I want my gender to be irrelevant

[nerdperson777]

Well, I'm fortunate enough that my mom saved money, although it's practically her retirement fund and it's entirely out of pocket, no loans. In her career, she's been pretty successful, and I idolize her for that. She has very good credentials (I don't want to say what kind without sounding like I'm bragging about her.) and has kept up to date with keeping her licenses in additional to some pop gossip. A few years ago, she was laid off due to a lack of funds to pay her (and a new paranoid boss) and that's how I got to know about the new job requirements like leadership. I think, if everyone has leadership qualities, then how are you leading? Sometimes I can see how education doesn't correlate with the type of job one has. My dad has a degree but I think his brother that doesn't, makes about the same, if not more.

The main thing I don't like about being female is seeing other women who are 100% female inside and sexualize everything. I don't like how everything is about showing more skin, more cleavage, and stuff like that. I'm into cosplay and seeing that in people's costumes makes me think that's not what cosplay is about anymore. The idea is to play the character as it should be, with minor changes. If the character doesn't have cleavage, don't show it. It encourages the culture of exploiting the female body. I'm not exploiting my body in any way. I'm going to act like a normal clothed, practical human being. Now I know I'm not really all that female inside so doesn't apply to me as much for hating it.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Well, I'm fortunate enough that my mom saved money, although it's practically her retirement fund and it's entirely out of pocket, no loans. In her career, she's been pretty successful, and I idolize her for that. She has very good credentials (I don't want to say what kind without sounding like I'm bragging about her.) and has kept up to date with keeping her licenses in additional to some pop gossip. A few years ago, she was laid off due to a lack of funds to pay her (and a new paranoid boss) and that's how I got to know about the new job requirements like leadership. I think, if everyone has leadership qualities, then how are you leading? Sometimes I can see how education doesn't correlate with the type of job one has. My dad has a degree but I think his brother that doesn't, makes about the same, if not more.

The main thing I don't like about being female is seeing other women who are 100% female inside and sexualize everything. I don't like how everything is about showing more skin, more cleavage, and stuff like that. I'm into cosplay and seeing that in people's costumes makes me think that's not what cosplay is about anymore. The idea is to play the character as it should be, with minor changes. If the character doesn't have cleavage, don't show it. It encourages the culture of exploiting the female body. I'm not exploiting my body in any way. I'm going to act like a normal clothed, practical human being. Now I know I'm not really all that female inside so doesn't apply to me as much for hating it.

All too often in American business, 'leadership' is just authority crossdressed in male privilege. But, it's a grave mistake to think that happens ALL the time.

Submitted for your approval: one company you'll never hear about if you don't know about things like PTFE-- W.L. Gore and Associates, whose current CEO is, BTW a woman. At Gore, pretty much everyone has the same title: Associate. The cultural is based on four things... from Wikipedia:

Unlike the traditional management structure that Bill Gore had experienced at DuPont, he proposed a flat, lattice-like organizational structure where everyone shares the same title of "associate." There are neither chains of command nor predetermined channels of communication. Leaders replace the idea of "bosses." Associates choose to follow leaders rather than have bosses assigned to them. Associate contribution reviews are based on a peer-level rating system.

Bill Gore articulated four culture principles that he called freedom, fairness, commitment and waterline:

• Associates have the freedom to encourage, help, and allow other associates to grow in knowledge, skill, and scope of responsibility
• Associates should demonstrate fairness to each other and everyone with whom they come in contact
• Associates are provided the ability to make one's own commitments and are expected to keep them
• A waterline situation involves consultation with other associates before undertaking actions that could impact the reputation or profitability of the company and otherwise "sink the ship."
• [\quote]

Gore and Associates regularly makes the list of 100 best companies to work for. You can read more about them on the Internet or in Malcom Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point".

See, they would be my kind of company, but I have no idea about how they feel about TG folks like moi.

BTW, the cleavage thingie? Soooo easy to fake, with some tape, polymers and body makeup.

[Wild Seven]

I honestly don't think that gender could ever be irrelevant, not with us as a species, not with species that is just this much used to build whole the social interactions around that concept. Like it sure would be nice if there was a lack of such disparity between genders, if there was more than an ounce of recognition for agender and nongender people, if there was basically more decency about the very way gender as a concept is treated, but that still comes nowhere near obliterating the importance of gender as is.

Gender is a socially relevant phenomenon, like it or not.

That it could be construed differently is another question, and much more loaded. ;/

[Random Happenstance]

I honestly don't think that gender could ever be irrelevant, not with us as a species, not with species that is just this much used to build whole the social interactions around that concept. Like it sure would be nice if there was a lack of such disparity between genders, if there was more than an ounce of recognition for agender and nongender people, if there was basically more decency about the very way gender as a concept is treated, but that still comes nowhere near obliterating the importance of gender as is.

Gender is a socially relevant phenomenon, like it or not.

That it could be construed differently is another question, and much more loaded. ;/

I'd argue that gender needn't be socially relevant. I could talk to people online without letting them know my gender and it wouldn't prevent us from being able to socialise. When it comes to socialising "in the real world" people assume my gender to be other than what it is, so it's debatable whether my actual gender has any impact socially whatsoever.

Gender will remain socially relevant (as far as gendering others/strangers) so long as people find it important to draw a line between genders, and establish differences. Arguably you cannot draw that line, nor are there any significant differences - certainly none that can be universally applied. You cannot accurately asses someone's personality based on what gender you assume them to have either. So, ulimately, whilst we've built up gender as this big dividing thing, it's not actually that objectively relevant. It exists, of course, but needn't be this massive social construct that it is.

I'd argue that gender is important to the one experiencing it, not the one observing them.

Not that I have much hope in us reaching a point where we move past this social focus on gender or, more typically, reproductive organs, but I don't think it's inherently important.

[Wild Seven]

Yeah, I totally agree that it's not *inherently* socially important for interactions, and definitely doesn't need to be that big of a deal for most of interaction, though sadly there's just so much in the world that's heavily gendered and for specific audiences and specific circumstances, gender *does* play a role, whether offline or online. It's of course not a matter of any traits that'd be *specific* to any given gender(s)/lack of, but certain *activities* are just cued in with gendering people and assumptions built about that gender just *comes* into play, regardless of how obsolete that is.

Basically saying deconstructing gender via not gendering activities and abilities might be a start. It's way too easily said than done though. Part of our brains just goes unconsciously assuming the divisions between activities as we've seen them done when growing up, it's not all that easy to be consciously unlearning.

[Random Happenstance]

Yeah, I totally agree that it's not *inherently* socially important for interactions, and definitely doesn't need to be that big of a deal for most of interaction, though sadly there's just so much in the world that's heavily gendered and for specific audiences and specific circumstances, gender *does* play a role, whether offline or online. It's of course not a matter of any traits that'd be *specific* to any given gender(s)/lack of, but certain *activities* are just cued in with gendering people and assumptions built about that gender just *comes* into play, regardless of how obsolete that is.

Basically saying deconstructing gender via not gendering activities and abilities might be a start. It's way too easily said than done though. Part of our brains just goes unconsciously assuming the divisions between activities as we've seen them done when growing up, it's not all that easy to be consciously unlearning.

That's definitely true, it would require massive unlearning to get to a point where gender isn't such a big social factor. Fundamentally changing anything that we are pretty much entrenched in from the minute we can breathe on our own is going to take generations, unfortunately.

But, things are already being questioned and moving forward in terms of what people know about gender, and challenging our own preconceptions. That's something at least, though not much.

If we assume that some change can happen though (eg. not gendering activities) then it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to not gendering appearances or clothes, and those things would funamentally challenge the concept of gendered pronouns as something we choose for others. In my own life I'm continuously trying to unlearn those things, and it makes me somewhat hopeful for others doing the same. I doubt I'd every be around to see it, but I do think it's possible, as well as necessary to strive for.

[nerdperson777]

That Wikipedia article sounds like it's saying the business should run itself. CEO/founder doesn't have to anything.

But back to the title of this, I would think it depends on the context. People will automatically judge you on what they see. It's just nature. But it isn't unreasonable to ask that gender isn't an impediment to conversation. If they just don't respect others, well, then screw them.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Well, I don't understand your response. Are you inferring that they gave the CEO's job to a woman because 'the company runs itself' and she could do no harm? And they only did it to be politically correct or something? Threw her a softball and let her hit it out of the park after they moved the fences in 100 yards?

Or are you saying she doesn't have any *real* power, on par with a male CEO, say Steve Jobs? That they really didn't shatter the glass ceiling, they just used 3 way mirrors?

I think, if you check, Ms Kelly is a rather accomplished mechanical engineer.

[nerdperson777]

I had totally forgotten about your mentioning a female CEO when I wrote that. I was thinking of not really needing a CEO to run if everyone is of the same level.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Ah! Ok. Hopefully more hi-tech companies who hire engineering graduates will become just as forward thinking.

[nerdperson777]

Yeah, software seems to be the rage these days, but I like hardware.

[bede]

I agree. You are you inside that's what counts most to me. The outside is the box you are in. It's content s that matters.