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 2(3)4

18:36 / 28.03.02

[My typo of "efeminate" for "effeminate" is going to drive me nuts. Just so y'all know: I "moderated" my post, but the change hasn't happened yet. arrrgh.]

i'm with you bk--I don't have a clear answer. but I do believe that it's really easy to beat up on ourselves for not finding a perfect solution to these kinds of dilemmas. we have to protect our children in a reasonable way AND help them survive in the world that exists, and learn what it takes to survive AND hope that we can also help them to thrive, spiritually and physically, in that world, AND still try to be true to our consciences so that the world doesn't become more yucky because of our actions .. . AND all that's a big order.

I live in a little hippie town where one young man regularly wears skirts with boots and flowing shirts downtown. it's that kind of place, thank god. So I could probably get away with some gender bending work with a boy child, if I had one, where I live now. But if I lived somewhere else, it wouldn't be so easy.

alas.

02:57 / 29.03.02

There's so much ill-informed opinion posing as fact in this thread. I don't have the patience or the time to refute it all.

For example, describing personality traits as "affectations". How much psychology have you studied, Lurid? What do you think a person's personality would be like without these "affected" traits? Traits comprise our personalities - they are the very things that make us who we are. A person cannot be separated from their personality traits, and in fact they test very consistently over time. They are real and intrinsic, not affectations.

I think the idea of separating behaviors from gender pigeonholes is a very sensible suggestion. As someone has mentioned, it is usually very difficult to recognize a person's sex from their posts in discussions. Perhaps the only time that a person's sex or sexuality becomes apparent is when it is explicitly expressed. However, sexuality is an important part of each of our personalities, so I wouldn't suggest it is unhelpful to be open about it, to the extent that you are comfortable in revealing this aspect of yourself here. Expressing sexuality is NOT somehow a "lesser" expression than discussing anything else (and it seems this has been implied, though any of you are welcome to take it back).

Aside from physical characteristics, there do not seem to be any particular "feminine" or "masculine" traits in human personality. Psychological testing shows that there is a wide range of different trait mixes, and male and female personalities as sets overlap each other almost completely. There is no specific "male" personality or behavior, and there is no specific "female" personality or behavior. The stereotypes that many people apply are false and are a result of laziness, ignorance, poor observation and limited comprehension. In a nutshell, my position is that some of you are discussing a fallacy, an unhelpful fiction, as if it is real.

05:49 / 29.03.02

ahh, but isn't fiction real? our old head shop friend judy butler would certainly take issue with the idea that we can separate "real" from "fiction"--gender, even sex, being performance, all the way, umm, down . . .

11:52 / 29.03.02

It is "real" in the sense that some people believe it and act accordingly, but it is unhelpful in that it can be harmful and belittling to people, and a fallacy in that it is shown to be false when objectively tested.

12:43 / 29.03.02

I take your point about affectations and personality traits, aussieintn, but I was trying to emphasise that people do extert some choice over the way they express themselves and interact with others. Are you saying they don't? That would certainly contradict my (very limited) experience. People try to change all the time and although there are some underlying constants, that you may be able to measure in an experiment, what matters to the people in question is the way others perceive them socially. In other words, I've seen people change in quite a deliberate manner, over time.

But you are right, my statement was badly expressed.

21:12 / 30.03.02

Yes, people can change their behavior (such as how they express themselves), but that doesn't usually result from a change in personality. I'd consider that they have learned new skills. For example, people can change the way they express themselves and interact with others by learning communication skills. This doesn't necessarily mean they have learned in a formal setting - they may have learned from observation or deduction. Nonetheless, it is a change in ability or skill rather than a change in personality.

04:59 / 31.03.02

Hmmm. Is it really as clean cut as you imply? It seems a tricky area and I'm honestly interested.

For instance, people ceratinly do improve and acquire social skills. But are you saying that this is the extent of change that we are likely to see?

Again, based on woefully inadequate anecdotal evidence, I think I've seen people modify their "persona". This was slow but over time significant. For instance, I've seen women stop being "girly". Now you might argue that this was an improvement in skills, but it seemed as much a matter of taste to me. And isn't there a problem in creating too sharp a distinction between appearance and actuality?

To turn the question on its head, matters of taste can be pretty constant over time but do we consider them to be inherent?

14:39 / 31.03.02

what is "personality"?

21:08 / 31.03.02

Define "what".

;-)

22:08 / 31.03.02

OK, OK. I still want you to define "what", but "personality" refers to a person's patterns of behavior, thought and emotions. A mature personality is fairly stable and consistent over time, though obviously there is development through childhood that in some cases can extend into middle adulthood. Behavior is not only dependent on personality, but also situation, so behavior can vary while personality remains fairly consistent.

Allow me to use a metaphor. I am acutely aware at this time that I am spelling "behavior" rather than "behaviour". My spelling ability has not changed over the last few years, but my situation has changed. Previously I lived in a country where the "behaviour" was accepted spelling, now I live in a country where "behavior" is accepted spelling. My talent at spelling (personality trait) has not changed, but my spelling (situational behavior) has changed. I spell differently because my situation has changed.

My personal view is that each mature, psychologically stable individual has a core personality that is reliably consistent over time. Variations in behavior can be explained by personality-determined adjustments to other influences such as learned skills, varying social roles, new personal goals and environment.

Does that read too much like a textbook? I think I fell asleep...

19:21 / 02.04.02

Thread-killer? Who? Me?

11:46 / 03.04.02

the snippery has died down; therefore, no one wishs to continue the debate

(tee hee, that should do it)

12:43 / 03.04.02

Please don't try to explain away my thread-killing potency. :-(

As you well know: I am not omniscient, but I am scient; I am not omnipresent, but I am present; I am not omnipotent, but I am potent.

13:26 / 03.04.02

Jessica Rabbit was beyong 'girly'. She was oversexualised to a ludicrous degree, she posted sex-magick over a New Year's Eve which several people (male and female) swore they could feel working, she flirted, camped, postured, and she had a web-page all her own which contained little mini-narratives and a photo album, including a picture of her which reduced a number of people to quivering desire.

And she was entirely fictional. I made her up. It wasn't a prank. It was about making a phenomenon. And given that she posted fewer than thirty times three full incarnations of the board ago, I'd say it worked.

Her character was drawn largely from an old friend of mine, now dead, who was the most delightful, ludicrous, and effective French woman I have ever known; someone who worked in all the hellholes of the world and defied some utter bastards and lost her life in an idiotic car wreck. Yvette was astoundingly sexy, and essentially feminine. She was respected and she was elemental and she was adored.

I captured barely a fragment of what she was, and it was enough to turn heads.

15:32 / 03.04.02

she posted sex-magick over a New Year's Eve which several people (male and female) swore they could feel working - Dao Jones

Hahahahaha

I can just imagine the thought process:
"Oh, I'm horny on New Year's Eve. Must be Jessica's sex-magick. This happened that Mardi Gras I was in New Orleans, too. That rabbit-sex-magick kicks ass!"

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:34 / 03.04.02

Ah.....except that, although JR was indeed adored, by some kittens on the board, she was also seen as an irritant by many and identified almost immediately as a) a fake (before there was much evidence to that effect) and/or b) Dao Jones by others. Which is no reflection either on your skills as a writer or the memory of your friend, but might perhaps suggest that, taken to their extreme, "gendered" characteristics of this kind are intrinsically disruptive to the equilibrium of a cyberspatrial meeting-ground - they are attempts to port meatstuff into cyberspace, mortgaged on an illusory promise (The people who were whipped into a lather by JR's photograph - pleasant-looking young woman with a hat on, for those who missed it - were basing that lather on the idea that there was a face like that, and the possibility of physical expression of that face, attached to the posts they were reading, which is ultimately just a category error.

So, point of discussion - in a cyborged environment (which may include or exclude barbelith - discuss), all sexualised behaviour is in essence drag. What do people think?

15:44 / 03.04.02

Oh, shut up and kiss me, Loveshack! ;-)

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmwah!

16:10 / 03.04.02

Is all behavior (sexual or non) drag? In the sense of performance, I mean.

16:16 / 03.04.02

"So, point of discussion - in a cyborged environment (which may include or exclude barbelith - discuss), all sexualised behaviour is in essence drag. What do people think?"

depends on the environment and the intent. Id say in a forum like barbelith, yes....kinda sorta. a persons sexual identity is more or less irrelevant - although I think it may help you to see the persons perspective a bit clearer. but anyone experienced with the net knows to take each character as just that - a character.

but apart from that, sometimes a persons sexuality is such a strong aspect of their personality that to subdue it would seem ridiculous and even overwhelmingly stifling - especially in a place where its supposed to be "safe" to be who you are

17:31 / 03.04.02

Haus - recollections differ. However, since she was never intended as a serious gender deception, it wouldn't be surprising. You're unfair in saying that she was classed as an irritant, however - there was a thread about whether she was annoying Kali, which was rather premature, given that they hadn't "met".

ONLY NICE THINGS

20:58 / 03.04.02

Where did the boytoys line up their ranks? Must have been a geek schism...

Is all behavior (sexual or non) drag? In the sense of performance, I mean.

Very good question - I was thinking rather than the Butlerian sense of performative gender (which certainly has a lot of resonance in this topic) more of a Harawayan situation where the cyborging of the space has complciated or decentralised its relationship to gender, and thus overt gender self-definition through "girly" or indeed "boy-ey" (Penis. Ear. Jessica Rabbit) behaviour is a reapplication rather than an expression of that gender. Like plucking out your eyebrows then drawing them back in to appear more "feminine", I guess.

00:49 / 04.04.02

Because in this cyborgian environment any expression of gender or sexuality is almost unreal? Can a computer a be sexy? Can words?

Well, I think plenty of us here would agree that words can be sexy.

But perhaps I'm missing the point of the question. Perhaps it's more, how can you draw on, as you suggest Haus, physical characteristics when this space is by definition not physical? Other than the relationship between you and your computer?

So perhaps, with my original question, at least in terms of Barbelith, I've missed the point all along. Perhaps by failing to stick to some sort of method that can kind of be measured in Barbelithspace, by trying to hike up your skirt instead of coming up with SOME sort of tangible thought, one immediately cheapens their post, their "online rep," as it were. Hmm. Hmm. Hmm.

Sexuality can be (and is to me) just as much between the ears as anything. I'm not sure the same is true for gender. Gender seems to be an invented concept, at least in part. I don't think the same holds true for sexuality.

Dao I did the Jessica Rabbit love spell on NYE 2000/01 and made up or not I swear it worked. I stand by it, dammit!

02:14 / 04.04.02

aussie: "Define 'what.'"

The OED says:
In direct questions.
1. As the ordinary interrogative pronoun of neuter gender, orig. sing., in later use
also pl., used of a thing or things: corresponding to the demonstrative that (THAT
dem. pron. B. 1a).

So, "what is 'personality'?" becomes, in a statement: "Personality is that . . ."

My point in asking was because of my theory-bitch Foucaultian suspicion of all normative statements, grounded in discourses of social science, e.g.,
refers to a person's patterns of behavior, thought and emotions. A mature personality is fairly stable and consistent over time,
though obviously there is development through childhood that in some cases can extend into
middle adulthood. Behavior is not only dependent on personality, but also situation, so behavior
can vary while personality remains fairly consistent.
This is absolutely, so far as I understand it (which may not be very far) a good synopsis of current psychological thinking about the term "personality." But I distrust all normative language: as soon as one says that "mature personalities are stable over time" then one defines all "unstable" personalities as ipso facto "immature." That's a problem to me, and a cool one because when I realize how dependent "mature" is on its opposite "immature," how all such terminology is constructed out of the social conditions and ideas current at any given time, then a lovely chaotic chasm opens up where no terms are certain or invulnerable to questioning. There is no "natural." Psychological discourse may be infused with hegemony. Ain't life grand.

So, yeah, I guess I believe that gender is drag, sexuality is drag, all desire is constructed, yadda yadda

04:31 / 04.04.02

Firstly, I was trying to keep my definition consistent with as broad a range of opinions as possible. However, to say "each mature, psychologically stable individual has a core personality that is reliably consistent over time" does not exclude the possibility that ALL individuals have a core personality that is reliably consistent. It is my personal opinion that this is the case, that there is a structural, genetic predisposition of personality that is inalienable from the individual. Personality as a whole is broader than this core - after all, it is effected by all sorts of environmental factors - but the core remains.

Secondly, it is YOU who applied value judgements to the terms "stable" and "mature" and imposed the (some would claim, false) dichotomies "mature/immature" and "stable/unstable".

Thirdly, if you do not like my definition, please propose an alternative. If we deny the word "personality" a shared, consensual definition, the word becomes useless, and a great deal of discussion and exploration becomes far more difficult.

04:36 / 04.04.02

Fourthly, if you would have been more content with a general dictionary definition (as you provided for "what"), why did you ask me and not just look in the Oxford, or better yet the Macquarie?

ONLY NICE THINGS

06:00 / 04.04.02

Cherry Bomb said:

Because in this cyborgian environment any expression of gender or sexuality is almost unreal? Can a computer a be sexy? Can words?

Well, I think plenty of us here would agree that words can be sexy.

Oh, absolutely, in Tim Curry voice. As you suggest later, however, there is a question over whether sexy things have to be gendered.

07:02 / 04.04.02

No, they can be ambiguous...but they still rely on the existence of gender for that ambiguity, and, I would suggest, for their sexual frisson.

But frankly, I find it amazing that yet again we're seeing a discussion predicated on binary notions of gender. Aren't we all a little old for that?

ONLY NICE THINGS

07:40 / 04.04.02

I believe we're seeing a discussion based on an examination of the notion of binary genders, which is a rather different thing.

And are we, I ask again, limited to gendered or "gender-ambiguous" for discourses of the sexy? Can something not be sexy but genderless?

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:42 / 04.04.02

Or, in fact, degendered, or operative parallel to gender?

14:43 / 04.04.02

I think that might be twisting the language a little far. And given the state of the politics of sexuality and gender, we may have talked ourselves into a situation where no, it simply isn't possible.

Perhaps in a few hundred years.

15:17 / 04.04.02

But if words can be sexy, and words often are sexy here, then doesn't that fly right in the face of needing gender for sexiness?

15:32 / 04.04.02

Nnnnot really...

We'd have to explore why words are sexy. And who found which ones sexier. But since sexiness is inevitably either physical or psychological and both our bodies (for obvious reasons) and our minds (at least by virtue of the politicisation of psychology and gender) are (given our current society) inextricably wrapped up in gender, I think it's a stretch to imagine 'sexiness' and more especially, sex, can be de-gendered entirely.

At the point where it can, there probably is no longer a concept of gender.

15:56 / 04.04.02

Chocolate is sexy, and it has no gender.

I kind of think of the cyborged space as a performative space anyway - a bit like interactive graffiti, you know, the idea of a public forum, millions of eyes reading... or just one pair, in a face you can't see.

And I kind of think performance is sexy in and of itself - there's that sense of connection and interaction between performer and audient. Just lie back and enjoy what I'm about to do....

03:23 / 05.04.02

Am I alone in not finding chocolate sexy? And isn't a fetish a genderless focus of sexual feeling?

aussieintn: I liked your definition of personality. Is there a difficulty in separating patterns of behaviour (part of personality, which is fairly static) and behaviour which can change due to personality driven adjustments? Perhaps I'm thinking more about a circularity problem.

04:50 / 05.04.02

The circularity problem that concerns you is due to the application of the scientific method to psychology. It is not yet possible to peer into a person's brain and find their true core personality. Psychologists rely on observation of behavior, even if it is only the behavior of answering a question in a certain way in a pencil-and-paper personality test.

Patterns of behavior are not parts of personality, but are observed in attempts to define an individual's personality. Behavior is a product of personality and other influences (I listed examples of these influences earlier). Personality is not a product of behavior, so there is no issue of circularity. Behavior can vary while personality is consistent because there are other influences on behavior aside from personality.

Does this address you raised, or have I misunderstood you?

Page: 1 2(3)4