Gender roles: The pressure of Prince Charming

Recommendations, discussions, and odes to your favorites
User avatar
Mira
Posts: 1354
Joined: December 7th, 2009, 9:59 am
Contact:

Re: Gender roles: The pressure of Prince Charming

Post by Mira » October 5th, 2010, 2:16 pm

craig wrote:Hi Mira!

I'm in a bit of a rush cuz I'm on a quick break at a conference, but I wanted to add that I really agree with you! I don't have the time to read over my previous post carefully, but I agree that "gender" is not so much a social construct as "gender norms" are... which is what you've explained -- so yeah, I'm up on that! (So if I said "gender" is a construct, I probably meant "gender norms." I'll carefully look over my previous post in a few days when I'm home from this conference. I might have dropped the "norms" part by accident...)
Craig - you may not have! I'm going to grad school in Social Work in the S.F. bay area, and that issue crops up alot. There's a big debate going on in the LBGTQQI (I think that's the current acronym - Lesbian, Bi-, Gay, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intra-sex) community about how gender is defined and whether it exists at all. Mainly sparked by Transgenders and Intra-sex folks, I think. So, I might have been talking more to my own head. :) Because I don't agree, but it can be tricky not to step on some folks toes....
maybegenius wrote:Mira - I totally agree that patriarchal gender typing harms everyone, including straight men. Sorry if I didn't make that clear ;)
I thought you did - right in your post! I really liked your point. Bullying kids for not fitting into strict gender roles is pervasive and really detrimental. Sorry if it seemed like I bulldozed right over what you were saying!

craig
Posts: 118
Joined: February 13th, 2010, 11:33 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Contact:

Re: Gender roles: The pressure of Prince Charming

Post by craig » October 6th, 2010, 8:44 pm

Mira wrote:
craig wrote:Hi Mira!

I'm in a bit of a rush cuz I'm on a quick break at a conference, but I wanted to add that I really agree with you! I don't have the time to read over my previous post carefully, but I agree that "gender" is not so much a social construct as "gender norms" are... which is what you've explained -- so yeah, I'm up on that! (So if I said "gender" is a construct, I probably meant "gender norms." I'll carefully look over my previous post in a few days when I'm home from this conference. I might have dropped the "norms" part by accident...)
Craig - you may not have! I'm going to grad school in Social Work in the S.F. bay area, and that issue crops up alot. There's a big debate going on in the LBGTQQI (I think that's the current acronym - Lesbian, Bi-, Gay, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intra-sex) community about how gender is defined and whether it exists at all. Mainly sparked by Transgenders and Intra-sex folks, I think. So, I might have been talking more to my own head. :) Because I don't agree, but it can be tricky not to step on some folks toes....
:-D

The acronym changes a bit up here in Canada and depending on where you are...

The current one as I know it (as I used to be involved with a sexuality organisation) is GLBTTQQ*

The second T is for Two-Spirited, which is a First Nations concept of one person containing the spirit of both genders. The * is used for those who either do not fit a category or do not want/like/fall under labels.

User avatar
Mira
Posts: 1354
Joined: December 7th, 2009, 9:59 am
Contact:

Re: Gender roles: The pressure of Prince Charming

Post by Mira » October 8th, 2010, 11:32 am

craig wrote:
:-D

The acronym changes a bit up here in Canada and depending on where you are...

The current one as I know it (as I used to be involved with a sexuality organisation) is GLBTTQQ*

The second T is for Two-Spirited, which is a First Nations concept of one person containing the spirit of both genders. The * is used for those who either do not fit a category or do not want/like/fall under labels.
Craig - arrggh. I had them in the wrong order. My apologies. I should be kicked out of the S.F. bay area. It's LGBTQQI, but then some people do say GLBTQQI. I sort of give up. I can't keep track. By this time next month, they'll have changed it again. Oh, and for anyone who doesn't know, the I for intrasex refers to those born biologically as both sexes.

And I wonder how you pronounce *? Or is that only for written versions.

craig
Posts: 118
Joined: February 13th, 2010, 11:33 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Contact:

Re: Gender roles: The pressure of Prince Charming

Post by craig » October 8th, 2010, 3:15 pm

Mira wrote: Craig - arrggh. I had them in the wrong order. My apologies. I should be kicked out of the S.F. bay area. It's LGBTQQI, but then some people do say GLBTQQI. I sort of give up. I can't keep track. By this time next month, they'll have changed it again. Oh, and for anyone who doesn't know, the I for intrasex refers to those born biologically as both sexes.

And I wonder how you pronounce *? Or is that only for written versions.
;-) The order doesn't matter so much...

I used to volunteer as a board member for a GLBTTQQ* organisation and in their written literature they would scramble the letters from time to time -- not to be confusing, but to reaffirm the equality of all people -- the Gs don't rank higher than the Ls or the Ts. So, while the order of the letters can be confusing to remember, it's really not a crucial thing, from my understanding.

Hahaha -- and as for *, I just pronounce it as "star" or "asterisk". Though, it looks almost like it could be a guttural click or something from one of those exotic languages...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest