Skip to main content

gender blending

i've been given the opportunity in the last few days to think about my grandmother and ruminate on my impressions of her. being a quick-witted, smart-mouthed type, i often wonder what she would have become if she had been born in another era, or in another geographical location. born in her own time, but in a large city instead of a small town, i can easily picture her donning a suit and sneaking out to drink and smoke cigars with the guys. since she did live in a small town and likely felt the pressure of expectations, she became a wife and mother, perhaps a little more uneasily than others.

for what she might have turned out like in the modern era, i need only look in the mirror. i consider myself fortunate that i'm free to do bar shots, make off-colour jokes, stay out past my bed time and generally behave as badly as anyone, without fear of ostracism from either family or community.

however, there are sometimes signs i get that things aren't quite as smooth between the genders as we'd like to believe. a particularly good example happened some years back, when i was involved in a conversation and one of the people made the comment that he "wouldn't say this if there were women in the room". even i missed the implication for a beat.

now, i'm not indicating that this person was so obtuse as to have failed to realise that i was (and remain) female, but the comment does indicate that he didn't think of me as being the female in the same way as, say, his girlfriend was. somehow, from associating with men and establishing a comfort level, i'd also managed to establish myself as a member of a third gender.

gender dimorphism is not something that has been unquestioned. castrati, castrated males prized for their singing from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, enjoyed a social place outside the confines of gender (examined melodramatically in the film farinelli). hijras in south asia are intergendered and play a role that is neither male nor female within the society (don't take my word for it.) these examples are both very separate from questions of sexual orientation, which is a whole other issue.

an excellent resource on this is the intersex society of north america (which deals primarily with issues facing those born without a clear gender) or gilbert herdt's excellent historical and sociological study third sex, third gender.

the battle of the sexes is beginning to look a little more complex than most people would imagine.

Comments

pelao said…
and, to boot, the weight and ways of our friend p-orridge...
http://www.genesisp-orridge.com/index.php?section=article&album_id=7&id=98

intriguing post, it started off with your granny and ended up all funny-willy!...will check the links..byers.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…