advancing the acceptance.
Edit: it isn't just capitalistic; societal ideas of success are pushed onto gender ideas in most cultures. Whatever the benchmark for success is, can be pushed.
Parents often want more than just happiness and confidence. Security in life, independence, safety, etc. Many of these can be linked back to their values but not necessarily pursuits for which the child cares about or holds in the same regard. They may push for their child to be successful in the workplace because they believe that will bring them happiness, or because they want financial independence for their child. By phrasing it as happiness and confidence you are distilling down a complicated social issue too much and losing the nuance which is important because we are talking about a group of individuals for which said nuance is important to both how they are perceived and how they are treated by society.
You're right, but how success is measured is influenced by capitalism. What makes a person successful to the eyes of their peers in a western capitalistic culture is quite different than in an eastern socialistic or communistic culture. It's also quite different depending on where you are located and the influence of other cultures, such as religion. A great pastor might not make much money, but may be seen as successful and highly useful to the local society in which they reside. Similarly even within a capitalistic culture, artists which do not make money may be seen as successful among their artist peers for other reasons.
They aren't specifically parents, it is an attitude towards young girls in general. And yes, you are right, but I wasn't trying to distill it down to only two things. It will even vary from person to person, and I feel like I touched on a few of the items you list, like independence. So I don't feel like we needed to dig so much into that. I'm not trying to make the definitive statement, but convey the idea.
One possible explanation is that, sadly, in certain communities, adopting feminine behavior can lead to serious, violent, persistent bullying.
I'm pretty sure "judged", in the context of the article, includes everything from the mild to the aggressive and violent. All the way from shaking your head and giving a glare briefly to... Well, yes, violent, persistent bullying. The one leads to the other leads to the one leads to the other.