A comment on gender

[synapticjava]

So, for the class I actually like, Queer Theory, we're reading a book by Riki Wilchins called Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer. It's a fascinating read, and a quick one too. I've almost finished it in just a couple short hours.

Anyway, the chapter on Gay Rights really got me to thinking. She explains how issues with gender is entwined with both Gay rights as well as feminism. Feminists in the beginning didn't want women calling themselves feminists if they were too masculine looking and acting, because they feared it would set the movement back. Which, in a way, is true. Conservatives of that era (and still today, really) weren't ready to accept that some women just are "butch" acting and prefer mens clothes, jobs, etc. So feminist groups in the early days ostracized butch or lesbian women for fear of that. By the same token, I see this in the gay community time and time again. Hell, even until recently I was the same way: the community shuns or disaproves of men who are fags - or, too effeminate, as well as lesbians who are dykes - too butch. Because at the time being, we're trying to impose upon the conservatives that "we're just like you" even at the cost of ostracizing a good part of our community - which includes transpeople and crossdressers. Is it really worth it? I mean, if we're throwing half of the cargo off the train - does it really matter where we're going or if we get there at all?

Something I'll be thinking about from now on, that's for sure.

Comments

[karenbear.livejournal.com]

Interesting...

I have nothing constructive to say on the subject, but still, interesting...

[chocgood84.livejournal.com]

*smooches*

I miss your LJ posts! But, you have a life now:)

[amarantabuendia.livejournal.com]

all progressive social movements share the same roots and are always bound together. it's very rare that any one movement is completely self-sustaining. the building of a toxic waste dump in the projects, for example: it's an environmental issue, for sure, but racism and classism both play major parts. those three movements need to work together to make right.

when these movements were founded, they were very narrowly defined because they needed public support and that's the easiest (and most organized) way to get a movement up and running.

the problem, now, of course, is now we're stuck with all these limitations and it's increasingly difficult to look at activism with common sense.

my theory, anyway. it's getting better.

[chocgood84.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's getting better. But I also think that no movement could ever be, in essance, as pure as they want to be.

[kitty-poker1.livejournal.com]

Katherine Hepburn wore trousers for preference, at a time when it was frowned upon. She stood up to the male hierarchy in the studio system and was blacklisted, so she had to find, star in and produce scripts she admired. She's one of the greats, not only because she was a fine actress but because she stood up for herself.

She didn't stand up for her gender; she expected other women to be equally strong and it was their problem if they weren't. She didn't whine and she didn't complain. She got on with it and proved herself.

She was also passionately in love with a man who was strong enough to take everything she threw at him.

She was a woman I admire enormously.

I'm iffy about the term 'feminist'. It smacks of gender war. I love men, be they straight, gay, trans or any other silly category. I also love women, but I happen to be straight. It makes RL life less complicated for me but I can see all sides. Some women are hot! Just not for me. See? *smooch*