women who don't fit those molds; new paradigms (civil, please)

[Stella_Omega]

I knew there was something about you I loved! Equal opportunity scorn, yeah!

For philosophical dogma, yeah.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

For philosophical dogma, yeah.

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii177/1volupturary_manque/KissingSmily-1.gif

 

[3113]

You can borrow my bubblegum lip gloss if you want. And I've got this awesome new cotton candy body spray...

Ohmygawd! That's sooo awesome! It glitters pink And can I borrow that new plaid skirt of yours? And the boots that go with it?

 

[CeriseNoire]

For philosophical dogma, yeah.

I agree. I hate having so-called feminists tell me how I should go about being a woman as much as I do when any given man or segment of society does.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]
And safe_bet, might i request that you edit your comment? I asked that we not indulge in gender-based attacks-- even in jest-- here, please?

Thanks. I understand that it must grate to discuss emerging lesbian archetypes in terms of maleness, but what is the alternative? I suppose we could speak in terms of testosterone-driven versus estrogen-driven if we wanted to reduce the phenomena to its' biological underpinnings, but isn't that just silly? Much easier to just accept that describing something as "male" or "masculine" is not pejorative when used to describe a female person, nor is "feminine" a nasty thing to say about a male person.

Having got that out of the way...

Might I suggest that an exemplar of the boi aesthetic is Rachel Maddow?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I agree. I hate having so-called feminists tell me how I should go about being a woman as much as I do when any given man or segment of society does.

Oh hell yeah. I talk with women who demand that all women embrace the essential nature of women. Which is however she's defined it.

I'm wondering which feminists want compulsory military service for women? And what makes them a "regime?"

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Oh hell yeah. I talk with women who demand that all women embrace the essential nature of women. Which is however she's defined it.

I'm wondering which feminists want compulsory military service for women? And what makes them a "regime?"

I forget her name, the Congresswoman from Colorado who was the first member of congress to give birth while in office, but she stated that if the government was going to draft men, it had to draft women as a matter of equality.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thanks. I understand that it must grate to discuss emerging lesbian archetypes in terms of maleness, but what is the alternative? I suppose we could speak in terms of testosterone-driven versus estrogen-driven if we wanted to reduce the phenomena to its' biological underpinnings, but isn't that just silly? Much easier to just accept that describing something as "male" or "masculine" is not pejorative when used to describe a female person, nor is "feminine" a nasty thing to say about a male person.

Well, I agree with you there, Huck but I wonder how many guys here will be flattered if you call them feminine? I mean in another thread, one guy pointed to "cocksucker" as one of the worst things you could say to another man. or anyway, another straight man.

If anything grates for me, it's that the "boys got all the toys" so that the active, the self-defining, the agressive,-- all of these are masculine in our eyes. hell, even this new term, "boi" reflects that!

Having got that out of the way...

Might I suggest that an exemplar of the boi aesthetic is Rachel Maddow?

And not only in looks; http://www.rachelmaddow.com/

Rachel has a doctorate in political science (she was a Rhodes Scholar) and a background in HIV/AIDS activism and prison reform. She shakes a mean cocktail, drives a bright red pickup, hates Coldplay, loves arguing with conservatives, spends a lot of money on AMTRAK tickets, and dresses like a first-grader.

See? it's what she does, not only what she looks like.

(Omigod my kind of woman!)

 

[CeriseNoire]

Oh hell yeah. I talk with women who demand that all women embrace the essential nature of women. Which is however she's defined it.

I'm wondering which feminists want compulsory military service for women? And what makes them a "regime?"

I remember having a friend when I was a kid, whose mother forbade her to have anything pink or play with dolls. It seemed just as absurd to me as forcing a little girl to play with tea sets all day.

As for advocating compulsory military service for women, I suppose it wouldn't be that far-fetched for some feminist extremists (the kind who think emulating all the negative qualities associated with men = gender equality). As for them being a regime, I don't know; my mind just doesn't seem to be able to bend quite that far

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Jeez, she looks like she stepped right out of The Leather Daddy and the Femme. An interesting book, BTW, for those who are seriously into BDSM and cross-gender play.

Yup, definitely a boi.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Jeez, she looks like she stepped right out of The Leather Daddy and the Femme. An interesting book, BTW, for those who are seriously into BDSM and cross-gender play.

Yup, definitely a boi.

She doesn't look like leather at all! She looks like a friendly, human, face.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

She doesn't look like leather at all! She looks like a friendly, human, face.

the female character in the book isn't leather, either, at least until the end. She is a friendly, het woman with a fascination for gay men whom she attracts by looking like a boy. I think Rachel would be a great addition to Lit3, actually. Think of the great perspective she could bring. Quick, someone send her an invitation.

 

[Stella_Omega]

the female character in the book isn't leather, either, at least until the end. She is a friendly, het woman with a fascination for gay men whom she attracts by looking like a boy. I think Rachel would be a great addition to Lit3, actually. Think of the great perspective she could bring. Quick, someone send her an invitation.

the The hero/ine of Carol Queen's BDSM novel, Randy/Miranda, is leather from the getgo, sweets.
"leather" being a synonym for BDSM player.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

the The hero/ine of Carol Queen's BDSM novel, Randy/Miranda, is leather from the getgo, sweets.
"leather" being a synonym for BDSM player.

Okay, she does't look like it in the beginning but yeah, I was forgetting the venacular. Not to my mind a fun book but perhaps educational. The best part to me was when Pinkie tries out his first woman with Miranda. Other than that it was like Phillipine food, interesting but very very foreign.

 

[Huckleman2000]

She doesn't look like leather at all! She looks like a friendly, human, face.

I agree. She cleans up a bit for TV (usually wears hipster glasses and sweatshirts, from what I've read), but she still adopts an androgynous look that is, nonetheless, quite attractive. I've not read it anywhere yet, but I'm sure some critic somewhere will eventually find the balls to describe her "boi-ish good looks and charm", lol.

What strikes me most about her, though, is what she does - you're exactly right. She takes on Pat Buchanan (and who better exemplifies a Man Who Tells Women What To Think?) using his own tactics, but out-reasons him. And they seem to have a genuine respect for each other, besides.

I was thinking about this a lot recently - she really does seem like a new female media archetype. I suppose one could point to the rough progression from Barbara Walters (beauty queen) through Connie Chung (exotic brainiac) to Katie Couric (girl-next-door), with various sideroads of course, to Maddow, whose appeal is almost post-sexual. Or, post-gender, at the very least.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Well, I agree with you there, Huck but I wonder how many guys here will be flattered if you call them feminine? I mean in another thread, one guy pointed to "cocksucker" as one of the worst things you could say to another man. or anyway, another straight man.

If anything grates for me, it's that the "boys got all the toys" so that the active, the self-defining, the agressive,-- all of these are masculine in our eyes. hell, even this new term, "boi" reflects that! [...]

Well, if not flattered, I meant that at least we can pretend for the purposes of this thread, yes?

 

[Safe_Bet]

...What I would like to point out in this posting is the inappropriate assigning of “masculine” traits to strong women. I am a woman who loves another woman. I am NOT a woman who wants to be a man. I am not a man in a woman’s body. I am focused, disciplined and can be mildly aggressive, especially regarding business. I actively defend my wife from much of the harshness in the world.

Because of these traits, I have been described as "masculine". I stridently reject this particular stereotype. I AM a woman. I am also a woman who refuses to be categorized by society so that they can assign arbitrary descriptors to me in an effort to limit who and what I am and can be. (Amy)

Thanks. I understand that it must grate to discuss emerging lesbian archetypes in terms of maleness, but what is the alternative? I suppose we could speak in terms of testosterone-driven versus estrogen-driven if we wanted to reduce the phenomena to its' biological underpinnings, but isn't that just silly? Much easier to just accept that describing something as "male" or "masculine" is not pejorative when used to describe a female person, nor is "feminine" a nasty thing to say about a male person.

Having got that out of the way...

Might I suggest that an exemplar of the boi aesthetic is Rachel Maddow?

Actually no, we haven't gotten that out of the way. The more acceptable alternative is NOT to use them to describe people of another gender. Neither I nor Amy are willing to accept that describing something as " "male" or "masculine" is not pejorative when used to describe a female person." It leads directly to stereotyping the person it is applied to in a non-complementary manner.

For example, using masculine descriptors to describe a woman is to take part of their actual identity and treat it as less than it would be for a man. It inherently implies that that is what the other person is trying to be. Because a woman has some of the characteristics that historically have been attributed to a man, doesn't mean that they want to be a man OR to be described as one.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, if not flattered, I meant that at least we can pretend for the purposes of this thread, yes?

But I'm trying to not pretend, here.

And I would like to chime in with Amy, when she requests that that the active, aggressive and self-potentiating part of my persona need not be described as male-- becase, as as Amy says it implies that only men can do these things.

Amy is much much younger than I am and has a slightly more solid foundation-- I think-- for identity that I did. When I was her age, the only way to express who I was was in masculine terms. So me, I'm used to that, and comfortable enough with it-- but I don't think it's optimal, because once again, it leaves so many women faced with not being female , being imitation men, if they want to be themselves.

And really, it does work both ways. There are many gentle, passive-seeming men out there who do not want to be described in terms that make them sound like imitation women, (and therefore failures as men.)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SAFE_BET

Your way gives you an excuse to stay pissed off at the world. Cause people are gonna stereotype.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, you could consider this an enquiry into adding more stereotypes, if we must live by them. -- so that we have more choices. Possibly ones that we have a little more say in, rather than the ones simply handed to us.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Well, you could consider this an enquiry into adding more stereotypes, if we must live by them. -- so that we have more choices. Possibly ones that we have a little more say in, rather than the ones simply handed to us.

But he does have a really "Bitchin" AV now though don't he?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA

Many beliefs are drilled into us, but a lot are behaviour that are exhibited, and reinforce our beliefs, all the time.

I've met people like SNL Pat. They get pissed off when you guess wrong, but make determining their sex a coin toss.

 

[Huckleman2000]

But I'm trying to not pretend, here.

And I would like to chime in with Amy, when she requests that that the active, aggressive and self-potentiating part of my persona need not be described as male-- becase, as as Amy says it implies that only men can do these things.

Amy is much much younger than I am and has a slightly more solid foundation-- I think-- for identity that I did. When I was her age, the only way to express who I was was in masculine terms. So me, I'm used to that, and comfortable enough with it-- but I don't think it's optimal, because once again, it leaves so many women faced with not being female , being imitation men, if they want to be themselves.

And really, it does work both ways. There are many gentle, passive-seeming men out there who do not want to be described in terms that make them sound like imitation women, (and therefore failures as men.)

Okay, this is where I get off the bus.

I specifically said that the terms "masculine" and "feminine" are not pejorative, at least for the purposes of this thread. I don't think they're innately pejorative anyway - that frame seems to be coming from you and Amy. I've never considered lesbians "imitation men", any more than I've considered gay men "imitation women".

You seem to be saying that you feel stigmatized by an identity that is very uncommon, and yet to label it as uncommon is to stigmatize it somehow. How, then, are we to discuss it?

I suggested naming it by the hormones that science suggests drive some of the most recognizable traits. But as those hormones are an essence of the biological expression of gender, then it seems pointless to replace one word with another. And substituting "masculine" for "male" and "feminine" for "female" at least implies that we are talking about a spectrum of traits that don't always correspond to the male/female binary division.

I don't think my maleness diminishes your femaleness. I don't think my femaleness diminishes your femaleness. I wish you'd both extend me the same courtesy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HUCK

Actually males do disdain females. I just read a book about how we do it. GUILTY AS CHARGED. Having fessed up to it, what we do is hard-wired in our heads, and it aint gonna change. So the lowliest pond-scum guy will always feel superior to the most superlative female, and disdain whatever she does as 2nd rate.

Whats really sad is women prefer chauvinists.

 

[matriarch]

I'm not a pretend man or a pretend woman.

I'm a woman. Period. I'm a woman with all the physical bits and pieces that biologically make up a woman. I have given birth, fulfilled the social expectation of a woman in continuing the human race. I didn't enjoy the process, but adore the fruit of it, my beloved sons.

I enoy the company of people - I don't differentiate between men and women, merely characters and personalities. If the personality doesn't appeal, then I don't go there, no matter the genitalia concerned.

I also happen to have fallen in love with, and share my life - sexually and emotionally - with a woman. So what? For that reason society deigns to label me, put me in a box? That must mean a lot of boxes.

I'm an individual.
There is no other me.
I am a stereotype of one.
As are we all.
There are no stereotypes.
Every one of us is different.

The exercise of stereotyping is futile, pointless and divisive.
I try not to do it.