I want my gender to be irrelevant

[Christinanc93]

I am a women's and ethnic studies major at my university, and, as yo have probably guessed, we talk quite a bit about gender. I should start by saying that I'm not trans, I am female, and I don't feel like a man. I suppose I don't have the words to describe exactly how I feel. It's not that I am questioning my gender identity...rather, I want it to be irrelevant. I have noticed that while feminism stands for many things I fully support, a lot, if not most feminists still seem to see women as either a sexual object, a maternal object, or both. Some stress sexual "liberation" and promiscuity as a central focus, they claim that I am perverse because not only do I not want it, I am utterly repulsed by it, and I am disgusted with the treatment it brings. You can't tell me in all honesty that the pop stars writhing on the ground touching themselves while either naked or close to it are "liberated" or empowered. It seems like the exact opposite of that to me. It seems like exploitation. There are others who stress the value of women, because they are more nurturing because they possess the ability to give birth. I am not. There is only one nurturing bone in my body and I only know how to use it with cats. I am not more community minded, and I don't like children nor do I want to have any. I am not submissive, I am not what women are "supposed to" be like. So, I can't get behind that either, of course there are feminists who stress other things above these, but that is unimportant for the current thought process. What I have realized is that I don't want to be identified as "woman" nor as "man" and I don't want to be called "gender-queer", or "genderless," or "androgynous" either. I want to be able to wear a big poofy dress if I want to and the next day wear combat boots and cargo shorts, and have it not make a difference. I want people to look at me, and say "hey look a person" not "oh a woman, she must fit into this role". I want to just be Christina, not Christina, a woman. Or perhaps, something like the Doctor Who model, and people could simply call me "The Designer". Of course, that is silly, but the point stands: I am troubled by how much gender affects my life. It's not that I don't have one, or don't have the right one...it's just that...I want my gender to be irrelevant. Is this entirely uncommon?

[Philip027]

I think what you're meaning to say is that you want your sex to be irrelevant, yes?

Because gender basically already is irrelevant. People see someone with boobs, they're gonna think "female". People focus on what they can see in front of them and couldn't care less about how they actually feel on the inside.

[Christinanc93]

Actually, I mean both. I mean sex and gender. My sex should be irrelevant, but so should which gender I choose to identify with. I am defining "female" as my genitalia, and "woman" as the socially constructed gender....and I want them both to be completely irrelevant in my life, not that I should stop being it, but that....it shouldn't make any difference. But it DOES, they both do, because in a lot of ways I look very feminine: I dress in a feminine manner, I'm very soft and curvy, I mean, even my hair is curly, I have very similar facial proportions to Disney princesses, and I like small fluffy animals, but in ways I am not. I love science, and engineering, I'm one of the least nurturing people you'll ever meet, don't get romance, and I'm going into a highly male-dominated career (graphic design). I just, don't want either my genitalia or my mental gender to affect my life anymore, because I don't really feel like any of it fits me fully, but, even when people read my name, they will have a certain set of assumptions. If I wanted to, I could change my name to Christian and choose to present as male, but I don't want those assumptions either....it just seems that since I don't participate in romantic or sexual relationships, neither of those things should matter to anyone, and they seem to matter to everyone a whole lot.

[Philip027]

Actually, I mean both. I mean sex and gender. My sex should be irrelevant, but so should which gender I choose to identify with.

Fair enough.

I can sympathize with how you feel, but at the same time, what I've found growing up is that there are inexplicable differences between the two sexes (not just the obvious physical ones) and it has thus affected how I can generally relate with each one. As much as I'd like to be able to regard everyone like sexes didn't exist, it's just not how things have worked out for me in practice (and it isn't how the rest of the world operates either, which only reinforces the differences)

[Sally]

Actually, I mean both. I mean sex and gender. My sex should be irrelevant, but so should which gender I choose to identify with.

It would be nice if they were irrelevant, but for that, the whole rest of the world (everyone) would have to feel as you do. That's probably not going to happen, so we have so accept that others may find our sex and gender relevant to them. Our individual feelings are not necessary everyone else's feelings.

[nerdperson777]

That idea about entering a male-dominated profession, I'm doing that too (engineering). I keep thinking back whether the reason why I was accepted into my university because the people who manage admissions let me in because they saw a female engineering major. I might be mixing up social and life dis/advantages here but since I'm not confident that I'm even worthy of my position at my school. I want people to see me as the potential new engineering intern rather than the aspiring female trying to enter the male-dominated career. I don't want to be seen as a lower being that wants to advance by unfair means. Those assumptions people make, I do wish they don't. When people see me, I think it's kind of like, a skinny girl. That means skirts, dresses, makeup, and kissing up to guys! No, just no. In fact, I hate all of it.

So in a way I'm a bit confused. I want people to see me as me, but sometimes the being female characteristic can advance my career into positions never thought, but also exclude me from them. Everyone wants to boost up their life but (oh I can make a cake joke!) you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Sally]

That idea about entering a male-dominated profession, I'm doing that too (engineering). I keep thinking back whether the reason why I was accepted into my university because the people who manage admissions let me in because they saw a female engineering major. I might be mixing up social and life dis/advantages here but since I'm not confident that I'm even worthy of my position at my school. I want people to see me as the potential new engineering intern rather than the aspiring female trying to enter the male-dominated career. I don't want to be seen as a lower being that wants to advance by unfair means. Those assumptions people make, I do wish they don't. When people see me, I think it's kind of like, a skinny girl. That means skirts, dresses, makeup, and kissing up to guys! No, just no. In fact, I hate all of it.

So in a way I'm a bit confused. I want people to see me as me, but sometimes the being female characteristic can advance my career into positions never thought, but also exclude me from them. Everyone wants to boost up their life but (oh I can make a cake joke!) you can't have your cake and eat it too.

It will get better with time. 30 years ago, when I worked in the engineering college of a Seattle university, women were just beginning to be accepted into an undergraduate program. The faculty advisor for those women told me that he would never accept a female faculty member in his department. But about ten years ago, the Dean of the College of Engineering was a woman.

[Random Happenstance]

I get what you're saying. I'm non-binary and intend to transition, but while my gender is currently very relevant to me, I wish gender/sex was considered irrelevant to the observer. It seems bizarre to me that we refer to people differently based on what reproductive organs we presume them to have. It basically means that if someone is transgender they then have to attempt to correct the box they're put in gender-wise, but I would question the existance of such a box outside of any individual's experience. I try not to gender strangers where I feel comfortable not to since really there isn't any external marker that can tell you how someone identifies, and yet people regularly push pronouns and, further, identities onto total strangers.

The social aspects of gender are so problematic in many ways. I wish there weren't gender-specific pronouns to begin with, and that ways of presenting weren't gendered. That people could define their own experience of gender personally, and transition physically if they experience dysphoria without anyone disapproving. It would be better if we could all interact with the world as people, and be respected for it without the need to desperately classify people based on predefined rules.

But unfortunately it would require masses of societal "unlearning" to reach any point like that, and for now we have to work within the context where gender and sex are set up as massively relevant right from birth. You can't just conveniently ignore gender and sex in this context, but I would certainly argue that people shouldn't support unhealthy expectations or stereotypes based on gender (as you seem to be suggesting some of the feminists you know have done). We need to abolish the idea that someone's personality can be reasonably predicted based on their sex or gender, I think it's very harmful to argue that there are inherent differences based on sex or gender.

I know this doesn't provide any solution to your problems, but you're certainly not alone in wanting your gender/sex to be irrelevant to other people. I wish telling people "I'm non-binary" would be like telling someone I like folk music, it's a part of you that you've revealed, but doesn't change how they see/refer to you, nor do they make further assumptions based on it.

[kiaroskuro]

I have noticed that while feminism stands for many things I fully support, a lot, if not most feminists still seem to see women as either a sexual object, a maternal object, or both. Some stress sexual "liberation" and promiscuity as a central focus, they claim that I am perverse because not only do I not want it, I am utterly repulsed by it, and I am disgusted with the treatment it brings. You can't tell me in all honesty that the pop stars writhing on the ground touching themselves while either naked or close to it are "liberated" or empowered. It seems like the exact opposite of that to me. It seems like exploitation. There are others who stress the value of women, because they are more nurturing because they possess the ability to give birth. I am not. There is only one nurturing bone in my body and I only know how to use it with cats. I am not more community minded, and I don't like children nor do I want to have any. I am not submissive, I am not what women are "supposed to" be like. So, I can't get behind that either, of course there are feminists who stress other things above these, but that is unimportant for the current thought process. What I have realized is that I don't want to be identified as "woman" nor as "man" and I don't want to be called "gender-queer", or "genderless," or "androgynous" either.

Finally I've found someone who shares my point of view! Well, at least partly, as far as I can judge.

While I think it's super important to defend women's rights, I've always felt a little uncomfortable calling myself a feminist - not only because I don't feel 'feminine' (whatever that's supposed to mean) and identify as genderqueer [with question mark], but also because it would feel weird being involved in a movement where so much emphasis is put on sexuality/'liberation'/motherhood etc. All of these things don't really concern me; it doesn't feel like I'm one of them. Yet I want equal payment, the abolishment of sex trafficking and lookism - but to me 'women's rights' are intrinsically human rights. That's why I think everyone should advocate these rights.

PS: Every real feminist with a bit of common sense would strongly oppose the kind of objectification you alluded to, Christina. Showing off à la Miley Cyrus has got nothing to with empowerment. Women who virtually sell themselves like that sadly don't have a clue of the mechanisms of patriarchy - or they simply ignore them, which is pretty sad in itself.

[Christinanc93]

I have noticed that while feminism stands for many things I fully support, a lot, if not most feminists still seem to see women as either a sexual object, a maternal object, or both. Some stress sexual "liberation" and promiscuity as a central focus, they claim that I am perverse because not only do I not want it, I am utterly repulsed by it, and I am disgusted with the treatment it brings. You can't tell me in all honesty that the pop stars writhing on the ground touching themselves while either naked or close to it are "liberated" or empowered. It seems like the exact opposite of that to me. It seems like exploitation. There are others who stress the value of women, because they are more nurturing because they possess the ability to give birth. I am not. There is only one nurturing bone in my body and I only know how to use it with cats. I am not more community minded, and I don't like children nor do I want to have any. I am not submissive, I am not what women are "supposed to" be like. So, I can't get behind that either, of course there are feminists who stress other things above these, but that is unimportant for the current thought process. What I have realized is that I don't want to be identified as "woman" nor as "man" and I don't want to be called "gender-queer", or "genderless," or "androgynous" either.

Finally I've found someone who shares my point of view! Well, at least partly, as far as I can judge.

While I think it's super important to defend women's rights, I've always felt a little uncomfortable calling myself a feminist - not only because I don't feel 'feminine' (whatever that's supposed to mean) and identify as genderqueer [with question mark], but also because it would feel weird being involved in a movement where so much emphasis is put on sexuality/'liberation'/motherhood etc. All of these things don't really concern me; it doesn't feel like I'm one of them. Yet I want equal payment, the abolishment of sex trafficking and lookism - but to me 'women's rights' are intrinsically human rights. That's why I think everyone should advocate these rights.

PS: Every real feminist with a bit of common sense would strongly oppose the kind of objectification you alluded to, Christina. Showing off à la Miley Cyrus has got nothing to with empowerment. Women who virtually sell themselves like that sadly don't have a clue of the mechanisms of patriarchy - or they simply ignore them, which is pretty sad in itself.

I find it very interesting that you jump straight to Miley Cyrus when in reality, if you pick any popstar, it fits. Even those we frequently admire as visions of the liberated woman (Beyoncé, lady gaga, etc) do this. And, I frequently see found women trying to be as promiscuous as possible to prove that they are "liberated" women, that they are true feminists (by their words) because if men can have lots of sex, they should have lots of sex too... And it's super frustrating, because they don't realize that they are not being liberated, rather they are strengthening male oppression. The first class I ever took in the women's and ethnic studies department (before it changed majors 7 times and switched schools and went abroad and came back and took it on for the ethnic portion because it was as close as I could get to global studies) my professor, who claimed to be a feminist, stood up and said that all women wanted sex but they had to say no to protect their reputation because of the double standard, but even if she says no, she actually does want to have sex. Mind you, this was only two months after I had been rasped. She also said that all college aged women were promiscuous, and called me a liar when I said that was clearly false because I didn't. While she's not the majority, and I have had many wonderful professors in that department, she's not alone, and she's not exactly rare given a lot of conversations I've had with people. Also, I realize you agreed with me... I just felt the need to say more things. Haha. And it's true, the women's rights I support are human rights, rights everyone should have. But there isn't a word for that and it bothers me. Most people lump it in with feminism, but then it's such a meaningless term, because it encompasses me, that professor, everyone in between, and even complementarians. Some claim that I can't be one because I don't support killing your own offspring, and because I find sex absolutely repulsive, others say I am one Ina positive light because I do fight for human rights and I want to be independent, and as I said earlier, in STEM. (I wanted to switch to engineering when I got home, but didn't want 4 more years of school, so I'm doing graphic design and web development instead, but in my previous job (maintenance technician) I was the token female, and that... Was not fun. Which I think is why I'm suddenly like "I think this should be irrelevant!") (also, because I know this sounds confusing, I'm getting two degrees at the same time from two different schools) and some people say I am as a negative thing because I'm not nurturing, not very relational, and they believe I am mocking God's design for humanity (although, I'm pretty sure "helper" doesn't imply submissive as the term could easily be used to describe the police, the fire department, doctors, lawyers, etc, but that's another rant) and in conclusion, amidst all the words I forgot my point... And the fact that i am categorized by an organ I will never willingly use sucks. The end... Sorry

[Sally]

) because if men can have lots of sex, they should have lots of sex too... And it's super frustrating, because they don't realize that they are not being liberated, rather they are strengthening male oppression.

Just how are women "strengthening male oppression" by having lots of sex?

[nerdperson777]

I was in a history lecture a few months ago, talking about feminism in the 1950s and 60s. Then this discussion of unequal women's rights came about. One girl pointed out that when a male decides to pursue something, they are called ambitious. When a female decides to pursue something, they are called over-ambitious. I found that very true, so true that I remember that the most out of the entire class. Later, my dad heard that a family friend's son, the same age as me, is pursuing a tax license in addition to his double major so he's really ambitious and dad was praising him so much to me. Then I thought, I try to do a cosplay, and he tells me to compromise everything because it's too hard to match everything exactly. He's not even trying to help me be exact. That is NOT what cosplay is about. I found it obvious that he sees men higher than women since when mom was out of a job for a few months, he held himself on such a high pedestal for having a job and got a chance to be above mom, who usually is the biggest breadwinner. But when I told mom about him seeing our friend so highly and compromising me, she said it was not because I was female.

This unfairness kind of gets to me.

[Random Happenstance]

) because if men can have lots of sex, they should have lots of sex too... And it's super frustrating, because they don't realize that they are not being liberated, rather they are strengthening male oppression.

Just how are women "strengthening male oppression" by having lots of sex?

I'm not certain if this is how it was meant, but there are certain mentalities within feminism which imply masculinity as superior and therefore something that should be emulated, femininity being considered weaker. As an example, some people consider it feminist for a woman to hunt animals, while doing so is actually enforcing another domination and causing harm, which is not positive (whoever does it). Additionally celebration of women within the military without criticism of the military. Some of this kind of feminism implies women should be able to do the same things as men, while ignoring that aspects of masculinity are harmful and not something necessarily productive to emulate.

There's also a tendency for certain things to be celebrated as feminist which are simply conventional ways of expressing sexuality for the desires of men. This isn't a rule, and just because someone expresses sexuality in a way that does cater to men, it doesn't mean they are not feminist, or that the act is specifically anti-feminist. It's just that those things are encouraged as ways of being feminist without significantly challenging anything, pretty much.

It's not the fact of having lots of sex that strengthens male oppression, but the way that that in itself is presented as a feminist act (while the ability to say no is not), when it's a lot more complicated. Certainly what OP was describing, with people being shamed for exorcising their right to choose whether or not they have sex, is very harmful. I haven't had much experience with those kinds of feminism though.

Of course, and I should have questioned this earlier, women certainly cannot be blamed for "strengthening male oppression", but questions should be asked and the way people think of feminism expanded so it adequately challenges it.

I haven't spoken on this topic enough to be completely comfortable with it though, so if anyone has any criticisms of what I've written I'd be happy to listen and learn from them.

[littlepersonparadox]

I think you got it down pat mostly. I feel that feminism is allowing people of all genders, not just women to behave in a mannor that expresses themselves without criticisiam and society's judgment. That is to say a fraction of what would make up total equality for everyone overall. behaviours that express themselves may not be umm beneficial to society. Take your idea of military violence. Women in the military I think is completely ok. But. I'm not pro military myself, we know that military glorify violence and in areas of military bases violence overall is highter. Take Halifax for example it has the highest murdor rate in Canada, and has been blamed on the military base located there(source: readers digest) so let's suppose a man in a ad is a solder and is viewed as a hero for let's say burning down a village in order to get this one villan. There may be outcry for the village but it wouldn't as big as if the soilger was female. And that outcry would be based against the fact that hey. It's a she, and she shouldn't do that. Same with men women are supposed be the only ones who play with Barbies, not little boys yet we gender code it. feminism is there for the girl who doesn't want to wear a dress and the boy who wants his dolly. And we should engurages them and only denounce values that are harmful for the right reasons (ie it's destructive to multiple indivials/ in terms of physical and or mental health, and is that way in actuality and not viewed that way because of a myth)

As for women having sex that is feminist if (and strong emphasis on if) she's doing because she wants to not because she was pressured into it by society. Believe it or not the pressure to lose ones vergity is placed on allosexuals as well. and if you don't want sex then you can still be just as a feminist as the women who has sex. society does place value in a women's chastity. As well as sexual objectification happens a lot. It's one of those double edged swords that society -particularly mainstream society places on people. They stop being feminist when they say that your not feminist for not wanting sex, not because they had sex. People need to stop caring about the sexuality of others. If a company sexualizes a women and use it as a selling point then that's wrong. If they say the only quality of a good women is that she's a vergin then that's also wrong. The idea is that we need a find a way to fight both ends of the sword without compromising the others fight. A mutual way to tell society to stop policing eachothere's sexuality and sexual activity period. So far I haven't seen that happen.

[kiaroskuro]

And it's true, the women's rights I support are human rights, rights everyone should have. But there isn't a word for that and it bothers me. Most people lump it in with feminism, but then it's such a meaningless term, because it encompasses me, that professor, everyone in between, and even complementarians. Some claim that I can't be one because I don't support killing your own offspring, and because I find sex absolutely repulsive, others say I am one Ina positive light because I do fight for human rights and I want to be independent, and as I said earlier, in STEM.

I see ... I don't support abortion either, which makes me a lousy feminist - if we're talking about that cookie-cutter version of feminism that I find a little difficult to deal with.

Well, I just picked Miley because she was the most 'obvious' one, but you made a good point: I basically could've chosen any other female popstar. It's pretty sad (and revolting) that so many 'tough' gals out there claim to be independent (talking of Beyoncé ...) and can't do without showing cleavage. For fear of what? Losing their male fanbase? Being considered as uptight? I just don't get it.

I recently considered writing for a (feminist) women's magazine, but it somehow didn't feel right because I couldn't identify with their philosophy/weltanschauung/type of self-awareness or call it what you will. It seems like all feminists are supposed to feel the same way about the female body, sexuality etc., while I still can't get my head around why so many of them are enforcing gender stereotypes rather than seeking to deconstruct them. It just feels like I don't fit in there, simply because gender hardly matters to me. I'm not quite sure where my indifference towards gender (as far as my own person is concerned) stems from, but I suspect that it has to do with my romantic orientation and inexistent sexual orientation.

[Random Happenstance]

And it's true, the women's rights I support are human rights, rights everyone should have. But there isn't a word for that and it bothers me. Most people lump it in with feminism, but then it's such a meaningless term, because it encompasses me, that professor, everyone in between, and even complementarians. Some claim that I can't be one because I don't support killing your own offspring, and because I find sex absolutely repulsive, others say I am one Ina positive light because I do fight for human rights and I want to be independent, and as I said earlier, in STEM.

I see ... I don't support abortion either, which makes me a lousy feminist - if we're talking about that cookie-cutter version of feminism that I find a little difficult to deal with.

Well, I just picked Miley because she was the most 'obvious' one, but you made a good point: I basically could've chosen any other female popstar. It's pretty sad (and revolting) that so many 'tough' gals out there claim to be independent (talking of Beyoncé ...) and can't do without showing cleavage. For fear of what? Losing their male fanbase? Being considered as uptight? I just don't get it.

I recently considered writing for a (feminist) women's magazine, but it somehow didn't feel right because I couldn't identify with their philosophy/weltanschauung/type of self-awareness or call it what you will. It seems like all feminists are supposed to feel the same way about the female body, sexuality etc., while I still can't get my head around why so many of them are enforcing gender stereotypes rather than seeking to deconstruct them. It just feels like I don't fit in there, simply because gender hardly matters to me. I'm not quite sure where my indifference towards gender (as far as my own person is concerned) stems from, but I suspect that it has to do with my romantic orientation and inexistent sexual orientation.

Well, I would vehemently support a pregnant person's right to choose to have an abortion if they need to. So I have to disagree with you both on that point (which I guess I didn't pick up on previously).

While I agree that the way in which a pop star may express their sexuality isn't necessarily going to be progressive and feminist, I have to disagree that you could then say that they aren't 'independant' or 'tough'. It's really problematic to judge women in that way. Some women may be proud of their cleavage, or want to look "sexy", and they should be free to do so. Hell, if they feel like they couldn't keep their fanbase, or couldn't sell records without doing so, then it's absolutely the producers/fanbase who should be criticised. Not them for giving in to those pressures. Hell, they might even consider it worth doing so that they have a platform where they can talk about important issues. I absolutely don't understand the desire to look appealing, but if you say that showing cleavage makes someone not independant/tough, then that could easily be extended to makeup, skirts, form fitting clothes, or anything that might make a person more sexually attractive. You know what, I'm really surprised that I'm here defending popstars. I have no interest in them myself, and find them rather boring most of the time.

There are a lot of problems with mainstream feminism that are very valid, and I'm sure this magazine had many of them. But. Feminism isn't about all feeling one way, but about freedom of expression and not keeping people restricted to stereotypical roles. At the same time, not criticising people for being in those roles/positions, because it happens and those people should be celebrated too. Most of the feminists I've encountered have been talking along these lines, not in the ways that you and OP have been describing. Perhaps because my interactions with people are mostly on the internet, and that I tend to find myself in those parts of it.

[kiaroskuro]

While I agree that the way in which a pop star may express their sexuality isn't necessarily going to be progressive and feminist, I have to disagree that you could then say that they aren't 'independant' or 'tough'. It's really problematic to judge women in that way. Some women may be proud of their cleavage, or want to look "sexy", and they should be free to do so. Hell, if they feel like they couldn't keep their fanbase, or couldn't sell records without doing so, then it's absolutely the producers/fanbase who should be criticised. Not them for giving in to those pressures. Hell, they might even consider it worth doing so that they have a platform where they can talk about important issues. I absolutely don't understand the desire to look appealing, but if you say that showing cleavage makes someone not independant/tough, then that could easily be extended to makeup, skirts, form fitting clothes, or anything that might make a person more sexually attractive. You know what, I'm really surprised that I'm here defending popstars. I have no interest in them myself, and find them rather boring most of the time.

I didn't say that 'sexy women' aren't independant or tough by default, they sure can be - and everyone's free to wear what they want, of course. Who am I to deny them that right?

But honestly, how many female pop singers are there who dare to look as 'unspectacular' as their male counterparts on stage? It's pretty sad. I also don't want to walk around the city with no chance of escaping all those standard half-naked-woman-on-the-beach advertising posters. But I guess it's also a personal thing: 'high heel women' and me, we simply live on different planets. This is not to say that I can't be friends with them (actually, most of my female friends do like to dress up and wear makeup), and I sure don't mean to offend anyone. But it often feels like we really don't share common ground.

[Random Happenstance]

While I agree that the way in which a pop star may express their sexuality isn't necessarily going to be progressive and feminist, I have to disagree that you could then say that they aren't 'independant' or 'tough'. It's really problematic to judge women in that way. Some women may be proud of their cleavage, or want to look "sexy", and they should be free to do so. Hell, if they feel like they couldn't keep their fanbase, or couldn't sell records without doing so, then it's absolutely the producers/fanbase who should be criticised. Not them for giving in to those pressures. Hell, they might even consider it worth doing so that they have a platform where they can talk about important issues. I absolutely don't understand the desire to look appealing, but if you say that showing cleavage makes someone not independant/tough, then that could easily be extended to makeup, skirts, form fitting clothes, or anything that might make a person more sexually attractive. You know what, I'm really surprised that I'm here defending popstars. I have no interest in them myself, and find them rather boring most of the time.

I didn't say that 'sexy women' aren't independant or tough by default, they sure can be - and everyone's free to wear what they want, of course. Who am I to deny them that right?

But honestly, how many female pop singers are there who dare to look as 'unspectacular' as their male counterparts on stage? It's pretty sad. I also don't want to walk around the city with no chance of escaping all those standard half-naked-woman-on-the-beach advertising posters. But I guess it's also a personal thing: 'high heel women' and me, we simply live on different planets. This is not to say that I can't be friends with them (actually, most of my female friends do like to dress up and wear makeup), and I sure don't mean to offend anyone. But it often feels like we really don't share common ground.

I totally understand that sentiment. There certainly are female singers (generally not in mainstream pop though) who don't need to dress in that particular way. Or the record label sells them as fitting into a different box, but again it does vary because of the style of music they make. I find it's really unfortunate and sad that there is such sexism in how female popstars are expected to act/dress/perform, but it's easy for people to direct their frustrations at the women who are pretty much a product of that, rather than the issues which create it. Half-naked models on posters exist because of the way women are degraded, objectified and their bodies used to sell things. The model herself may want to look "sexy" but it's an artificial standard created by society, and that is what needs to be criticised. It's very likely that most female models would find it difficult to get work outside of that kind of thing. It's desperately hard to find pictures of women on advertisements or interviews that are done in the same strengthening way that those of men are. I would certainly say that it's not for lack of women who would like to be presented that way.

I used to somewhat dislike women who acted in that way, directing some of my frustrations at the victims rather than the cause. But, while there is a massive barrier between me and women who do like fashion and do dress in that way, I've come to be able to even respect some of them for coming through it fairly decent people, or at least not blame them for our differences. Thankfully, while I have lately come to appreciate strong female characters all the more, I've always had good female role models, even just in the films/shows I'd watch (Ghibli, Silence of The Lambs, some anime, Matilda, BtVS, Narnia etc.). I think that's helped massively in my perception of women.

[Kanenas]

I too wish that it was irrelevant. I wonder many times how my biology or the rags that I call clothes seem to affect and concern basically everybody but me so much. I am so indifferent that I don't even bother to identify myself as transgender, agender, or any other identity. I do not want to be judged by my body, my biology; it's not like anybody has the right to do so, anyway.

I am a bleeding heart feminist. It's not about exclusive women's rights and it certainly should never be about women's privileges. It's about equality. I demand that nobody gives me disadvantages because I am biologically female. I also demand that nobody gives me advantages because I am biologically female. And I also demand that nobody gives me (dis/)advantages because my gender is not what they expect it to be. I was always "just one of the guys" in most male-dominated environments. Until I happened to sincerely outperform them and was told I was pretty good... For a girl. Or that I only got the benefit because nobody wanted to seem misogynist. That I, generally speaking, am less and nothing I do really counts. I am sick and tired of people undermining my vision, thoughts, feelings, skills, effort and performance. That makes me a fat and ugly baby killing man hating feminazi in the eyes of the people I call out on their behavior. It would be bad enough if they did it with somebody who identifies as female. But they are doing it to somebody who never had this identity in the first place.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

That idea about entering a male-dominated profession, I'm doing that too (engineering). I keep thinking back whether the reason why I was accepted into my university because the people who manage admissions let me in because they saw a female engineering major. I might be mixing up social and life dis/advantages here but since I'm not confident that I'm even worthy of my position at my school. I want people to see me as the potential new engineering intern rather than the aspiring female trying to enter the male-dominated career. I don't want to be seen as a lower being that wants to advance by unfair means. Those assumptions people make, I do wish they don't. When people see me, I think it's kind of like, a skinny girl. That means skirts, dresses, makeup, and kissing up to guys! No, just no. In fact, I hate all of it.

I hate it all, too. Frankly, I LOVED working with the women who worked on some of my projects. I dunno, maybe it was because we were able to let gender be something that we checked at the door to the factory floor. I'm hardly ANYone's idea of a hearthrob of a guy. I just love elegance in form and function and the ability some people have, both male and female, to 'see' and appreciate it, too. And to work together to make things work.

I think....or at least hope.... you're in the last throes of the old guard dying out and people from my generation stepping on the stage to create a environment that resonates, not on gender, but on our differences and abilities to work together toward a common appreciation of the difference engine the pursuit of elegant excellence can bring about.

Cuz I get kind sick of hearing it whispered 'You're pretty good for..a....well.... you know.....'.

[nerdperson777]

Well, sometimes having being the only females in class makes connections, I'll say that. But yeah, working together with everyone's different skills is what makes things work and be successful. It shouldn't be about who's a guy and who isn't.

Not sure what you mean by the last throne dying out and your generation is newly taking the stage because I'm still in university trying to get my engineering degree. (If I sound like I'm old, hmmm...) All for excellence!

Yeah I kind of hate that too. I'm always so degraded so getting rid of at least one form will help.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Well, sometimes having being the only females in class makes connections, I'll say that. But yeah, working together with everyone's different skills is what makes things work and be successful. It shouldn't be about who's a guy and who isn't.

Not sure what you mean by the last throne dying out and your generation is newly taking the stage because I'm still in university trying to get my engineering degree. (If I sound like I'm old, hmmm...) All for excellence!

Yeah I kind of hate that too. I'm always so degraded so getting rid of at least one form will help.

I think the proverbial 'old boy' networks, where alpha males are invariably in the seats of power in the realms, micromanaging with almost autocratic tunnel vision are in a long term decline. The most successful of enterprises are becoming more like living organisms, who must have harmony and cooperation to survive. You don't get that from the Alpha Male model in the needed concentration that may come to be the norm. Look at how skyscrapers are constructed today.... there *is* no 'master builder' anymore, there are systems of organization that look more like how households are run than kings with fiefdoms.

I almost envy not being of your generation, to be starting down a path that is far more egalitarian that the one I was forced into by my circumstances, where difference is MUCH more accepted and appreciated than it used to be.

Excellence is still a great thing.... being in a more cooperative, less-authoritarian-environment that is often corrosive to the alpha male paradigm is, to me, a MUCH more preferable state in which to achieve. Not to mention that it also conveys a LONG overdue leveling of the fields of opportunity for women.

Want to do an interesting thought experiment? I'm not sure which of the many disciplines of engineering in which you are entering, but think about how the world might have been changed if Tesla had been female. Because we sure know that Edison was an alpha male, and not a particularly smart one, either.

[nerdperson777]

Well, I'm the type of person who likes the one answer to a question thing, rather than open-ended, probably just due to my preference of math and science. But today, it seems that employers want more. They want leadership qualities and creativity. What do you think I am? I'm just one who will work and get the job done. I'm probably not going to be a trailblazer and create the world's most efficient light bulb. I'm not looking for multiple solutions to a single problem. I kind of liked the old world that way in that there were less job requirements.

With the Tesla/Edison thing, the typical thing I expect to happen is that Tesla gets under-reputed or has even no reputation. Media just erases people sometimes.

I'm studying Electrical, so circuit stuff.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Well, I'm the type of person who likes the one answer to a question thing, rather than open-ended, probably just due to my preference of math and science. But today, it seems that employers want more. They want leadership qualities and creativity. What do you think I am? I'm just one who will work and get the job done. I'm probably not going to be a trailblazer and create the world's most efficient light bulb. I'm not looking for multiple solutions to a single problem. I kind of liked the old world that way in that there were less job requirements.

With the Tesla/Edison thing, the typical thing I expect to happen is that Tesla gets under-reputed or has even no reputation. Media just erases people sometimes.

I'm studying Electrical, so circuit stuff.

Mostly, they want cheap. Someone they can sweatshop and call it 'leadership'. Production line 'creativity' without the messy Creatives who waste time inventing new things for which there is no immediate mass market.

It's why many tech companies like Microsoft are struggling. They're trying to turn engineers into light bulbs. Burn one out, screw another in, and if you can't replace one immediately, declare Darkness an industry standard.

[nerdperson777]

Yeah, since internships, I heard at an event, is essentially "try before you buy". Companies are less likely to pay you, and if they think you'll make a reliable worker, then they'll hire you. Really now the answer is exploit your workers to the fullest and make them workaholics. I dread having to deal with this later.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Yeah, since internships, I heard at an event, is essentially "try before you buy". Companies are less likely to pay you, and if they think you'll make a reliable worker, then they'll hire you. Really now the answer is exploit your workers to the fullest and make them workaholics. I dread having to deal with this later.

I don't envy you having to start out in this profession with a lot of student loan debt. I've seen firsthand how the PTB (Powers That Be) are using the bad economy to extort more and more for less and less out of some groups of professionals. And I know that if I ever got totally outed, my job would probably be toast, so I always keep in the back of my mind that I have to keep learning how to do more and more things. It's how I kept one step ahead of the wolves at the door for soooo long. Ironically, I'm a workaholic so that someday maybe I can be Out and NOT be a workaholic.

More irony? One of my sibs is an RN, two of the others work union jobs for a Fortune 500 company, and all their jobs pay more than mine. I'm a big fish in a little pond, but at least there's water there. And so much for the theory that jobs in male dominated fields invariably pay more than those in female dominated fields.

[mausgrau]

The bashing of “feminism” in much of this thread is kinda funny to me. Especially since a whole lot of feminists (real-life feminists not straw women) have long ago identified and named a phenomenon that seems to contribute much to what appears to be the OP’s problem here: Men are People – Women are Women.

[ItsALongHardRoad]

Well,when I was a young girl,I wanted to be male and I always was ok with my female appearance (I just love feminine people in general,male or female).And I think that says a lot.

^You nailed it.Even though the male to female ratio is more or less 1:1,women are still viewed as exotic creatures with certain attitudes,needs and interests who love nothing more than to be gazed at.And then they tell you ''Patriarchy is dead,you are a feminazi,mew mew mew,bawl bawl bawl''

Especially disgusting are douches that read other douches like i.e Jake Ayres.''How to get her into bed'' etc

As if women are puzzles to be solved.Or all the arguments on Youtube about female privilege.They just don't get it.It is not a privilege to have someone pay for you,just because you are female,it's a power hold over you.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

From Gloria Steinem:

So now I want to be unequivocal in my words: I believe that transgender people, including those who have transitioned, are living out real, authentic lives.

Those lives should be celebrated, not questioned.

Their health care decisions should be theirs and theirs alone to make.

And what I wrote decades ago does not reflect what we know today as we move away from only the binary boxes of “masculine” or “feminine” and begin to live along the full human continuum of identity and expression.

- Gloria Steinem, feminist icon & activist

[Ace Griff]

I IDENTIFY A LOT WITH THE FIRST POST.

I'm a female, biologically. I have no real problem with being recognized as a female.

I couldn't care less about what my gender is.

But I do NOT want to be associated with all the female stereotypes.

I do not want to look feminine. I don't wear skirts or dresses because I'm not comfortable with showing my legs (I love my legs, by the way, just think they're no one else's business)

I understand that you want to be recognized as a person, as yourself, it doesn't really matter if you identify as a female or male or whatever else.