Extra points if you can spot what is wrong with this picture.
The Globe and Mail has a stinky carcass of an article entitled “Are men being robbed of their masculinity?” Zosia Bielski the author in this homage to misogyny tackles the tough issue of Men and the Emasculating Culture they face.
“The movie [Mr.Munday] is just the latest in a string of emasculating offerings in popular culture.”
The War on Maleness is a rising crescendo of hateful messages that Men have to deal with. How can the dominant segment of culture ever survive?
“With the “mancession” hitting men hard during the economic downturn and traditional gender roles mutating, there is rabid concern that men are being robbed of their essential masculinity. The debate heated up after the Pew Research Center reported in January that women have outpaced men in education and earnings growth: 22 per cent of husbands have wives whose income now exceeds theirs, compared to 4 per cent in 1970. The rise in women’s earnings corresponds with an upsurge in their education. (The women were quickly dubbed “alpha wives.”)”
Oh my FSM! We are being robbed of our ‘essential masculinity’? What the hell is essential masculinity? The term is never defined in the article but boy, it seems like this is turning into an apologists piece for patriarchy and the male privilege it grants to men in our culture. Like the the religiously deluded christians who cry ‘persecution’ while in majority status this piece reeks of persecution of the minority with regards to the privileged status men hold in our society.
What is the best way to prove Masculinity is in decline? Mention an Asian outlier subculture:
“An extreme illustration of the slide away from masculinity may be the asexual “herbivores” of Japan, young heterosexual men who are wholly uninterested in pursuing women, material goods or careers. Multiplying after the recession, herbivores live reclusive, uncompetitive lives dominated by the Internet.”
Yes menfolk run! Beware! The World of Warcraft is coming to steal your testicles and carve an indelible mangina into your psyche. The horror!
We do need to give the author some credit as he does mention some facts that are at least loosely connected with reality.
“Boys who resist macho behaviours such as aggression and “emotional stoicism” have better mental health and social relationships, according to Carlos Santos, an Arizona State University researcher who studied 426 middle school boys and presented his findings at the American Psychological Association’s convention in August.”
You mean not acting like completely privileged douche is good for your mental health and ability to work well with others. Go Figure.
“Men have more to gain than lose from the “down with macho” movement, says Jennifer Berdahl, an associate professor of organizational behaviour at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management.”
Another kernel of wisdom in this otherwise putrid article. It is amazing after so many years that people still deny the existence of the Patriarchy and Male Privilege. If people could actually be bothered to read a little about feminism we could avoid some the atrocious pap that regularly appears in the “life” section of newspaper.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
31 comments
October 2, 2010 at 11:18 am
michaeleriksson
Your entry says more about you than it does about the article you review. I note, in particular, a lack of arguments, a lot of ad hominem, and a fair amount of stone-throwing in a glass house.
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 11:38 am
The Arbourist
Considering the depth of the article in question, which arguments did you want to/think that I should have pursue further? The Patriarchy? The false-victimization being portrayed in the article?
Clearly, if you had carefully read the post, any snark was reserved for the arguments contained in article and not the author himself.
Considering that there are no ad hominem arguments made in the above post, I conclude that you may have a problem with the “tone” of the post and that I cannot help you with.
If there is anything substantive you would like to discuss, please feel free to continue the discussion.
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Vern R. Kaine
I find this a fascinating topic. I look at popular culture and much of its treatment of men. Show me the outrage when a man (or even a kid) gets nailed in the groin on America’s Funniest Home Videos. I never see that outrage, but I also know I’ve never seen a similar physical act on a woman happen, either. Female Privilege here? I would think so, and glad it exists.
By the same token, show me the commercials where the woman is the bumbling, immature idiot and not the man. Automobile commercials, financial institution commercials, health commercials… Female Privilege here again? Again, I think so, but I’m glad it exists.
From this perspective, I think the article and its author start with a good point – that males have been largely emasculated by pop culture – but perhaps the author does not properly follow it through and answer the question “So what?”
If I can offer my own perspective:
1) I don’t think males have been “robbed” of their (our) masculinity. For most, it has been voluntarily handed over out of our own insecurity and ignorance. Big difference in both cause and effect.
2) Our culture has sought to make men and women equal. While in many ways this is true, in many ways it isn’t and never will be. How can we celebrate each other in society and in our relationships if we cannot (or are afraid to) acknowledge and appreciate those differences? I think we try and repress our natures, and in doing so, this leaves people confused and insecure. That can only have bad outcomes if prolonged as men and women try and compensate for this in order to have any sense of themselves.
3) Even with popular culture “emasculating” males as it may be doing, it is only doing so figuratively and such is nothing compared to some of the atrocities that are still committed against women today at the hands of men.
With all that, here is my point, and where I think the author should have taken the article:
Continuing to support a culture that continuously and aggressively emasculates the image of man will not reduce or eliminate the atrocities we see often at the hands of men. Men need to step up and be empowered, proud of their male characteristics and not afraid to express them through masculine strength, not feminine strength.
Put differently, the last wolf-whistle at a woman walking by will happen not when all construction workers are eunics, but when a guy has enough strength of character to tell the last one to shut his pie hole before he gets his ass whipped.
As a male and a guy who has no problem telling someone to shut up if they’re being offensive towards women, I can tell you that this strength of character does not come from some “emasculation message” (or warning) received from pop culture telling me I should be more sensitive, but rather the strength I get from the women in my life appreciating me for those male qualities and allowing me an opportunity to step up as part of my nature.
Like it or not, I believe men and women are symbiotic and we need each other in this emotional way. I think society and pop culture will always play on the back-and-forth of this. Pop culture will always go between the wimps and the warriors for men, the prisses and the pin up girls for women to whatever outside boundaries our culture has set at the time.
Who each of us are on that spectrum – and in any given moment – is up to us and I think the more we worry about labels and victimhood to define our identities (womyn, metrosexual, alpha male, etc.) through pop culture, the less power we will actually give ourselves to actually create change.
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Yikes – didn’t realize my comment was that long. Sorry!
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 1:23 pm
The Arbourist
Vern,
You’re welcome to be loquacious as you’d like. I just wish you could be right more often. :) I’ve got to finish a few more posts before I come back to your comment.
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Bleatmop
I believe masculinity and femininity are social constructs and to be robbed of such a thing is not even possible. All the new research I’ve read that looks at children from birth shows that male and female brains are indistinguishable at birth, but it is the socialization that changes them into these masculine and feminine roles. Everything that I’ve seen about the difference between men and women is that and differences there are are minute compared to the similarities.
A news article describing some of the research. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-way
.
.
Vern R. Kain:
Not to address your whole post, but to address the first two paragraphs. I think what you have pointed out does not entail female privilege, but instead shows the sexism hurts men too phenomenon.
Assuming we are talking about the same commercials (I think we are). These commercials limit the women in them as much as the men. They are reduced to cleaning up and chastising their oafish husbands. The women in these commercials seem to have no role in live other than to serve their husbands and clean up after their mistakes. Female privilege or more sexist gender roles that are ultimately damaging to all of society? I can’t think of anyone in my life that would want to take on the role the women in those commercials take on.
But alas, why am I trying to explain this when the incredible Sarah Haskins has already tackled this topic. She uses an incredible amount of satire and wit, with a hint of sarcasm. Caution, she’s a feminist.
http://current.com/shows/infomania/90569059_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-doofy-husbands.htm
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 2:28 pm
The Arbourist
Awesome video, relevant and to the point.
Advertising and popular culture play to our stereotypical notions reinforcing inherently destructive cultural memes.
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 2:30 pm
The Arbourist
Female Privilege here? I would think so, and glad it exists.
You mean the right to be marginalized, objectified, and always under the fear of being raped. Wow, good times and noodle salad…
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“You mean the right to be marginalized, objectified, and always under the fear of being raped.”
That’s not any of the women I have the pleasure of knowing – even those who have been through horrible situations in their lives.
Those I do know of who always complain about being marginalized, objectified, and hit on, however (rape is separate here, imo), always seem to have the same belief systems and life circumstances. They’ll see some stranger getting cracked in the nuts on TV, high five their girlfriends and say, “There – he deserves it!” and oddly enough, they seem to attract more objectification, marginalization, and creepy guys hitting on them in the bars.
Perhaps I’m missing the point of the post?
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Perhaps that’s where the disconnect is for me – sexism vs. Male Privilege. Is MP the cultural promotion that the privilege is OK?
Interesting perspective on the commercials, thank you. I’ll have a look at the video. And no need for the warning (although I know it was in jest!) I don’t consider the feminist view to be evil or dangerous.
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Look forward to the comment reply, Arb, and thanks for the permission (ha ha!)
Right more often, hmmm? Are we talking “right” as in you wish I would agree with you more often, or are we talking accurate or correct?
Either way, I have a feeling we’ll soon at that oh-so-familiar impasse between our “worlds”, only this time my world may be a little more pleasant and daisy-filled than yours. ;)
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Interesting! I thought Are we talking about roles, sexual identity, or skills? I don’t necessary challenge the research, but I would challenge the context of the article the author puts it in.
I agree that the whole “boys are bad at math” thing is bunk and am very glad there is better research out there to prove it, but I don’t dismiss “Men are from Mars” as being in that same category like the article does.
The research in the article seems to address cognitive skills and rational needs, not emotional needs, and that’s where I think there’s a much larger difference between men and women that should be understood and appreciated. Taking that further, I think one of the main reasons why there are so many problems between men and women is that we get taught that we’re all the same, and that we should simply rationalize away our unique emotional needs. In the wrong context, it can promote a strong lack of empathy which imo can take people in the opposite direction.
In light of the article, curious as to what your opinion is on the nature vs. nurture argument as an interpretation of the article? If the difference in the male and female brain is so minute, can someone be “soft-wired” straight?
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Bleatmop
Vern: “I don’t necessary challenge the research, but I would challenge the context of the article the author puts it in.”
Fair and reasonable. We would need to see the actual research done in order to determine if the journalist was giving an accurate representation of the research. Often the subtle nuances can be misunderstood by the press. Unfortunately most journals don’t give away their publications for free.
“In light of the article, curious as to what your opinion is on the nature vs. nurture argument as an interpretation of the article?”
Well, by the author’s (of the research) comments indicate, he is heavily in favour of the nurture side of that debate. On a personal level, I don’t think it’s an either or situation. Not that things are affected by both, but that perhaps different aspects are affected by different sides of that debate. For instance, the idea of gender identity comes to mind, and in particular one documentary I saw about a trans-woman.
http://www.prodigalsonsfilm.com/
This woman was born a man, was socialized as a man and lived as a man, but still couldn’t deny he was a woman inside. This, to me, brings up the perfect conundrum of the nature vs nurture debate. Apparently this person had been socialized as a man and it would seem to indicate that the nurture side is not valid. But when you consider the nature part, this person has XY chromosomes on the appropriate base pair (i forget what number). Yet this person still identifies as a woman. So this seems to indicate that perhaps the nature/nurture debate may not be entirely appropriate in this example.
I know that’s not the best of answers, but it’s what I’ve got for now. I suppose it’s a long way of saying I don’t know and that I don’t know if the nature vs nurture debate is the most appropriate way of viewing this issue. Perhaps early vs later experiences should also be considered?
“If the difference in the male and female brain is so minute, can someone be “soft-wired” straight?”
In the context of this particular piece of research, I would have to say I don’t know. However, other contemporary psychiatric journal articles I’ve read do not suggest that sexual preference is a matter of socialization or choice. An interesting and newish theory on male homosexuality that I’ve read has relation to birth order of male siblings. It suggests that 2nd and 3rd born males are more likely to be homosexual not because of any nurture argument but because of the mothers immune system of all things. This does not comment on female homosexuality however, but it is an interesting theory.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGC-45B5PPP-5&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2001&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1482405276&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=95e73a2b026d75ad53529e52a51980c2&searchtype=a
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Bleatmop
Vern – “That’s not any of the women I have the pleasure of knowing – even those who have been through horrible situations in their lives.”
Vern, have you actually asked t the women in your lives if they fear rape? I’m not being sarcastic or anything. Just ask them if you haven’t. You may find the answer surprising. (To add to the point, I just asked my wife the same. She said yes, of course. And we live in a relatively safe community. She went on to elaborate that at university it was worse).
LikeLike
October 2, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Thank you. I’ll check out the link and the video. One program that I found very illuminating (and emotional) on the subject was the Barbara Walters 20/20 special “Born in the Wrong Body”, notably the little girl at the beginning. That really moved things to the “nature” side for me.
LikeLike
October 3, 2010 at 12:01 pm
The Arbourist
The two are interrelated. I have a link to a short .pdf file on white male privilege. It may be a good starting point to consider the question at hand.
LikeLike
October 3, 2010 at 12:05 pm
The Arbourist
Are we talking “right” as in you wish I would agree with you more often, or are we talking accurate or correct?
*grins*
I have a feeling we’ll soon at that oh-so-familiar impasse between our “worlds”,
Perhaps, but as with most of our exchanges, a little learning happens on both sides of the equation. Seems like a win/win to me.
LikeLike
October 4, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Learning – to me as well.
LikeLike
October 4, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Vern, have you actually asked t the women in your lives if they fear rape?”
Actually, yes, with a bit of context around the question along with it. My point was not that it isn’t a serious concern, but rather that I believe with those kinds of labels we run a risk of unfair stereotyping that I think can ultimately do more harm than good.
The answer to whether any woman fears rape is an obvious one. Instead, I’ve asked “Do you fear it from any of the men around you?” and if so, why. As you’ve suggested, I have been somewhat surprised by the answers. Some have said they worry about it with people they are acquainted with where, say, alcohol was concerned, or where they thought the person would take rejection very harshly.
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 3:38 am
middle child
I agree. Women are getting paid equally as men today. Maybe even more on sales jobs. This is great. But pretty embarrasing for you if it’s your wife.
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 9:39 am
Vern R. Kaine
Not sure what it is you’re agreeing with, Middle Child?
My personal view is that a woman deserves every right to work and make as much as she wants, so I think I agree with the first part of your comment that it is great to see from an equality perspective.
On the second part, however, not sure if I agree with the word “embarrassing”. I don’t think we should be in competition with our wives, other than perhaps a bit of friendly competition that you both enjoy.
I believe, however, that as guys we should be constantly in competition with ourselves to make ourselves better. The “embarrassing” part of it, then, may lie with the question that we ask ourselves shortly thereafter. Since I believe our role as a man is to be a provider, is she having to earn so much just to maintain our lifestyle? I could see this being embarrassing if we weren’t providing enough in our roles for our family to live comfortably.
In that case, for me the word “motivating” would be more appropriate. Such a situation would likely prompt me to go out and learn more, do more, and earn more so that I fulfilled my role as a provider. Great if she wants to make a ton of money, but for me she shouldn’t have to work to pay the family bills if she doesn’t want to.
LikeLike
June 21, 2011 at 5:52 am
Reneta Prescott
I fully agree with you, though I know sometimes me being a feminist (and being trans-anything identified) seems little wonk in some peoples books. But considering my position I am in a perfect position to debunk the fallacy of the patriarchy. To be honest, who would stand up and say “Hey, that’s not fair you got the same amount as me”? (Loaded statement) In anyone is robbing men of maleness, its industry who is pumping us full of estrogenic pollutants, not feminists.
The patriarchy and such talk about femininity as if it meant weakness, a symbol of passivity, and expressions of femininity are considered soft, or sometimes even fake. Sometimes the more you put on for vanity the more feminine you are socially. How in their eyes Macho posing real (better), and Girly priming fake (worse)? So those macho guys who juice up to look like a grody, muscle-bound super-villain, driving ridiculous cars, cat calling women, and committing acts of statutory rape every weekend aren’t just a bunch of posers? I think not. But, thanks for your blog and keep on snarkin’.
(As for Vern down there) I agree with you Arbourist, and I know it scares me, because it happens a lot more than it should. Patriarchy promotes concepts that help create these hyper-sexual males. Some people might say that it’s different for me, but it really isn’t. People discriminate not because of a person’s complement of chromosomes, genitals, or sex hormones (mostly because you can’t see that in passing), but because of the way you look. It’s about phallic power, and it always has been since the beginning of time. At the height of Patriarchy (during the Roman Imperial Age though opinions could differ) it was quite common for men to use rape as a social accepted way to subjugate someone, male or female.
(Bleat-mop, sorry auto-correct was annoying me) It unintentionally supports the theory that John Money promoted which is false. Clinical evidence, intersexed persons (not unlike myself), and the countless suicides of those they tried to “Fix” speak for themselves. Gender identity isn’t controllable, trust me. Gender role, expression can vary. But thanks to doctors, and psychologist supporting patriarchal beliefs by proliferating pseudoscience many suffer under the sex the doctoral dichotomies “normalized” them to. The Patriarchy (often misogynistic, and homophobic) needs a clear sort of sex, so that you know who is your equal and who is your lesser, so that there is no struggle for power or confusion from blurring those lines. However, sex and gender are bipolar, not binary.
If “socialization trumps hard-wiring every time”, then why are so many intersexed people suffering gender dysphoria, and transitioning? Cordelia Fine, might be doing a service to someone’s sense of equality, certain not mine. I wanted to feel right in my own skin. Her book is nothing more than her interpretations severely tainted by her own predilections and beliefs, and far worse than any other pseudoscience. Science does not favor her. Long story short (Most skills are bi-potential after birth – gender identity is not), gender identity is the core from which all other modalities diverge. Female gender identities model after other females, and likewise for males.
I am not right all of the time, or maybe even most of the time, but I spent my life trapped by the shame of other peoples interpretations of man and woman. I spent my life being afraid of doctors, and being afraid of “socially constructed males” who enforce power over others. It’s time the world changed and that women were recognized as more than sex objects, neutered men, baby machines, or pacifistic peons. It’s changing and it’s better than I once was, but it’s far from done. The lie of patriarchy is that sexism doesn’t exist, usually tucked away in a fine print anti-discrimination clause that belies the truth of how they really treat people. Writing shit down doesn’t make it true on it’s own.
LikeLike
June 21, 2011 at 12:18 pm
The Arbourist
If “socialization trumps hard-wiring every time”, then why are so many intersexed people suffering gender dysphoria, and transitioning?
“she takes aim at the idea that male brains and female brains are ‘wired differently,’ leading men and women to act in a manner consistent with decades-old gender stereotypes.” is what I believe much of Fine’s book is about. Have you read the book? It really is quite interesting.
I’m also curious as to the defensiveness I perceive in the paragraph regarding socialization. Would you take such a hard line if choosing to express the other gender was not such a stigma in the United States and Canada? Acceptance of different gender identities in north american societies is largely predicated on whether it is believed that it is “choice” or was simply “inborn” (the inborn response being much more acceptable).
I’ve read Delusions of Gender and I have found the book far from being in the category of “her interpretations severely tainted by her own predilections and beliefs, and far worse than any other pseudoscience”. It is, rather, a nuanced look at the studies about gender and how shaky the actually are, and how much of research is inherently biased due to cultural assumptions.
Science does not favor her […] Long story short (Most skills are bi-potential after birth – gender identity is not), gender identity is the core from which all other modalities diverge. Female gender identities model after other females, and likewise for males..
Citation needed.
Fine speaks on Fora TV about her book and answers a question with regards to gender identity, scroll down the chapter list, and look for question 3 to jump right to the point that I am referring to.
LikeLike
June 21, 2011 at 1:10 pm
The Intransigent One
I both agree and disagree with you. On the patriarchy angle, I’m 100% with you. Not so sure on the science. It’s been a while since I read Delusions of Gender, and it’s entirely possible that I skimmed past the points that you condemn, because they didn’t ping on my cis-privileged radar. (Come to think of it, that’s a pretty cis-privileged title. I know it’s about society being deluded in its belief in absolute gender binarism, but if you’ve spent your whole life being told that you’re wrong about something as deep as your own gender, a title like that would be pretty fucking triggering.)
That said, I don’t remember Dr. Fine talking about gender identity much, if at all. My impression of Dr. Fine’s work was that she looked at the research that purports to show that males and females are so totally different, and found that the differences tended to actually be extremely small, but when they supported status quo beliefs about gender difference, the information went viral in mass media to the point that now “everybody knows” boys are totally one way, and girls are totally another.
I didn’t get the impression that she was trying to argue, for example, that because the gender differences in the areas studied are so small, there’s in fact no such thing as gender, or that gender identity is totally learned not innate, but rather that she was arguing for a bit more rigourous thinking in between finding a statistically significant result, and believing you’ve revealed some profound truth about All Women and All Men.
LikeLike
June 21, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Reneta Prescott
It is possible I’d take a different, “less hardline” approach if it wasn’t for the stigma, but impossible to prove. I do know I would have migrated over sooner, and I could have avoided taking hormones when I was younger, but. Guess I should avoid getting myself fired up on the intersex forums before I comment.
As for the book, I’ll give it a go. I guess I’ll not judge it by random covers and reviews on it, but that is why I like blogging and commenting online. It gives me a new way to look at things because my scope is limited, part of being human. Being hormonally different as a child and adult, I always felt like I was straddling the fence between male and female, and it was only later that I realized why. The commentary in the article could be misleading in how it’s wrote though, so I’ll reserve my judgement for it rather than the book itself.
There is a substantial amount of research that substantiates sexually dimorphic traits are prevalent in animals as well as humans. While I agree that the brain is highly flexible, I through my own research, reviewing findings, and years of experience with my own gender believe that there is something of a core wiring that is very simple, not restrictive like some theories of brain sex, and your identification from this base develops. In a society of androgyny, the differences between males and females could become so overlapped as to be indiscernible, however, gender identity would still be there (i.e. I’d still identify female, but would be androgynous like everyone else.) Sex is differentiated typically into male and female, and consider the brain to be no exception. This is culmination of my experience, others, and research on the topic.
The mechanism is still not completely understood, but evidence points to specific configurations in the brain set prior to and fixed shortly after birth like bodily expectations, and sexuality. I believe in a combined model of nurture and nature. Meaning, these innate traits are a small percentage of the brain but irrevocable of the whole, while the rest is determinate of socialization. Because of my experience, I will rebuke any study indicating it’s either or. AIS for example, in complete absence of the effect of testosterone (with normal levels present) the fetuses gender identity is usually not ambiguous with sex (female identity, female phenotype minus uterus, testicles-undescended).
However, a lot of literature states that all cAIS patients are female gendered, and likewise that all Klinefelter’s/XXY patients are male gendered (genital ambiguity aside), and most medical references about it will state it irrevocably, but this is simply not the case. PAIS is highly variable though, but many transitions happen there as well but physicians under-reported these unsuccessful assignments. David Reimer is another prime example. (book “As nature made him”). Incidences of Dysphoria and Transition are either under-reported or completely omitted from a lot medical literature. One pattern is clear, that gender identity doesn’t display a socialization governed pattern (through the clinical experience of transsexuals and intersexed people themselves), and many intersexed people have persistent dysphoria.
But, behaviorally you can be entirely stereotypically masculine in presentation, skill and behavior and still be cisgendered homogeneously female. Gender expression is subject to change, but I am sticking to my guns on gender identity, partially because mine has never changed even with hormone therapy X 2. As a person who has been on steroids and estrogen, I can tell you there are differences in that alone on behavior. As to what the connection between transsexuality and intersex conditions is that’s unclear, but clearly imbalances of fetal hormones effect gender identity formation (is such the pattern). There are more transsexual – intersexed combinations than is common knowledge. It demonstrates a social pattern of denial, disinterest, cultural bias that causes research biasing, resulting in what many people see researching the topics themselves (that sufficient research, and cooperation is not there, and people are simply using outdated literature in the absence of substantial collaborative works.) Society is resistant to understanding this concept. I personally don’t believe core gender identity are not changeable, but other aspect of gender are.
Keep in mind (www.bodieslikeours.org is a site for testimonial understanding, not medical fact per say.) Sorry about the long response.
Not and exhaustive list, but a start:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1256598/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6973/full/427390a.html
http://www3.telus.net/des1/Observations.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
http://somethingaboutthatx.blogspot.com/2010/05/gender-identity-in-klinefelters_03.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter's_Syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Cossey
http://www.bodieslikeours.org/forums/showthread.php?mode=hybrid&t=1961
http://www.bodieslikeours.org/
LikeLike
June 21, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Reneta Prescott
Interesting point, and yes, it is quite a charged issue for me. But you hit the nail on the head, people over evaluate differences in males and females to justify bias, which I don’t condone. I believe the overlap is significant, but that core gender identity is a whole other ball o’wax.
LikeLike
June 22, 2011 at 8:56 pm
The Arbourist
Thanks for the information and the sources. :)
LikeLike
June 23, 2011 at 9:20 am
Reneta Prescott
Finally got the Cordelia Fine videos to play. Sometimes my ISP is sometimes really bad at handling streaming video. She would actually appear to believe as I do, that gender identity would drive the urge to learn a certain gender role, thus attributing to the specialization. So the article is a little misrepresentation of her book. Because of my experience with that, I attributed what made me different to my gender identity, not to some overarching gender dichotomy. Thus why I say gender is bipolar, not binary.
Most of the studies she sights are as she says, being used to uphold oppositional sexism, not used as sound science. Many of which studies fail to actually uphold there is a difference as the studies implicate, with scientifically flaw backing. It supports my own observations being in between classically male and female viewpoints. If you train someone who to learn basketball who is good at it, does that mean their brain is wired for basketball? I think the differences are slight, and that all people should be considered on their own merits, not for their gender. Women can be analytical, and men can be sensitive and empathic. There is no brain sex for those things. Sexual orientation, and gender identity may very well be the only dimorphic qualities of males and females.
For transgendered people, as well as a few intersexed here and there, oppositional sexism is their crutch by which they justify their claims to Gender. I’d know, but I am trying to know better now. I am trying to break the bonds of sexism, as I have become aware of them. I think the problem for all of us is sexism, which is why men and woman invested in that system construe gender neutrality, or other gender reversing changes as “attacks on masculinity”. A few even sometimes say it out-rightly.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-13-2011/toemageddon-2011—this-little-piggy-went-to-hell
Pay particular attention to commentary by Keith Ablow. It still baffles me that sexist bigots can make so much money, but it points out that because he supports a patriarchal message people are willing to foot his bill. The essential masculinity that most men subscribe to is a façade, masculinity and femininity are merely the expression of the gender to which you feel you belong, and nothing more.
Thank you for the unique insight, and for your honest opinion. In at least some part it’s helped me.
LikeLike
June 23, 2011 at 10:47 am
Gender Verses World: A battle to define oneself without sexism « renetaxian
[…] It’s because of this that many women even believe this who ha. Here is an interesting article/blog on the matter. It would seriously appear that men are complaining because women are becoming more […]
LikeLike
June 23, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Bleatmop
Hi Reneta!
This thread is quite old and my memory is not what it used to be. I’m unsure how to respond to your comment to me as I’m not sure as to which of my comments you were referring to. I do welcome dialog with you though!
LikeLike
June 23, 2011 at 7:52 pm
renetascian
Well I recently did a little more research on the topic and found that the article itself where it reference “Delusions of Gender” wasn’t really about gender identity, or something boiling down anyone who doesn’t agree with gender neutrality to be a nitwit. What I realized is that there is a selective group out there using medical studies to substantiate ideas that are sexist, when the studies themselves actually don’t demonstrate the dichotomies they say they do, or only do so loosely. Also the book itself has really nothing to do with gender identity, and she herself admits gender identity as the driving force for someone to align themselves with a specific gender role briefly. Being a transitioning transsexual, intersexed person I have very strong feelings about any theory that seeks to support the nurture theory of gender identity.
For me, two different batteries of hormone therapy plus years of gender specific rearing, and 20 years of life after puberty all have failed to make my gender conform to sexist practices designed to normalize intersexed, or transsexual people. For me being female has always been a fact of life for me, but it took saying enough is enough and doing for myself what I knew was right.
LikeLike