I'm cis, but I hate being called a woman

[TheMaria]

International Women's Day is a pretty awful day for me. I've always felt that way, but never understood why -- self-reflection is hard and it hurts. Now I'm trying to think and talk about it:

 

Being called a woman upsets me. And it's not because of my body, my hormones, my pronouns or even the range of clothes in the women's department.

Department stores are okay; even if they are segregated, at least they have the men's department and the women's department. I often feel like most of everything else has the default department and the women's department.

A man is just the default human person. A woman can not be just a person, a woman is a woman. The default stick figure is understood to be a man.

A woman in a piece of media will inevitably be seen through a gendered lens, be it that she's a housewife and that's good/she's nonconformist and that's bad/she's sexy and that's good...
or
...she's sexy and that's empowering/she's sexy and that's objectifying/she's a housewife and that's patriarchal/she's nonconformist and that's feminist.

I understand and probably should accept the narrative that patriarchy made women this *other*, sexual and fertile thing that is barely the same species (peoplekind, anyone?), and feminism is a reaction to that (it's either female characters tied to gender archetypes/anti-archetypes or no female characters at all, because not talking about gender makes it all revert to "default").

But in practice I cannot deny that being called an irrational woman by conservatives and being called a strong woman by feminists both are equally distressing.

I hate talking about my experiences as a woman, because that emphasises the fact that I am one. But it still feels good to get this off my chest, and I feel like the only way to be honest with myself is face these demons, even if atm I don't really know how (identifying as agender is tempting, but see the first paragraph).

Sympathy? Empathy? Advice?

 

 

[binary suns]

I empathize and understand your feelings! Thank you for sharing your thoughts

 

I have felt that way too and I am sorry please don't feel alone you are not alone

 

but while I do understand why it is not a fair view between a man's media representation and a woman's media representation, please don't forget that there are negatives for men about what is culturally represented of them, and positives for women about what is culturally represented of them. It may not be equivilent in weight of the negatives, but I prefer not to compare pains. 

 

 

remember who you are, you, yourself - for your own sake - and don't let cultural abstractions tarnish the truth of your beautiful individuality 

 

 

 

 

[Entropic]

I get where you are coming from and this is actually how I feel about being transgender. It may seem odd at first, but in reality the main reason why I haven't told my coworkers is because I just don't want to deal with all the questions and beliefs that come with being trans; by that I just don't mean the fact that people somehow develop an insatiable curiosity about what you've got between your legs and how you have sex, but because people now see you as trans first, not just as any other person. You become iconic of a label and instead of being able to be seen for who you are as a person by representing yourself, you come to represent an idea and at worst even an ideology. 

 

I read a debate article today that even went so far as to say that there is such a thing called the "trans ideology", and it of course invariably linked it to queer feminist discourse. The author in question must have been some kind of radical feminist (TERF, even) seeing how much effort was spent trying to delineate the trans movement from the feminist movement despite the two of them now being strongly interlinked primarily for how they both fight for the equality of genders and gender expressions, and between being stuck between the backlash of conservatives such as this particular author and the progressives that want to tout being trans as a label to wear in and of itself regardless whether you identify as a man, a woman, neither or both or all of it, I just feel so incredibly exhausted. What place do I have where I can just be myself and live my own life? 

 

I am not hiding who I am but I am not open about it either and I am a feminist but I am not a queer theorist and as much as I care for transgender rights and speaking up against injustice, at some point I don't want to feel as if I'm just reduced to my social labels. I don't want to be proud for being trans because I personally don't experience it to be something special or noteworthy, and I don't want to feel as if I am obligated to bend gender norms just because I am one, either. There's a reason I unfortunately tend to avoid more obvious non-binary spaces, and sometimes I even feel the issue is part generational though I came out 5 years ago when trans was just about to reach full public awareness; that is, I belong to a generation older than most young trans people despite by most probably still being classified as a young person, and while I can understand and respect the desire to not fit into any given label, I do feel that I do fit into one specific label and that label is "male", even if I take my own spin on it. 

 

And to make things perfectly clear, I am not saying everyone thinks this way or expect this of me, but of course I cannot help but to be aware of how others as a part of the trans movement may use my role as a part of the movement in order to fuel their own agendas as well, whether I asked for it or not. Yes, I am trans but when you come out as trans people tend to make it into such a big deal they can no longer unsee the trans-ness and part why is because a lot of especially young people want to make being trans into something special. In many ways the trans movement is in a similar stage where gay rights were maybe 20 years or so ago with the idea of gay pride and while I can understand why some people may need it, I don't. 

 

To me, being trans isn't a matter of pride as much as I just want to feel accepted and move on with my life because I've just had too much shit that's not related to being trans to feel I really want to make being trans and trans issues the focal point of my life. Despite being an important part of allowing myself to be myself, it's not even close to being a part of what matters the most to me. So I suppose it's also part an issue of values insofar I don't value being trans. I use it as a tool when I have to leverage a point, but beyond that it's something I mostly don't think of, honestly, and having lived as my preferred gender the past years and fully passing in real life, I often nowadays forget I'm transgender. I am of course always unconsciously acutely aware of the fact that what I've gotten between my legs isn't what others may expect me to have between my legs, but as long as people don't think I may be trans, they also don't care to question me about it, and I prefer it that way. I tell people when I feel it's relevant for them to know, and to most people it simply isn't. 

 

This is why I think it was so important to label cisgender as cisgender, because it would finally create a bit of a space for transgender to be seen and treated as something equal as opposed to the constant Other existing in relation to the heterosexual normative ideal that currently exists. 

[fuzzipueo]

58 minutes ago, TheMaria said:

International Women's Day is a pretty awful day for me. I've always felt that way, but never understood why -- self-reflection is hard and it hurts. Now I'm trying to think and talk about it:

 

Being called a woman upsets me. And it's not because of my body, my hormones, my pronouns or even the range of clothes in the women's department.

Department stores are okay; even if they are segregated, at least they have the men's department and the women's department. I often feel like most of everything else has the default department and the women's department.

A man is just the default human person. A woman can not be just a person, a woman is a woman. The default stick figure is understood to be a man.

A woman in a piece of media will inevitably be seen through a gendered lens, be it that she's a housewife and that's good/she's nonconformist and that's bad/she's sexy and that's good...
or
...she's sexy and that's empowering/she's sexy and that's objectifying/she's a housewife and that's patriarchal/she's nonconformist and that's feminist.

I understand and probably should accept the narrative that patriarchy made women this *other*, sexual and fertile thing that is barely the same species (peoplekind, anyone?), and feminism is a reaction to that (it's either female characters tied to gender archetypes/anti-archetypes or no female characters at all, because not talking about gender makes it all revert to "default").

But in practice I cannot deny that being called an irrational woman by conservatives and being called a strong woman by feminists both are equally distressing.

I hate talking about my experiences as a woman, because that emphasised the fact that I am one. But it still feels good to get this off my chest, and I feel like the only way to be honest with myself is face these demons, even if atm I don't really know how (identifying as agender is tempting, but see the first paragraph).

Sympathy? Empathy? Advice?

Agree with you 100%. I hate being called "woman" either directly or as a label used by a former coworker: "the woman I work with". She was being respectful, I know, but it still made me uncomfortable. You have no idea how much the term makes me squirm and want to say "No, please don't call me that!" I am female purely by biological default, and that's about it really. I'm not trans*, NB, or agender, but I don't consider myself to be cis either. I just am me.

[TheMaria]

33 minutes ago, float on said:

but while I do understand why it is not a fair view between a man's media representation and a woman's media representation, please don't forget that there are negatives for men about what is culturally represented of them, and positives for women about what is culturally represented of them. It may not be equivilent in weight of the negatives, but I prefer not to compare pains. 

 

Yeah, while I was writing there was a "what about male archetypes?" at the back of my mind. I guess it feels like it's not that big of a deal because there is no huge movement of analysing and criticising masculinity(ies) like there is with femininity(ies). I don't know if that's because men don't feel as oppressed by these boxes, or if they're used to them since their survival doesn't depend on questioning them, or if the box of stoicism prevents them from challenging their gender roles. Whether it's a tool of the patriarchy or not, the fact is that all I see is at least a façade of "men don't have gender on their mind 24/7".

 

 

17 minutes ago, Entropic said:

I am not hiding who I am but I am not open about it either and I am a feminist but I am not a queer theorist and as much as I care for transgender rights and speaking up against injustice, at some point I don't want to feel as if I'm just reduced to my social labels.

Ugh, yes! This helped articulate something else I couldn't put my finger on: I used to be an antifeminist/"anti-SJW", but now I can see it wasn't a fact-based position. I was doing that because I couldn't bear the idea that I'm not a free-willed individual, but rather a product of a patriarchal society, living in such a society -- I'm not me, I'm a woman. So now that I've changed my views, I still am into politics and want to talk about it, but I SO wish I could be a male ally or a male feminist. That way 1 - there wouldn't be this "am I a weak victim or a strong survivor?" conflict, and 2 - I could talk about feminism without it being associated with my actual gender, if that makes any sense. I wanna be a feminist, but I don't like the expectation that women should be feminists (as in, activists) and feminism is a thing that women do. Even if men are encouraged to join in, I feel like a woman feminist is always gonna end up reinforcing those ideas. I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't like how if I, as a woman, embrace feminism as a field of social science, I'll inevitably become associated with feminism as a "sisterhood" of women who are friends with other women because they're women, and support other women because they're women, and are proud of being women. 

[TopHatCat]

I hate that we’re always a suffix or prefix. Helllllooooo, the Y chromosome is the suffix, everyone starts out female! That’s why I like the word “lady” more than “woman.”

[Entropic]

4 minutes ago, TheMaria said:

Ugh, yes! This helped articulate something else I couldn't put my finger on: I used to be an antifeminist/"anti-SJW", but now I can see it wasn't a fact-based position. I was doing that because I couldn't bear the idea that I'm not a free-willed individual, but rather a product of a patriarchal society, living in such a society -- I'm not me, I'm a woman. So now that I've changed my views, I still am into politics and want to talk about it, but I SO wish I could be a male ally or a male feminist. That way 1 - there wouldn't be this "am I a weak victim or a strong survivor?" conflict, and 2 - I could talk about feminism without it being associated with my actual gender, if that makes any sense. I wanna be a feminist, but I don't like the expectation that women should be feminists (as in, activists) and feminism is a thing that women do. Even if men are encouraged to join in, I feel like a woman feminist is always gonna end up reinforcing those ideas. I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't like how if I, as a woman, embrace feminism as a field of social science, I'll inevitably become associated with feminism as a "sisterhood" of women who are friends with other women because they're women, and support other women because they're women, and are proud of being women. 

Yeah, activism isn't my thing either so I get where you are coming from with that. Feminism has been important to me since I was young, but I immediately picked up on men's rights issues as something to focus on and now I can also look back and see why; it of course tied into my own gendered self, but also because as I, like you pointed out, noticed that there is a strong bias towards feminism primarily focusing on women's issues even though feminism is no longer just about women, at least outside the radical strains. Radicalism does make it just about women, womanhood and femaleness, whereas other strains don't, luckily. I wouldn't stand it either, if it did. I used to be more against feminism when I was younger but more so because I disliked the meaning of the word at the time, because by carrying the word "fem", it clearly implied to be pertaining to women as opposed to simply gender equality in general. 

 

With that said, it may help to widen your social circles a bit when it comes to feminism and as not all of them are about "sisterhood"; radical circles, yes, but other groupings, no. This is one reason why I am skeptical towards gender separatism which is essentially women + trans. I personally don't get it since I do identify as male and a binary one, too, and I just find it odd to be included in such spaces since I also carry with me in many ways typically straight binary cismale values, simply because that is how I largely identify myself. 

 

In fact, a lot of people who seem to identify as anti-feminists in particular are often feminists themselves, but they just don't identify with the media-based feminist portrayal which is unfortunately the radical feminist despite the fact that radical feminism is but a tiny subsection of feminism and the feminist movement. They are, however, like most extremists, more vocal than some, and unfortunately do many of their most aggressive proponents also possess more social power than representatives of other strains. This is also an extension why they adopt a radical point of view, because no other form of feminism could further their own social position as well as radical feminism does. 

 

I also unfortunately think that this is a result of feminism becoming part of the mainstream; a lot of people have heard about feminism but few people truly know something more than what they've heard, and because it's become a part of public consciousness, a lot of especially young people are more willing to also see themselves as feminists. And while I think this is by and large positive in itself, the negative is that few of them actually know what it means to be one outside of espousing an ideological foundation of desiring gender equality. They don't know what it means to apply feminist discourse through a queer theory lens or a marxist theory lens or a power relations lens or a postmodernist lens; they just learn and read what media representatives tell them, which is that men are generally perpetrators of violence and that women are invariably victims of such violence. 

 

As for why men's rights movements (I don't mean actual MRAs but feminist-driven men's rights movements) don't speak up more, it's because men's rights is in such a ridiculous level of infancy that most men actually don't even realize that there is gendered injustice dealt against them. There is also the aspect where they get angry at feminist discourse because they are often painted into a position of power they think they never asked to have, and while I can understand this in a bubble, it becomes quite disgusting when you couple it with the emotional entitlement and immaturity of men as a larger social group as a part of how men are typically raised insofar that they are used to not have their social position in life questioned in general; it tends to reduce them to whiny ass bitches akin to 3-year-olds throwing tantrums just because mommy took away their favorite doll because it's actually bedtime and it's time to brush one's teeth and go sleep but they don't want to because they've been having so much fun being the king of the castle up until now, and being spoiled as they are, they don't understand the importance of personal responsibility either. 

 

And, I think as more and more men manage to get over the idea that attacking men as a group does not mean an attack of each individual man as a person, men's rights may probably finally be able to go somewhere, it's in a similar stage to very early forms of first wave feminism in that it for example largely applies to economically well-off and heterosexual or occasionally gay men. Which of course makes sense, because other groups of men may not have the social power to really make a deal about their gendered position in life like we see with black women in comparison to white women. However, it is also ironically the very same group that reacts the most strongly against the populist feminist discourse, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it, honestly. In general, it seems to me that men as a larger social movement don't know what to do with themselves which is probably part because they are trying to find new ways to relate to current societal changes without really knowing how to meaningfully do so. There's a lot of weeding out going on, but I think by and large this is a good thing and hopefully we can leave behind some of the worst ideas like you see at subreddits such as /r/incels and the like and be able to move forward to a brighter future. 

 

Suffice to say, I doubt groups such as /r/incels will be able to survive long-term mostly because they just don't know how to socially survive in the first place, which is why they gather in such groups in the hopes of at least finding comfort among each other, because they don't have anyone else to turn to. It is simultaneously pathetic as it is pitying, but it is what it is. I wish I could slap them all silly and tell them to grow the fuck up, but that just won't happen, so they are probably better off slowly rotting away in their solitary corner of the internet, anyway. 

[TheMaria]

3 minutes ago, TopHatCat said:

I hate that we’re always a suffix or prefix. Helllllooooo, the Y chromosome is the suffix, everyone starts out female! That’s why I like the word “lady” more than “woman.”

I see what you mean, but I'd say I hate both "lady" and "woman" (as a metonymy type thing), I'd rather it were person, and maybe XX/XY person in medical contexts. Or perchild  

 

 

4 minutes ago, Entropic said:

Yeah, activism isn't my thing either so I get where you are coming from with that. Feminism has been important to me since I was young, but I immediately picked up on men's rights issues as something to focus on and now I can also look back and see why; it of course tied into my own gendered self, but also because as I, like you pointed out, noticed that there is a strong bias towards feminism primarily focusing on women's issues even though feminism is no longer just about women, at least outside the radical strains. Radicalism does make it just about women, womanhood and femaleness, whereas other strains don't, luckily. I wouldn't stand it either, if it did. I used to be more against feminism when I was younger but more so because I disliked the meaning of the word at the time, because by carrying the word "fem", it clearly implied to be pertaining to women as opposed to simply gender equality in general. 

 

With that said, it may help to widen your social circles a bit when it comes to feminism and as not all of them are about "sisterhood"; radical circles, yes, but other groupings, no. This is one reason why I am skeptical towards gender separatism which is essentially women + trans. I personally don't get it since I do identify as male and a binary one, too, and I just find it odd to be included in such spaces since I also carry with me in many ways typically straight binary cismale values, simply because that is how I largely identify myself. 

The fem- preffix does make things infinitely more difficult than they have to be. In the sense that people think it's just about women, in the sense that some people want it to be just about women, in the sense that people like me would rather it had nothing to do with women, but gender in general... 

Perhaps, usually the sisterhood feminism that annoys me comes from Instagram, actually. From people who are "woke pop liberals/socdems"; I feel like feminism to them is like the "girl power" merch Lizzie McGuire had in her bedroom, but with an extra political awareness gold star. Not to shit on those people too much, but yeah, it has more to do with a girls club than social sciences, even if it's a woke girls club. And on the other hand I'm a liberal/socdem myself, so I tend to avoid certain other types of feminism, perhaps misguidedly. 

As for men, I try to focus on how masculinity and gender roles are the problem, rather than men; the system that teaches women to be submissive is the same system that teaches men to be dominant and then aggressive. But I guess that sounds like trying to make men sissies, and nobody wants to be a sissy in this society where the traits we cherish are traditionally masculine ones, to the point that many people, men and women (me included, tbh, at least when it comes to myself) understand a strong woman to be one that behaves more masculine.

[binary suns]

IDK - be a feminist then you seem to care about women's rights so what's stopping you really... I mean I understand resistance to anticipated criticism myself. I have a hard time of social situations because of anxiety. But the thing I learned when I was so afraid of going outside to walk across the grounds to do laundry... if you got a lot of fear in you. you gotta find the courage to be stronger. it won't come right away but a little will, and then you build it up.... 

 

like I said tho - IDK.

 

 

me, I do not like some of the stances some feminists push strongly. I do want equal rights for women - and all walks of life. But I don't agree with some of the ways I see people who represent feminism, how they attack men, white people, cis people, and the government/patriarchy/other sorta things. It strikes me as paranoid and unrealistic. and this criticism is not reserved for feminists either lol - MRA does it too, our dumb pres does it. for a bit when Jordan Peterson first started speaking up for rights to free speech I liked him - and he got some good ideas, some wisdom he's found in his profession and his religion too. But he started getting paranoid as well and vehement and I just couldn't follow that either. it made me sad to see him lose his center. 

 

I do not blame or judge people for such things though. I have had a lot of paranoia in my past - and still do... it isn't easy thoughts to face. they feel real and overwhelmingly impossible to face. I had to learn how to recognize when my brain was not grounded, because when it was not I could not tell the difference between realistic truths and unrealistic falsehoods. and it would fuck me up as I let the paranoia cycle and get out of control until I was depressed and jailed inside my own home from it. I wish I knew a way to help people be less afraid and feel less trapped but for me and I think this is true for others too - it was hard, consistent work that got me to find the strength I needed to escape the hell my fears put me in. 

 

I cannot deny the concerns you have for I am not knowledgeable about the world enough to know what is realistic and what isn't in that line. But I do know that when I meet people IRL, family, friends of family, someone from a church who's helping me out, my hairdresser, my health care professionals.. .they all are very grounded and very ready to listen to my thoughts and when I listen to theirs I always learn something new and feel more secure with the world. Real life conversations - I am so damn scared of them - but even a stranger on the street is friendly when he talks to me. He was concerned I was hurting and recommened I see a chiropractor and smiled and wished me the best.

 

Maybe I am just lucky but - the people around us are more likely to be a good conversation, accepting, helpful - while online people tend to be toxic. I don't exactly understand why but I look to the news and see them basically be fear-mongers. And I wonder if that is something along the line as why online is toxic. Something about showing off or some kind of appetite for dark things. And I look to various online communities and I see arguments everywhere... people harassing each other... it's astounding how different it is. I think some of it too has to do with the inherent otherness that strangers without face or tone of voice or body to see - without that, without a real identity to prove that they are them and they are hurt or wise or happy or sad or angry or understanding... all that is lost in the text of the web. 

 

 

One thing I learned that I think is a very important message for anyone - is that we cannot change the world until we ourselves have overcome our own troubles. That if we want to change the world - we gotta clean our room first - because if we cannot have the consistency and willpower and clarity of mind to clean our space around us, to make allies from the people around us, to find our core of our person and build that and be strong in that - to see our community's needs and help that - then why would we ever be right to think the world deserves our beliefs and wants of it? That - we gotta learn the basics first, because "basics" are more like "essentials" - they are always important at every step of the way. We start archery and they teach us how to draw a bow. We get that down and then ask how to be more accurate - and we're told - work on how you hold the bow. We get some accuracy and wanna know how to be stronger - and it's the way we hold the bow that does the trick. Holding the bow is the basic, because it is the first thing you need to learn - and it is something you are always learning how to improve. At no point does it stop mattering. So when we look to ourselves and try to find what ain't working out right for the overall health of our own person - and work to overcome that - that is the basics that is needed to change the world. That skill of patiently accepting what is there, identifying what you want to be, and consistently working towards that goal - we gotta learn it by doing what we can effect, before we go try to fret about the world which we cannot. Once we are strong in our own right, it becomes so much easier to look towards bigger picture concerns and find something to do to help out there. 

 

 

IDK I hope this post was meaningful. I am mostly rambling about my own drives in life really. I don't know much in the end except for my own life 

 

[binary suns]

17 minutes ago, Entropic said:

I personally don't get it since I do identify as male and a binary one, too, and I just find it odd to be included in such spaces since I also carry with me in many ways typically straight binary cismale values, simply because that is how I largely identify myself. 

yeah back when I was young i was repressing my identity and when I went to an LGBT club to learn about what that all really means - an actual opportunity for me to be exposed to culture that could help me heal from my self-repression... well what I faced was constant complaints of men, of whites, of cis people... and it made me feel like I was disgusting and unlikeable. So I left that group and never returned. 

 

I wish I had had the guts to stand up for myself and say their words alienated me. 

[binary suns]

I stand as an individual. you don't need to be a feminist to be about equal rights. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is the only way

 

 

[TheMaria]

12 minutes ago, float on said:

IDK - be a feminist then you seem to care about women's rights so what's stopping you really...

 

me, I do not like some of the stances some feminists push strongly. I do want equal rights for women (...)

 

I appreciate your help, and you're right that we have to learn to face our fears, that figuring out what is true can be hard, and that talking to understanding people helps, but see, that's exactly the problem: I don't care about "women's rights", I care about getting rid of gender (roles/norms/expectations).

It's rather impossible to do that as a non-feminist individual, though; if you're gonna delve into gender theory you'll inevitably be around feminists, read feminist works and be seen as a feminist, even if you don't explicitly put the label on yourself. I'm not gonna stop doing what I'm doing, though.

[RoseGoesToYale]

I feel ya. It's like why can't I just be called "person"? It seems like no matter if I take the feminine or masculine route, society will always question it.

 

2 hours ago, TheMaria said:

A woman in a piece of media will inevitably be seen through a gendered lens, be it that she's a housewife and that's good/she's nonconformist and that's bad/she's sexy and that's good...
or
...she's sexy and that's empowering/she's sexy and that's objectifying/she's a housewife and that's patriarchal/she's nonconformist and that's feminist.

This is totally the point I was trying to make last night! -reaches into ear, pulls out Wernicke's Area, stuffs in biomed waste bucket-

[Entropic]

10 minutes ago, TheMaria said:

The fem- preffix does make things infinitely more difficult than they have to be. In the sense that people think it's just about women, in the sense that some people want it to be just about women, in the sense that people like me would rather it had nothing to do with women, but gender in general... 

Perhaps, usually the sisterhood feminism that annoys me comes from Instagram, actually. From people who are "woke pop liberals/socdems"; I feel like feminism to them is like the "girl power" merch Lizzie McGuire had in her bedroom, but with an extra political awareness gold star. Not to shit on those people too much, but yeah, it has more to do with a girls club than social sciences, even if it's a woke girls club. And on the other hand I'm a liberal/socdem myself, so I tend to avoid certain other types of feminism, perhaps misguidedly. 

As for men, I try to focus on how masculinity and gender roles are the problem, rather than men; the system that teaches women to be submissive is the same system that teaches men to be dominant and then aggressive. But I guess that sounds like trying to make men sissies, and nobody wants to be a sissy in this society where the traits we cherish are traditionally masculine ones, to the point that many people, men and women (me included, tbh, at least when it comes to myself) understand a strong woman to be one that behaves more masculine.

I think the issue is that while the movement itself has moved forward from what it used to be, since it did start out as women's emancipation, the meaning has stuck around and there's been no real way to replace it. Just look at a quick comparison, genderism makes no sense, anti-patriarchism makes no sense either and neither does inclusivism, quite. 

 

As for Instagram, I can't comment on it. I barely use any social media sites nowadays largely because their way of communication doesn't appeal to me. It speaks too much to populism and shallower forms of interaction I have no interest in, myself. With that said, I have an idea of what you are referring to since I've run into this phenomenon elsewhere since they aren't limited to specific social media platforms, but this is why I referred it as a) populist and b) propated by social media or media feminism. This kind of feminism takes on a lot of more traditional first and second wave radical values such as hating men and the patriarchy but infuses it with postmodern capitalist ideals of individuality. The result is kind of what you describe when trickled down to the average person, and perhaps that's just me being cynical, but calling them "woke" is honestly doing them too much of a service since I don't see what's particularly "woke" about being aware of gender equality. I'd be more surprised if people weren't to some degree or another, even if they deny the existence of such, than to not be aware by being entirely oblivious to the existence thereof.

 

And while I agree with you about gender roles, it becomes difficult to separate gender roles from specific groups of men when the masculine gender role is much more narrowly defined and clearly infers various groups of men of how to be like. My past critique is really also part a criticism towards masculine gender roles that expects men to simply not develop emotional intelligence and to be in touch with their emotional selves. This becomes obvious in how many men think that sex is a replacement for emotional intimacy which leads to men sex creeping on women because they feel lonely but don't understand why. One thing I often see being common is that they have an idea of wanting to have a partner but they think partnerhood is only really about sex. I was recently shown a series of Facebook texts from a man to a friend I have who outright admitted to that he was feeling lonely and misunderstood and really just wanted someone to love him but instead he thought sex was the only way to acquire such so he just became a sex creep instead. At some point he wrote something along the lines of that he was feeling lonely and horny while sympathy fishing for not having anyone to speak to. This is what the patriarchy makes men into when not having positive role models to follow, because they don't know how to emotionally relate to other people and begin to build healthy relationships with them, especially when they are women.

 

As for the word "sissy", could we please refrain from using it here? I don't think there's something wrong with femininity and men seeking to express their feminine selves and I don't think it makes them a "sissy" insofar it makes them weak for expressing such. Are trans women weak for transitioning from male to female and thusly embracing womanhood? I don't think so. 

 

I also think there are traits that are desirable in both men and women and are seen as strong such as confidence. Confidence is also not the same as aggression. I also don't tend to gender behaviors in general, though, but perhaps that's just me. I have my own subsets of ideas of what I think strength is and I find it attractive in all genders, because that is simply of how I envision a strong person to be like. I don't tend to give much of a fuck for people's gender unless they make it into a thing itself. 

[Fantastic Name]

Oh, man! I thought I was the only one! I relate to this so, so much!

 

I've never thought of myself as a woman. I mean, I'm female, yeah, but I've never liked being called a woman or a lady or a girl or any of that crap. I just feel like a person. I just feel like me. And, I'm completely with you on the whole thing about feminism:

 

Quote

But in practice I cannot deny that being called an irrational woman by conservatives and being called a strong woman by feminists both are equally distressing.

 

Glad to know I'm not alone in this.

[Chimeric]

2 hours ago, TheMaria said:

But in practice I cannot deny that being called an irrational woman by conservatives and being called a strong woman by feminists both are equally distressing

I relate to this so hard, but I've never had the words to articulate it.

 

 

I've eventually come to be proud of being a woman, but it's taken a whole lot of forging my own identity to be comfortable with that word. It had to be acceptance on my own terms, not because society is fascinated by a woman doing the things that I do. Thankfully the older I get, the less I seem to encounter this (or perhaps the less avidly I'm looking for it, I'm not sure), but the frustration was so real for so long.

[TheMaria]

@Entropic Anti-sexism or gender equality, maybe, but I totally understand the thing about tradition. But then it's not even just the word, it's also the fact that it often comes written in pink -- maybe as an attempt to challenge the pink stereotypes, but I think it fails miserably.

That's really interesting about men equating intimacy with sex. In the past few months I've come to understand in therapy that EQ is extremely important, so I should have put "sissy" in quotes, because I don't mean that traditional femininity is bad, just that it's perceived as such, hence why men might be reluctant to do things such as get in touch with their feelings, even if it's for their own good. And when I implied even I didn't want to be a "sissy" what I meant was that idk if it's necessarily a gender thing, but I have a tendency to look down on feelings and suppress them; though like I said, now I've come to realise how stupid and harmful that is and I'm working on it. And yeah, traditionally masculine characteristics aren't bad either, but we must concede that both traditional/current "masculine" and "feminine" norms aren't the "best of both genders" we should strive to promote in everyone.

[TheMaria]

52 minutes ago, Fantastic Name said:

Oh, man! I thought I was the only one! I relate to this so, so much!

 

I've never thought of myself as a woman. I mean, I'm female, yeah, but I've never liked being called a woman or a lady or a girl or any of that crap. I just feel like a person. I just feel like me. And, I'm completely with you on the whole thing about feminism:

 

 

Glad to know I'm not alone in this.

 

45 minutes ago, Chimeric said:

I relate to this so hard, but I've never had the words to articulate it.

 

 

I've eventually come to be proud of being a woman, but it's taken a whole lot of forging my own identity to be comfortable with that word. It had to be acceptance on my own terms, not because society is fascinated by a woman doing the things that I do. Thankfully the older I get, the less I seem to encounter this (or perhaps the less avidly I'm looking for it, I'm not sure), but the frustration was so real for so long.

 

I too am glad I'm not alone, and it's nice to know there are people who struggled through it and survived

[Tercy]

On the subject of women in the media, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on (just for example) the various characters Sandra Bullock has played in her career.

 

42 minutes ago, TheMaria said:

I see what you mean, but I'd say I hate both "lady" and "woman" (as a metonymy type thing), I'd rather it were person, and maybe XX/XY person in medical contexts. Or perchild  

Sincere question: Do you know why we differentiate between "him" and "her" when speaking? Obviation and such? If so, what is your argument (for want of a better word) against it?

[Chimeric]

2 minutes ago, Tercy said:

On the subject of women in the media, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on (just for example) the various characters Sandra Bullock has played in her career.

Honestly this is part of my issue with it. 

 

Why's it gotta be women in the media, ya know? I mean, like, yes, Sandra Bullock is a woman, and she is in the media, but how often do we go around asking people for their thoughts on men in the media?

 

I am female so I am she/her, and I am a woman, but the emphasis on being a woman is really bizarre. I'm just Chimeric, I just do my jam, my sex has nothing to do with it.

[Tercy]

1 minute ago, Chimeric said:

Why's it gotta be women in the media, ya know?

 

The OP specifically singled out the portrayal of women in the media. From there, I'm interested in hearing their/your thoughts on those characters.

[TheMaria]

26 minutes ago, Tercy said:

On the subject of women in the media, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on (just for example) the various characters Sandra Bullock has played in her career.

 

Sincere question: Do you know why we differentiate between "him" and "her" when speaking? Obviation and such? If so, what is your argument (for want of a better word) against it?

I have no idea what characters Sandra Bullock played, I think the only two films I've seen were that one with the beauty pageant and Murder By Numbers... Maybe it could be an interesting topic to look into, but as Chimeric pointed out, analysing those characters as women would just be me saying "this is patriarchal and bad, or empowered and good or neither archetype therefore feminist and good".

EDIT: It's not that I want gender to be ignored, because as I admitted in the OP, that would probably mean going back to patriarchy -- we aren't post-gender yet. But the thing is, anything can be analysed under a gendered lens, but then it can also not be; the problem is that where women are involved it most likely will be, and where men are involved it most likely won't be. Women in the media can't be anything other than women in the media, whereas men can. For example, Miss Congeniality has a clear gender thing going on, but there are several ways you can look at Murder By Numbers, and I'm inclined to think the immediate choice would be about the fact that she was a woman detective who was abused by a man and was on the case of another woman who was killed by men. You could have the exact same story with only male characters and then suddenly gender wouldn't matter at all, if that makes sense. It's kinda like literally no one would think of doing a racial analysis of a film with only white people, but as soon as there's a black person it becomes racial.

I get where you're coming from, because I know it can be difficult to write stories about, for example, gay couples, so the two MCs have the same pronouns. But at the same time, it is possible to write those stories, so I think it's a minor inconvenience compared to the benefits the erradication of gender roles could bring about.

[Tercy]

7 minutes ago, TheMaria said:

I have no idea what characters Sandra Bullock played, I think the only two films I've seen were that one with the beauty pageant and Murder By Numbers... Maybe it could be an interesting topic to look into, but as Chimeric pointed out, analysing those characters as women would just be me saying "this is patriarchal and bad, or empowered and good or neither archetype therefore feminist and good".

 

Aye, I wouldn't want you to specifically "analyse them as female characters"; I just wondered if you had already seen the movies and formed an organic opinion of them.

 

12 minutes ago, TheMaria said:

I get where you're coming from, because I know it can be difficult to write stories about, for example, gay couples, so the two MCs have the same pronouns. But at the same time, it is possible to write those stories, so I think it's a minor inconvenience compared to the benefits the erradication of gender roles could bring about.

 

So your position is we should try to guide our use of language in that direction in the future? I ask just because I originally got the impression your concern was that the him/her distinction originated from some kind of prejudice (differentiating the "real humans" from the "lesser humans") whereas it's really just an innocuous solution to a common problem of linguistics.

[TheMaria]

12 minutes ago, Tercy said:

 

Aye, I wouldn't want you to specifically "analyse them as female characters"; I just wondered if you had already seen the movies and formed an organic opinion of them.

 

 

So your position is we should try to guide our use of language in that direction in the future? I ask just because I originally got the impression your concern was that the him/her distinction originated from some kind of prejudice (differentiating the "real humans" from the "lesser humans") whereas it's really just an innocuous solution to a common problem of linguistics.

Well, I like Murder By Numbers, but that's because I like edgy psycho philosopher people, I have no opinion on Bullock's character. And Miss Congenitality isn't my cup of tea, but it's good to present "plastic" girls in a more sympathetic and humanising light. I think in the end Bullock's character is more feminine, right? I don't really remember, but I think it's about how you don't have to completely reject and look down on femininity in order to be "badass".

Maybe in the future. I mean, that's my ideal world, but I won't go around policing people's gendered language right now, I don't think that'd be effective. No, not really, you could have an egalitarian but gendered society that uses different pronouns; I was just thinking of the old timey habit of, for example, men-only in politics referring to humanity as "men" because women, even though they might be people, and people who have value, were and still are associated with sex and reproduction. Like, white men are the people who can choose their destiny; then quills are for writing, muskets are for war, blacks are for labour, and women are for romance and babies.

[Yep, me]

3 hours ago, TheMaria said:

Yeah, while I was writing there was a "what about male archetypes?" at the back of my mind. I guess it feels like it's not that big of a deal because there is no huge movement of analysing and criticising masculinity(ies) like there is with femininity(ies). I don't know if that's because men don't feel as oppressed by these boxes, or if they're used to them since their survival doesn't depend on questioning them, or if the box of stoicism prevents them from challenging their gender roles. Whether it's a tool of the patriarchy or not, the fact is that all I see is at least a façade of "men don't have gender on their mind 24/7".

Since I was “assigned” male, I saw that most people didn’t talk about it because our culture says that we shouldn’t, and that it’s “strong” to not show emotion, be aggressive, dominant, not speak out, etc. This ends up being MASSIVELY destructive on society in many ways, and there would be a big movement if the nature of the stereotypes were to allow for that from reference point.

At least female stereotypes are actually being talked about on a large scale, yet unfortunately the other sides of the discussion are not being talked about or resolved, and many men still think they need to be dominant. That, is a recipe for complete social disaster.

So unfortunately, we are a long, long, way towards social equality.

[Tercy]

2 hours ago, TheMaria said:

the problem is that where women are involved it most likely will be, and where men are involved it most likely won't be. Women in the media can't be anything other than women in the media, whereas men can. For example, Miss Congeniality has a clear gender thing going on, but there are several ways you can look at Murder By Numbers, and I'm inclined to think the immediate choice would be about the fact that she was a woman detective who was abused by a man and was on the case of another woman who was killed by men. You could have the exact same story with only male characters and then suddenly gender wouldn't matter at all, if that makes sense. It's kinda like literally no one would think of doing a racial analysis of a film with only white people, but as soon as there's a black person it becomes racial.

 

I see what you're saying, but it's not the impression I've ever got - and I'm not aware of any concrete evidence (i.e. more than just gender studies speculation) that would suggest/prove otherwise. If you're aware of any, I would love to check it out.

The only times I can imagine gender or race being noticed/questioned are 1) as aforementioned, when people specifically set out to critique it (the Anita Sarkeesians of the world) and 2) when people start to get the impression that the character choices are in some part politically-motivated.

 

 

1 hour ago, TheMaria said:

I was just thinking of the old timey habit of, for example, men-only in politics referring to humanity as "men" because ...

 

I'm confused again here. "Man" always referred to humanity as a whole. In the Germanic languages, males and females were "waepmann" and "wifmann" respectively until males became "mann" and females became "wif". As far as I'm aware, no one really knows for sure why males specifically hijacked "mann" so anything beyond that is just speculation (and an ancient Viking patriarchal conspiracy would be low down on my list btw). My guess would include... the fact that "waep" already had a very different meaning and "mann" referring to both humanity as a whole and males specifically isn't as much of a stretch as "waep" referring to both a male and a weapon.* Time machines can't get here fast enough.

 

Also, just to throw it out there: "female" isn't "male" with a "fe" prefix; the two words have two completely different origins. So unfortunately not another example of females being an afterthought.

 

* Edit for what it's worth: It just occurred to me that "waep" was also a euphemism for the uhhh... male reproductive organ - so calling someone a "waep" might have been easily misconstrued.

[Guest]

I'm not trans but dislike being called 'woman' due to gender dysphoria (which has been completely debilitating at times in my life). All this other stuff seems.. kind of personal opinion I guess? I'd find life more difficult than it already is if I walked around believing things like what is written in the opening post 

[TheMaria]

7 hours ago, Tercy said:

 

I see what you're saying, but it's not the impression I've ever got - and I'm not aware of any concrete evidence (i.e. more than just gender studies speculation) that would suggest/prove otherwise. If you're aware of any, I would love to check it out.

The only times I can imagine gender or race being noticed/questioned are 1) as aforementioned, when people specifically set out to critique it (the Anita Sarkeesians of the world) and 2) when people start to get the impression that the character choices are in some part politically-motivated.

 

 

 

I'm confused again here. "Man" always referred to humanity as a whole. In the Germanic languages, males and females were "waepmann" and "wifmann" respectively until males became "mann" and females became "wif". As far as I'm aware, no one really knows for sure why males specifically hijacked "mann" so anything beyond that is just speculation (and an ancient Viking patriarchal conspiracy would be low down on my list btw). My guess would include... the fact that "waep" already had a very different meaning and "mann" referring to both humanity as a whole and males specifically isn't as much of a stretch as "waep" referring to both a male and a weapon.* Time machines can't get here fast enough.

 

Also, just to throw it out there: "female" isn't "male" with a "fe" prefix; the two words have two completely different origins. So unfortunately not another example of females being an afterthought.

 

* Edit for what it's worth: It just occurred to me that "waep" was also a euphemism for the uhhh... male reproductive organ - so calling someone a "waep" might have been easily misconstrued.

It's possible it might be a bias on my part due to the kind of content I consume, plus some bias in my mind that registers gender analyses as negative but doesn't register non-gender analyses as positive since when gender is absent I don't think about gender. That's something for me to consider and look into.

 

I'm not concerned with the actual origin of the words, the actual point is the mentality about men and women. I suppose the language metonymy ended up being anarchronistic, but that wasn't the main point, I don't think those words were consciously created to limit women.

[TheMaria]

7 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

I'm not trans but dislike being called 'woman' due to gender dysphoria (which has been completely debilitating at times in my life). All this other stuff seems.. kind of personal opinion I guess? I'd find life more difficult than it already is if I walked around believing things like what is written in the opening post 

It is my personal opinion, if only we could change our beliefs and perceptions just by way of realising they make life difficult, right?

[Tercy]

2 hours ago, TheMaria said:

It is my personal opinion, if only we could change our beliefs and perceptions just by way of realising they make life difficult, right?

 

There might be something to be said about the risk of looking at the world through one particular lens and seeing things that aren't necessarily there. If you're surrounded by the stereotypical angry internet feminist "arrggh the oppressive patriarchy!" sentiment all day long on Tumblr and YouTube and your college campus and such, you might get swept up in it and accept it as your default worldview and start to see the evils of man and oppression of women everywhere, losing sight of the fact that... a lot of that stuff is at best pure conjecture (theories in soft sciences that haven't been proven, but can appear convincing/plausible - especially if you're already prepared to accept them) and at worst, outright misunderstanding/misrepresentation of history, biology, psychology, culture, etymology, etc.

 

... so maybe it would alleviate your angst(?) somewhat if you were able to identify any beliefs/interpretations you might have, that are based more on speculation and intuition than established and provable truths.