BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Ladies and Gents: How Ya Gonna Act?

  
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
Cherry Bomb
10:08 / 26.03.02
Inspired by Chollister's (what I perceive as) guilt for sometimes being too "girly," as well as an attitude which I have sensed on barbelith - which is that women who act in more traditionally feminine ways on this board tend to get less street cred than those who don't, I'd like to propose a discussion:

Do women need to act more masculine in order to be taken seriously? Obviously, in the outside world the answer seems to be yes, but here on Barbelith?

In a way, I actually think this is almost a subconscious misogyny. One of my interpretations of feminism is that women and men should have the freedom to act as they want to act, whatever that means to the individual. I see this as the freedom for a women to feel comfortable to act in ways that are outside a traditional gender stereotype, as well as within that gender spectrum (and likewise, men should have this same freedom).

One area in which I think feminism (at least I see it) often gets misinterpreted is "feminists want women want to act like men." No, not necessarily. I personally highly enjoy being a girl. A problem I see is that DOING things that are more traditionally feminine seem to be denigrated as lesser. This applies to men (who are feminine or who work in a traditionally female profession) as well as women.

Don't you think that one battle feminism has to fight is the validation of (traditionally) feminine ways of being, both for women and men? What are the valid ways of performing your gender?

Thoughts? Disagreements?

Discuss.
 
 
The Natural Way
10:16 / 26.03.02
Do women need to act more masculine in order to be taken seriously? Obviously, in the outside world the answer seems to be yes...

I don't think that's as obvious and self evident as you suggest. I know loads of women who're as feminine as they come and get taken very seriously indeed. Some people are just more magnetic and charismatic than others. Thinking about it, this conversation might get bogged down in an attempt to define what constitutes "masculine" and "feminine" behaviour.
 
 
that
10:27 / 26.03.02
[Just to clarify, and because I am currently incapable of writing anything intelligent at all - I don't have guilt about being too girly... I have issues with the fact that I sometimes end up acting like 'the little woman' as a sort of reflex or default persona that is not really mine and is not really natural. I could cross-reference about 4 threads that have some bearing on what I am saying here, but I am way too tired to say anything general or constructive, so I really am just gonna shut up ]
 
 
Naked Flame
10:31 / 26.03.02
quote:this conversation might get bogged down in an attempt to define what constitutes "masculine" and "feminine" behaviour.

That's a big topic in itself but one that might actually be pretty crucial... isn't it at least partially that we tend to typify louder, more visible behaviour as masculine? Hence, as these modes draw more attention, the 'squeaky wheel gets the grease?' It's not just that 'masculine behaviour gets more attention' but 'attention-getting behaviour is masculine' and, hence, a bit of a double bind.

Listening to others is also typified as 'feminine' more often than not, it seems. So is being nice to people, alas. Of course all these can come through as neutral as well.. as ever, we're dealing in shades of grey.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
10:33 / 26.03.02
quote:Originally posted by You and Runce:
[b]Thinking about it, this conversation might get bogged down in an attempt to define what constitutes "masculine" and "feminine" behaviour.

]

But what constitutes femine and masculine behavior is actually something I would be interested in discussing in this thread.

Also Chollister yeah that's why I said perceived in my first post, in the event I was misinterpreting you. And what you're describing is kind of a "what is imposed/what is free will dichotomy" that I have been in and can relate to.
 
 
that
10:37 / 26.03.02
Wasn't trying to get at you, Cherry Bomb...nor do I feel got at. Just sorry I can't contribute constructively to the thread...
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
11:10 / 26.03.02
In terms of the outside world, I don't think that women (as in those that present and identify as female) need to act more masculine so much as demonstrate more agression and drive. As far as getting ahead is concerned I think that men are credited with a greater minimum value of qualities that are more typically associated with the masculine heavey world of power and success and therefore a woman would need to have more of those qualities to be placed on an equal footing.

On the other side of the coin I think that there is a tendancy towards the masculine element to want it's feminine counterparts to still be at least partially girly. I guess adherance to stereotypes doesn't hurt our pathetic man-brains so much.

On the board however I don't think there is a real base of such misogyny. I could be wrong though and am very much blind to the glaringly obvious around here.

I can only speak for myself when I say that if you take yourself seriously, then I will take you seriously.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
11:49 / 26.03.02
Oh, I don't think the board is consciously misogynist at all - hello, isn't this the land of "I'm a better feminist than you"? - What I'm saying is it's almost a paralel universe in which women who DO fall into more of a girly girl motif tend to have a harder time here.

Ok, the point of the board (as I see it) is to engage in some intellectual debate, so on the one hand it's to be expected. I'm just wondering if the attitude described above is kind of a perverse misogyny.

But I would agree that many men "in the outside world" DO seem to go for a women who giggles and lets them know how brainy and big they are. Grace a dieu this does not seem to translate as much here.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
11:52 / 26.03.02
I can't quite quote case and incedent here but I know what you're talking about. There have been times when I think that some people/posts have been seen as letting the side down.

Perverse, pseudo-intellectual, elitist misogyny? Perhaps.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:57 / 26.03.02
Perhaps, but if you can't even vaguely allude to the sort of cases and incidents you mean, we're not going to be able to really discuss it, surely...
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
12:05 / 26.03.02
Sorry, I failed to take catalogue of such incidents in the vent that this topic came up.

Maybe someone else would care to volunteer incidents of this nature.

Otherwise my points are fairly much without substance and should be disregarded.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
12:15 / 26.03.02
quote:Oh, I don't think the board is consciously misogynist at all - hello, isn't this the land of "I'm a better feminist than you"? - What I'm saying is it's almost a paralel universe in which women who DO fall into more of a girly girl motif tend to have a harder time here.

Hmmmm....I'm not sure that's the case, per se. I do think that "girly girl" ficsuits will attract a lot of reasonably specific attention, in much the same way that female ficsuits who talk a lot about their straight sex lives attract a fair amount of reasonably specific attention, but not necessarily that this will lead to a hard time.

I think that people who unthinkingly restate or reenact the status quo may come in for a bit of a bad time, and that being a "girly girl" might involve that, but that's a bit different...
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:16 / 26.03.02
For what its worth,

I think that although gender stereotypes for women are constricting, it is in fact much worse for men. The point is that men are "supposed" to be in positions of power and authority and thus must fit into a suitable mould for this purpose. You might think this is a good deal - I don't.

Have you ever heard about those experiments you do with kids? Seeing how adults treat little boys and girls? The boys behaviour is much more regulated, in terms of which toys they play with, than the girls. This is true even for girls whoe are "disguised" as boys.

I think this is a common theme in our culture. It is why gay men get a harder time (legally, for instance) than lesbians do. I don't want to devalue the difficulties that lesbians out there have had, but I think it is a fair comparison.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
12:17 / 26.03.02
Cherry, I think that's just it. This is mostly a place for discussion, requiring a certain level of aggression which I think still tends to be seen as a masculine trait. Good example would be the occasional 'white knight' moment where half a dozen male posters step up to defend a 'girly' poster who seems to have been treated more roughly than usual.

Effective mysoginy, if not intentional.

Going back to the original post, I think it comes down to the usual trick of trying to stop thinking in terms of little boxes. There is no 'correct' way of behaving. Particular behavioural types may be more appropriate than others in a given situation, that's all.

On this board, a bit of agression seems to be necessary to be accepted. If you want to call that masculine, so be it.

Hmmm, possibly not my most coherent post. Must stop thinking in single sentences...Typing faster would help, too.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
12:25 / 26.03.02
Hmmm. When I was at univeristy, I remember having a lot of conversations about the old saw that women were more likely to get second-class degrees, whereas men tended to get firsts or thirds. This was supposed to be because women were more inclined to synthesise and argue both sides of a point, whereas men took a much more aggressive attitude to their arguments, and therefore either shone or plummeted...

Now, I happen to think this a load of bunkum, because as far as I can tell, at that particular university and in my discipline, the key thing was answering the question with a coherent argument of some sort (I am a synthesiser of arguments, and I did OK). But it does seem to be a recurrent stereotype, and perhaps that's one reason why we see strong ('aggressive')argumentation as a 'masculine' trait - because it's embedded in some educational truisms...
 
 
No star here laces
12:27 / 26.03.02
I do seem to remember a similar topic being put forward by a (male-identified) poster at some point, and them getting roundly cussed for it. Ring a bell with anyone?
 
 
Ganesh
12:53 / 26.03.02
Mmm... Jessica Rabbit Syndrome, wasn't it?
 
 
Ierne
13:07 / 26.03.02
...an attitude which I have sensed on barbelith - which is that women who act in more traditionally feminine ways on this board tend to get less street cred than those who don't... çherry Bomb

I haven't really noticed that happening...where is the "subconscious/perverse misogyny?" I don't think female-identified posters are treated differently according to how "girly" or "non-girly" their posting style is.

But a female-identified poster who tries to duck out of an argument by flirting or other overtly sexualized behavior will very likely get flak for it. Just as a male-identified poster who uses aggression instead of discussion will be roundly dissed.

Online, the emphasis tends to be on what's between the ears; genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics aren't as crucial in terms of interaction and communication. (sez me! but I'm probably not alone in feeling that way.)
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:12 / 26.03.02
I'm with Ierne on this - I don't think there's a huge divide in the female ranks here, I'm thinking that Cherry might be conflating some of her own insecurities here.

Besides Bitchiekittie and Kali, I'm not sure who really fits into the 'girly girl' "Jessica Rabbit" role around here...
 
 
bitchiekittie
15:58 / 26.03.02
oh, gee, thank you flux

sort of the old "she asked for it" bit, Id think. of course presented in an intellectual "arent we all a tad too smart for this sort of thing [anything remotely sexual in anything other than an overanalyzed and underexplored theory]" package.

theres a definite rift and Im personally not playing this particular game, folks
 
 
bitchiekittie
16:07 / 26.03.02
But a female-identified poster who tries to duck out of an argument by flirting or other overtly sexualized behavior will very likely get flak for it. Just as a male-identified poster who uses aggression instead of discussion will be roundly dissed

and who does this? "oh, Im wrong, let me suck your big toe to make the big baddies leave me alone??

who the hell has ever done that? surely you arent accusing me of this, flux, because I challenge you to come up with one such example

while my arguments are certainly often not sea-worthy (full of holes, my friends), you cannot tell me I dont try to attempt it. with - or without - my own merits

anyone who thinks I do the stereotypical "docile female" routine hasnt read most of my posts
 
 
Ierne
19:15 / 26.03.02
sort of the old SHE ASKED FOR IT bit, Id think. – bk

Sorry to hear you don t intend to join the conversation here – because I m not sure where you get the above idea from what Flux wrote.

There is a difference between a woman being imposed upon by another person because SHE ASKED FOR IT and a woman being overtly sexual in negotiating an intellectual situation that doesn't specifically call for sexual innuendo.
 
 
Ierne
19:16 / 26.03.02
I am so thrilled to finally post the above that I will leave in the mistakes.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
02:10 / 27.03.02
I wrote the following elsewhere and am reposting it by request [edited only for apostrophies]:

I do not know whether or not other people treat me with less respect when I behave in a more typically girly way... because I am so preoccupied and annoyed with myself for being girly. This has been one of my greatest battles in being a feminist, and in communicating with people who are not feminists: I am a girly woman. I am tres femme. I have long hair, and I like it long. I wear makeup, and I like to wear makeup. I occasionally wear form-revealing clothing; I love things relegated to the domestic sphere: cooking, baking, care-taking, growing things, working with textiles, etc; I wear high heels on occasion; I shave my legs (well, now I do, anyway) and my underarms and er, a bit of somewhere, um, let us move on; I am soft (even in my skinniest, most food-deprived days, my belly was still soft, as well as most of the rest of me [except for elbows and knees]); I laugh and giggle--A LOT; I am sentimental and a romantic; I am submissive. I share plenty in common with the stereotypical ideal of the patriarchy. And I often feel like I have to apologize for this (to myself and to others) because I have a lot in common with the stereotype.

But then, if I were the things less like the stereotype, that should not make me more okay, more acceptable. Should it? I mean, being the way that I am now is more acceptable to the patriarchy, but that is not what I am trying to go for. Does being the way I am make me less acceptable, less of an asset to those who work to dismantle the patriarchy?

I think the first battle I need to win is in quitting my apologetic stance.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
06:55 / 27.03.02
test post. Intelligient post to follow tomorrow as I am leaving country and have replied to this thread three times , lost in ether each time.
 
 
w1rebaby
10:32 / 27.03.02
There is a difference between a woman being imposed upon by another person because SHE ASKED FOR IT and a woman being overtly sexual in negotiating an intellectual situation that doesn t specifically call for sexual innuendo.

I think characterising kittie as someone who does that is something of a personal attack, though, which is where this is coming from... making sexual references doesn't indicate that you are negotiating the argument using them.

Or is it only okay when the boys talk about cocks?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:54 / 27.03.02
fridgemagnet:

I think characterising kittie as someone who does that is something of a personal attack, though, which is where this is coming from... making sexual references doesn't indicate that you are negotiating the argument using them.

I don't think there was any specific reference to BK there at all. Get off your charger, sir.
 
 
w1rebaby
11:34 / 27.03.02
Er... apart from "Besides Bitchiekittie and Kali, I'm not sure who really fits into the 'girly girl' "Jessica Rabbit" role around here..."
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:38 / 27.03.02
I meant in the post of Ierne's which you quoted.
 
 
w1rebaby
11:54 / 27.03.02
Oh, sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that Ierne had said that. Perhaps I should have split that paragraph.

I'd like to know who these mythical "girly girls" who try to get through arguments by batting their eyelids are, though. I've certainly never seen one here. I can't help thinking that without concrete examples this is degenerating into a series of attacks on a straw man (woman) stereotype.
 
 
The Apple-Picker
12:11 / 27.03.02
Can we please start talking about this again:

"Don't you think that one battle feminism has to fight is the validation of (traditionally) feminine ways of being, both for women and men? What are the valid ways of performing your gender?

Thoughts? Disagreements?

Discuss."

Please?
 
 
sleazenation
12:25 / 27.03.02
of course the very notion of "valid" and "invalid" modes of gender performance is already heading for contentious ground...
 
 
w1rebaby
13:18 / 27.03.02
It feels a bit odd to talk about a battle to validate traditional roles. You can always subscribe to traditional values, and have traditional roles validated within that, after all... and you wouldn't want to validate all aspects of traditional roles from a feminist perspective, would you? (Or would you?)

I'd say more valuable would be to separate out behaviours which might seem to be indicative of a traditional role (e.g. spending time on your appearance, being dominant, being submissive), split the package up so that by subscribing to one you do not have to - and are not perceived to - subscribe to them all.

You might then pick behaviours that you considered harmful to self or others, and criticise them, but you would be considering behaviour rather than "role" which is always a rather sketchy concept anyway.
 
 
bitchiekittie
13:29 / 27.03.02
from ierne:
Sorry to hear you don t intend to join the conversation here – because I m not sure [I]where[/I] you get the above idea from what Flux wrote

to clarify my answer, let me quote flux for you:
I'm with Ierne on this - I don't think there's a huge divide in the female ranks here, I'm thinking that Cherry might be conflating some of her own insecurities here.

thus implying that cherrys points were invalid due to being colored by her "own insecurities" (rather insulting, I thought, and in my personal opinion utterly incorrect)

also, in saying hes "with ierne on this", I felt it was quite safe to assume he was agreeing with her statements. again, Im not sure how this could possibly be incorrect

then it carried on directly to this, which led me to believe that the two statements were related:
Besides Bitchiekittie and Kali, I'm not sure who really fits into the 'girly girl' "Jessica Rabbit" role around here...

I havent seen this movie in quite a while, and when I did I didnt really explore the whole feminist implications of the jessica rabbit character. silly me. however, I find the connection wholly insulting because the role was of a helpless victim who relied on men (and the effect her appearance had on them) to get her out of trouble. jessica rabbit is not involved in any intelligent debate and never really says much of anything. I hardly see myself as this, and I doubt that anyone whos ever had an actual argument with me without the coloring of the negative gender stereotyping lolling about in their heads has. if someone sees me this way they are paying attention to the wrong aspects of who and what I am, and it is therefore more their issue than my own. hence proving cherrys point very neatly

this issue would never have been an issue were I a man.

There is a difference between a woman being imposed upon by another person because SHE ASKED FOR IT and a woman being overtly sexual in negotiating an intellectual situation that doesn t specifically call for sexual innuendo

again, Id like a single example of how Ive been "overly sexual in negotiating an intellectual situation...". Ill bet you a nice shiny nickel you cant find a one - its never happened, not me or anyone else

however, I do flirt. usually when someone else has made a flirtatious comment, or when speaking to a person who I am very familiar with.

and I do have conversations about sex - its reactions like these that make me think some of you arent as "open" as you pretend to be.

however, there has never been a situation where Ive used sex to weasel out of something. nor have I seen anyone else do this. I think that a man who has talked about sex in the same situations as I have, precisely the way I have (and oh yes there are quite a few right here) wouldnt be accused of such things. thereby the reason for my "she asked for it" comment. I clearly asked for it ("it" being these rather nasty accusation and comparision to jessica rabbit) because of my behavior (and honestly, this would have never happened were I a man or a woman who never ever spoke of sex).
 
 
w1rebaby
13:30 / 27.03.02
by the way, why is this in "switchboard"?
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply