[culturehandy]

I pitched this in the Community Forum and it was well recieved.

This thread is all about the politics and cross cultural and societal views on gender.

I started thinking increasingly about gender when the media frenzy about Caster Semenya emerged. It is my opinion that the only reason people questioned Ms. Semenya's gender is because she appeared to be "masculine". That is, she looked masculine according to the ideas of society at large. Had she had softer, more "feminine" features, questions of her gender would not have come up.

So, what is gender? We know that there is sex, your biological sex, but gender is a social construct.

[girltrouble]

ketto, i love that quote! thank you!

beck, i think you make a good point too.

to call it all theater, i thing is the point. we swim in this theater, and don't even notice it till it's pointed out. one person i always admired was this girl i knew. to say that she played with gender and that theater is and understatement. her day job was a stripper, but she was the best damn drag king you ever saw, and she would hop back and forth over the gender fence constantly. she would arrive at a show, in drop dead butch mode, do the show and leave for a date in high femme mode. if i didn't know better i would have thought she was two different people. but i think she is probably the only person who was always cognizant that it is all facade. it is all feigned. most people, even the queer fall into the trap that that costume is them, not a costume. the repetition makes it feel natural, in the same way that all those cutural signals we've consumed have left no tracks.


[eta. posted this at the same time as koffee and culture's posts]
i really think, star, that it comes down to the performer with drag if it is mocking or not. seattle is a good case in point. there are two main camps and then subcamps, but in each case you can divide them into those that adore women, and those that loathe them.

the two basic groups are those that are "pro" beauty, (the camp i came up in) and the anti beauty. the pro are probably the group that most people are familiar with, the emphaisis is trying to be 'lady like', feminine, pretty, etc. and the anti beauty, that work very hard to be, quite frankly, as ugly as possible. i don't say that as a critique, that is just the aesthetic. they tend to be more mocking, although in a few cases, it is done in a lovingly humorous way.

i can think of one rather affectionate anti queen who has her own cottage industry here doing seasonal shows that are always packed. she comes of like your crazy, but lovable old aunt who accidentally picks up slang words, referring to her circle of friends, and the audience as her "peeps." there are others on the anti camp who are much more hateful, being ugly seems to be their honest assessment of women, externally and internally. it's all shrouded in an intellectual veneer, but you don't have to scratch past the surface to feel the disdain.

on the other end, the pro beauty side of things, there are a couple of queens i adore. in or out of drag, they are sweethearts, they don't like to gossip, be catty, or any of the other things some on this side of things do, but more they are more than happy to give their time to women's causes as much as queer ones. then there are the bitches, who spew hate on everyone but to hear them talk about women.... i have seldom heard anyone talk so hatefully about a fellow human being. they delight in talking about women's bodies with disgust to the point you wonder why they would even want to touch anything associated with women let alone dress like one. the thing that kills me is when these queens decide to become transexuals. but then, there is a group of men who specifically date transexuals because they hate women and are so afraid/offended by feminists, that t-girls are a female substitute they can take their rage out on.

[koffeewitch]

the two basic groups are those that are "pro" beauty, (the camp i came up in) and the anti beauty. the pro are probably the group that most people are familiar with, the emphaisis is trying to be 'lady like', feminine, pretty, etc. and the anti beauty, that work very hard to be, quite frankly, as ugly as possible. i don't say that as a critique, that is just the aesthetic. they tend to be more mocking, although in a few cases, it is done in a lovingly humorous way.

i. it's all shrouded in an intellectual veneer, but you don't have to scratch past the surface to feel the disdain.

but then, there is a group of men who specifically date transexuals because they hate women and are so afraid/offended by feminists, that t-girls are a female substitute they can take their rage out on.

girltrouble, you always bring so much food for thought to the table! I hardly know where to begin...First off, do you feel there are ANY "anti"s who are mocking the trappings of womanhood and not women themselves? Laughing at the ridiculous plastic boobs and tawdryness of it all? To me, drag queens have never been men who dress as women but more like men who dress as Barbie Dolls. The idea of someone using the props and costumes of "femininity" to make cultural/political statements really appeals to me. I think good drag is mutifaceted and even elusive in purpose at times. But I digress...

On men who use t-girls to take out rage/(self-loathing): I have seen so many sexualized images of transgendered women that terrify the living fuck out of me. (I guess we hardly ever see images of t-women that are NOT sexual, right)?? Anyway, the images I've seen always have a way of presenting transgendered women as some kind of freaky sex doll made for sadistic rape/mutilation fantasies. I guess men want to abuse a representation of their own feminine side. What better way to unleash all your self-loathing, your secret fears of being a fag, your shame over being intimidated by women than to take it out on someone you refuse to see as a real human being. I guess I feel transgendered women are pretty much always depicted as sex toys (atleast in those "chicks with dicks" type ads). When I consider the type of person who would find a walking breathing sex toy appealing, I literally shudder. The underlying message is that men who give up their male identity are not worthy of our respect and consideration, or any respect and consideration. I've seen the corresponding jokes in the media that imply when transgendered people are subject to violent crimes or otherwise victimized it is supposed to be funny. The only time I've seen t-women NOT be depicted soley as sex objects is when they are being depicted as pathetic/ridiculous. Or as cunning villains out to fool innocent red-blooded men into sex acts.

I don't know quite where I'm going with all this. I guess I feel that our society's treatment and attitudes toward those who have stepped out of their assigned gender box reveals something significant. I'd like to know current stats on rates of violence against gay/lesbian and transgendered communities. And the reaction of law enforcement and judges to such cases. I feel pretty confident in assuming this is another case of blame the victim.

JSmith: Actually learning to do handicrafts has been ironically one of my greatest joys. I strongly STRONGLY feel that self-sufficiency is a feminist virtue. And I'm so sad that the word "culture" now means something that we purchase and go to museums to find. There is something so satisfying about the process of creating things. Sometimes I think that we are a people dependent on anti-depressants because we have alienated ourselves from this universally human need. We now have networks of feminists who "take back the knit" and acknowledge that we should not look down on our foremothers who had these tremendous skills. Why did I look down on these useful skills merely because they were done by women? I SHOULD be just as proud of knitting warm mittens for my family as I am to flush and re-fill the antifreeze from the radiator.