Oh yeah that really means I have to take everything you say as absolute truth because you just played a shit load of power cards.
No I don’t. The second you chose to open your argument with that statement I became free to evaluate your arguments in terms of it possibly coming from an area of study with as much or as little validity as say new age medicine like aroma therapy, crystal therapy or homeopathy.
The use of “womyn” in a non-ironic form of usage informs my evaluation of you in a negative manner and leads me to think you are probably a grad student in post-modern gender studies.
As for woman of color, welcome to the 99% I know it don’t thrill you but that card doesn’t mandate my giving you extra points for credibility either.
As way of introduction I’m working class with a hard won education amassed in bits and pieces.
Cut the privileged bullshit and give me a credible argument and then I will try giving you the same as a fellow member of the 99% and we can go from there.
I expect no less from any academic I respect and I give no less out of that respect.
Credential waving is a privileged way of not having to present information and argue a position based on the information at hand.
It is the sort of trick preachers, pundits and politicians pull all the time when they make claims but fail to back those claims up with information that might invalidate or validate those claims.
One particularly galling argument that is stuck out there in the air by those in cultural studies or gender studies is the idea that modern western society has a rigid gender binary unlike Eastern cultures when what is more the case is that some cultures have a niche for queer folks while having far more rigid gender binaries for “normal” men and women.
Simply hanging a cliche that is popular in certain circles out there as though it is an agreed upon fact is not an argument. Especially if you are not prepared to defend it from reality based challenges.
Transgender doesn’t challenge any sort of artificial gender binary construct. It embraces the construct, demands the construct be real, otherwise clothes are just clothes and not markers of sex.
Without the construct of gender or if you wish sex roles the embracing of a particular role becomes disconnected from being either a male role or a female role. Sort of the way jeans without ornamentation or special marketing are just jeans that fit a certain sized body. Or perhaps a better analogy would be the ordinary crew neck cut t-shirt. Difference is measured in size not linked to sex.
Western societies where more professions are open to both men and women and codes of dress are not rigidly defined to the point of women getting attacked in the streets for dressing as they wish are less binary than those cultures, which tend to be non-western where women are only permitted to enter a few professions outside the home and get arrested if they aren’t wearing the proper hajib etc.
By Cordelia Fine
From Amazon page:
From BooklistIn a methodical and devastatingly effective manner, Fine eviscerates the recent trend in attributing society’s gender-based differences to biology. The sheer girth of her analysis is staggering as she addresses everything from scientific studies going back more than a century to the latest assertions of “Mars and Venus” author John Gray. Fine pivots from studies on gender-based clothing and toys to a discussion of education, and reviews recent Caldecott Award-winning children’s books, noting that one gender is consistently described as “beautiful, frightened, worthy, sweet, weak and scared.” (Guess which one.) Fine also explains how experiments are manipulated to provide desirable results and how results are presented without necessary caveats (such as the fact that men were not part of the study). This is social science at its hard-working best as Fine uses solid references to refute the notion that biology trumps pervasive stereotyping, and offers a sterling rebuttal to agenda research and the lure of pseudo-science. –Colleen Mondor –This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
“Fine turns the popular science book formula on its head. Chapter-by-chapter, she introduces ideas about innate differences between the sexes… and then tartly smacks around studies supposedly supporting them.” (Dan Vergano – USA Today )
“Cordelia Fine’s thorough (and funny!) Delusions of Gender punches a giant hole in the idea that women’s brains are somehow ‘hardwired’ for nurturing and domesticity.” (Anna North – Jezebel.com )
“Forceful, funny. . . . These are the right questions to be asking.” (Boston Globe )
“[Fine] effectively blows the lid off of old tropes… Weaving together anecdotes, dense research and quotes from numerous experts, she offers a well-balanced testament to the many ways in which cultural rules inform behaviors often mistaken as organic to our brains, as opposed to learned… [An] informative and often surprising study.” (Kirkus Reviews )
“Starred Review, Pick of the Week. A fabulous combination of wit, passion, and scholarship. . . . This marvelous and important book will change the way readers view the gendered world.” (Publishers Weekly )
“In Delusions of Gender Cordelia Fine does a magnificent job debunking the so-called science, and especially the brain science, of gender. If you thought there were some inescapable facts about women’s minds—some hard wiring that explains poor science and maths performance, or the ability to remember to buy the milk and arrange the holidays—you can put these on the rubbish heap. Instead, Fine shows that there are almost no areas of performance that are not touched by cultural stereotypes. This scholarly book will make you itch to press the delete button on so much nonsense, while being pure fun to read.” (Uta Frith FBA, FMedSci, FRS; Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London )
“Cordelia Fine has a first-rate intellect and writing talent to burn. In her new book, Delusions of Gender, 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. Armed with penetrating insights, a rapier wit, and a slew of carefully researched facts, Fine lowers her visor, lifts her lance, and attacks this idea full-force. Whether her adversaries can rally their forces and mount a successful counter-attack remains to be seen. What’s certain at this point, however, is that in Delusions of Gender Cordelia Fine has struck a terrific first blow against what she calls ‘neurosexism.’” (William Ickes, author of Everyday Mind Reading: Understanding What Other People Think and Feel )
As regular readers of this blog know I am not much of a believer in “Brain Sex” or for that matter the idea of gender being much of anything other than a cultural (social) construct.
I’m also extremely skeptical regarding claims of mysterious intersex conditions.
I don’t consider transgender people to be breaking down some sort of constructed gender binary, but rather reinforcing the idea that these gender differences are something other than social constructs.
The androgyny one saw in many 1970s feminists especially lesbian feminists who weren’t into roles was far more of an attack on the cultural construct of gender.
In her book Fine attacks the idea that male brains and female brains are innately different in their capabilities.
People, transgender women and post-transsexual women get bent out of shape when I discuss our having had male privilege. “Oh no, not I!” say they. “Oh yes, say I.”
Even as we disappointed or failed to live up to those expectations, the treatment we received based on the expectations given all children born with penises, bestowed an expectation upon us that we would be better at things like math and science than girls would.
Evidence: Look at how many of our parents overtly expressed disappointment in our failures to meet those expectations.
What if there aren’t differences of “Brain Sex”? What if all these “differences” are just repackaged misogynistic bullshit in new drag aimed at justifying keeping women second class humans.
In the late 1940s, Simone de Beauvoir wrote “”The Second Sex”, a book that should be mandatory reading for every transgender woman and for every T to F woman. Nothing changes, the sexism just gets reimagined and repackaged.
What if transsexual and transgender exist not because of opposite sex brains or gender binaries but rather due to the nearly complete overlapping of both sex and gender?
What if doing the same things or having the same capacities is viewed differently based on whether one is perceived as being male or female?
I lived in a radical collective while I was first coming out. I watched how I was perceived change abruptly after I started hormones and they started the almost immediate physical changes.
I think if we are honest with ourselves and others about what happens we will take into account how much treatment by others due to their different way of seeing us a physical beings plays a greater role in our sense of being feminine or masculine than we often admit.
Does this mean I think transsexual or transgender people are a result of child rearing and socialization practices gone awry?
Actually no. I think both are innate but simply do not believe there is something called “Brain Sex” that is the answer.
But neither is gender: That pastiche of pink and blue, snips, snails and puppy dog tails or sugar, spice and everything nice. Those are social constructs that help reinforce misogyny.
“Delusions of Gender” is a well thought out book that both transsexual and transgender people should read.
By David Edwards
Friday, March 9, 2012
Fears that the nation’s first black president will be re-elected has fueled the dramatic growth extremists groups in the U.S. over the past year, according to a report from a civil rights organization that tracks these groups.
The number of groups in the anti-government “Patriot” movement have sky rocketed 755 percent since President Barack Obama has been elected, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) yearly report found.
“These groups are becoming more and more aware as they watch the primary season unfold that Obama is fairly likely to win and some of them are having meltdowns over this,” Southern Poverty Law Center senior fellow Mark Potok told Raw Story. “They’re looking at four more years under a very hated black president — hated by them. So, we’re seeing signs of real anger over that. People saying we’re at war already, saying go out and buy AK-47s and hollow-point bullets, get tools to derail trains.”
Unlike traditional hate groups, “Patriot” groups subscribe to a set of conspiracy theories and see the government as their primary enemy.
“Basically what ‘Patriot’ groups think is that the federal government is an evil cabal in the hands of bad people,” Potok explained. “The government is about to impose martial law on the country, very probably with the help of foreign troops, perhaps U.N. troops. They intend to confiscate all guns from Americans. Those liberty-loving Americans who resisted will be thrown into concentration camps that have secretly constructed by FEMA. And ultimately the government will force us all into a socialistic kind of one-world government, the so-called New World Order.”
Some political operatives work hard to drive wedges between us. And since this nation elected its first black president, these operatives have worked feverishly to stoke fear in the hearts of white Americans. One way they have done this is by literally telling white America that black intellectuals want them dead.
I wish I were exaggerating.
In July 2010, Glenn Beck devoted a segment to Charles Ogletree, a black tenured Harvard professor whose many pupils included Obama. In the segment, Beck quoted Shamir Shabazz, a member of the New black Panther Party, who said that sometimes you have to “kill crackers.” Beck suggested that Ogletree, and by extension Obama, supported these views.
Any suggestion that killing someone because of their race, or even disliking them solely because of their race, is reprehensible. But neither Charles Ogletree nor any other prominent black intellectual I know would endorse any such statement.
In that same month, Andrew Breitbart, perhaps one of the most divisive figures in American political discourse, published a misleading video of Shirley Sherrod. Ms. Sherrod was forced to resign from her position at the Georgia State Rural Development Office of the US Department of Agriculture despite the fact that the allegations were untrue.
Last night, Andrew Breitbart (apparently from beyond the grave) was at it again. This time he and his cronies at Breitbart.com released a video clip of a young Obama at Harvard law school hugging Professor Derrick Bell, a world renowned legal scholar and one of the foremost black intellectuals of his time, who passed away October 2011. Breitbart suggests that black people can’t be trusted to govern, by linking Obama to Bell.
This latest round of attack on black intellectuals should deeply trouble us all.
Hillary Clinton Bejing Women’s conference 1995.