You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Gender’ tag.
Sometimes terms get fuzzy or lose a bit when translated into arguments. Let’s take a look at the term ‘gender’.
I have seen so many people argue that “gender is a social construct, that means you can label yourself as anything you want” and like that is not how social constructs work.
In fact, social constructs are things which require social recognition.
Money for example is a social construct. It has value because we as a society acknowledge that it does. But if you brought some currency over from another country, nobody would know how much it was worth or be able to accept it.
Social constructs require society’s recognition.
Gender is a social construct–it means other people tell you what your gender is, not the other way around. Because gender is an oppressive force, gender is something which is done to you, not something you freely choose for yourself.
Gender is how people decide to treat you based off their perception of your biological sex.
Gender is which color blanket you are put in to after birth, whether people immediately start whispering to you how beautiful you’re going to be when you grow up or how strong you’re going to be.
Gender is the expectations society expects you to meet because of your biological sex–gender is the expectation for female people to wear make up.
Gender is the code of behavior between men and woman–gender is the expectation that women will apologize more than men, act more shy, and generally just allow the man to think he is more important.
Gender is not some fun game to anyone but those who are privileged along this axis of oppression.
Gender is something that is done to you against your will.
Gender is oppression.”
Women speaking out against the politics of individual identity and exposing the hypocrisy that lies at the base of much of the liberal objection to radical feminist class based politics.
“i’m so tired of this liberal viewpoint that you have to include everyone at all times when talking about politics or else you’re excluding and harming them. just because someone focuses on certain issues doesn’t mean they don’t care about the people not affected by those issues. if a woman wants to talk about abortion with a sign that says “no uterus, no opinion” or respond to trump with “pussy grabs back” there is nothing wrong with this. this isn’t transphobia, these messages don’t even equate the anatomy with womanhood. this isn’t white feminism, WOC are also affected by abortion and sexual assault. you say we can’t exclude anyone from feminism and then in the same breath try to exclude people that want to talk about major issues facing women today.”
We can change society in the (sociological) blink of an eye. Unfortunately, it is usually in service of making a buck. Highlights from JSTOR’s public section.
“For caffeine addicts, a morning without a pot of coffee is a no-go. But it hasn’t always been as convenient to make coffee as it is today—and as Rebecca K. Shrum writes, the dawn of coffee machines came along with a massive dose of manly marketing.
Mr. Coffee, the first electric-drip coffee machine for home use, debuted in 1972, forever changing the way Americans made coffee. Before its rise, women used percolators to brew their coffee on the stovetop or on the counter—a method that produced bitter, scorched coffee. Despite the availability of complicated, non-electric drip systems, percolators ruled American kitchens.
Mr. Coffee looked and worked differently than percolators. It also made better coffee. Since it automated the superior drip coffee technique, it gave even groggy consumers the chance for a good cup. It was also dramatically more expensive than a percolator.
In a bid to get consumers to give up their familiar percolators for this expensive new product, Mr. Coffee included something unexpected in its marketing: men. Not only was it given a masculine name, writes Shrum, but its marketing suggested that it would produce a man’s preferred brew. The company hired Joe DiMaggio to give his masculine endorsement to the product—adding an additional layer of masculine advice to a product that purported to teach women how to make a better brew.
But Mr. Coffee did more than mansplain. It played into stereotypes of men as arbiters of coffee quality, and encouraged men to get into the kitchen themselves. Since it was so easy to use, men no longer had an excuse to cede coffee-making to their wives. This corresponded with women’s increased entry into the workforce and helped men contribute more to their households.
Today, the thought of a man unwilling to brew a pot of coffee (or so upset about his coffee’s quality that he abuses his wife) seems preposterous. Mr. Coffee changed those cultural expectations, even as it played into existing stereotypes about gender and domesticity.”
Interesting conclusion – if gender is completely subjective, personal quality, how can it be meaningful in a descriptive sense?
It comes back down to the utility of meanings that are based in the material reality of the situation. Women = adult human female is an objective fact, and I haven’t seen an alternate definition that more accurately coincides with this evidence based conclusion.
The claims of trans-ideology, when examined, often fall short of being persuasive. The confusion between sex and gender and the terminology involved almost always plays a large role in making their arguments functionally opaque to the lay person. In this conversation Auntie Wanda, a gender critical feminist, wades through the confusion and gets to the heart of the issue – biological sex is an immutable fact, and that a better argument to displace this notion has not been made.