#just in new ways or frameworks

[screambirdscreaming]

I used to like saying "gender is a social construct," but I stopped saying that because people didn't tend to react well - they thought that I was saying gender wasn't real, or didn't matter, or could be safely ignored without consequences. Which has always baffled me a bit as an interpretation, honestly, because many things are social constructs - like money, school, and the police - and they certainly have profound effects on your life whether or not you believe in them. And they sure don't go away if you ignore them.

Anyway. What I've taken to saying instead is, "gender is a cultural practice." This gives more of a sense of respect for the significance gender holds to many people. And it also opens the door to another couple layers of analysis.

Gender is cultural. It is not globally or historically homogeneous. It shifts over time, develops differently in different communities, and can be influenced by cross-cultural contact. Like many, many aspects of culture, the current status of gender is dramatically influenced by colonialism. Colonial gender norms are shaped by the hierarchical structure of imperialist society, and enforced onto colonized cultures as part of the project of imperial cultural hedgemony.

Gender is practiced. What constitutes a gender includes affects and behaviors, jobs or areas of work, skillsets, clothing, collective and individual practices of gender affiliation and affirmation. Any or all of these things, in any combination, depending on the gender, the culture, and the practitioner.

Gender encompasses shared cultural archetypes. These can include specific figures - gods and goddesses, mythic or fictional characters, etc - or they can be more abstract or general. The Wise Woman, Robin Hood, the Dyke, the Working Man, the Plucky Heroine, the Effete Gay Man, etc etc. The range of archetypes does not circumscribe a given gender, that is, they're not all there is to gender. But they provide frameworks and reference points by which people relate to gender. They may be guides for ways to inhabit or practice a gender. They may be stereotypes through which the gendered behavior of others is viewed.

Gender as a framework can be changed. Because it is created collectively, by shared acknowledgement and enforcement by members of society. Various movements have made significant shifts in how gender is structured at various times and places. The impact of these shifts has been widely variable - for example, depending on what city I'm in, even within my (fairly culturally homogeneous) home country, the way I am gendered and reacted to changes dramatically. Looping back to point one, we often speak of gender in very broad terms that obscure significant variability which exists on many scales.

Gender is structured recursively. This can be seen in the archetypes mentioned above, which range from extremely general (say, the Mother) to highly specific (the PTA Soccer Mom). Even people who claim to acknowledge only two genders will have many concepts of gendered-ways-of-being within each of them, which they may view and react to VERY differently.

Gender is experienced as an external cultural force. It cannot be opted out of, any more than living in a society can be opted out of. Regardless of the internal experience of gender, the external experience is also present. Operating within the shared cultural understanding of gender, one can aim to express a certain practice of gender - to make legible to other people how it is you interface with gender. This is always somewhat of a two-way process of communication. Other people may or may not perceive what you're going for - and they may or may not respect it. They may try to bring your expressed gender into alignment with a gender they know, or they might parcel you off into your own little box.

Gender is normative. Within the structure of the "cultural mainstream," there are allowable ways to practice gender. Any gendered behavior is considered relative to these standards. What behavior is allowed, rewarded, punished, or shunned is determined relative to what is gender normative for your perceived gender. Failure to have a clearly perceivable gender is also, generally, punished. So is having a perceivable gender which is in itself not normative.

Gender is taught by a combination of narratives, punishments, and encouragements. This teaching process is directed most strongly towards children but continues throughout adulthood. Practice of normatively-gendered behaviors and alignment with 'appropriate' archetypes is affirmed, encouraged, and rewarded. Likewise 'other'- gendered behavior and affinity to archetypes is scolded, punished, or shunned. This teaching process is inherently coercive, as social acceptance/rejection is a powerful force. However it can't be likened to programming, everyone experiences and reacts to it differently. Also, this process teaches the cultural roles and practices of both (normative) genders, even as it attempts to force conformity to only one.

Gender regulates access to certain levers of social power. This one is complicated by the fact that access to levers of social power is also affected by *many* other things, most notably race, class, and citizenship. I am not going to attempt to describe this in any general terms, I'm not equipped for that. I'll give a few examples to explain what I'm talking about though. (1) In a social situation, a man is able to imply authority, which is implicitly backed by his ability to intimidate by yelling, looming, or threatening physical violence. How much authority he is perceived to have in response to this display is a function of his race and class. It is also modified by how strongly he appears to conform to a masculine ideal. Whether or not he will receive social backlash for this behavior (as a separate consideration to how effective it will be) is again a function of race/class/other forms of social standing. (2) In a social situation, a woman is able to invoke moral judgment, and attempt to modify the behavior of others by shame. The strength of her perceived moral authority depends not just on her conformity to ideal womanhood, but especially on if she can invoke certain archetypes - such as an Innocent, a Mother, or better yet a Grandmother. Whether her moral authority is considered a relevant consideration to influence the behavior of others (vs whether she will be belittled or ignored) strongly depends on her relative social standing to those she is addressing, on basis of gender/race/class/other.

[Again, these examples are *not* meant to be exhaustive, nor to pass judgment on employing any social power in any situation. Only to illustrate what "gendered access to social power" might mean. And to illustrate that types of power are not uniform and may play out according to complex factors.]

Gender is not based in physical traits, but physical traits are ascribed gendered value. Earlier, I described gender as practiced, citing almost entirely things a person can do or change. And I firmly believe this is the core of gender as it exists culturally - and not just aspirationally. After the moment when a gender is "assigned" based on infant physical characteristics, they are raised into that gender regardless of the physical traits they go on to develop (in most circumstances, and unless/until they denounce that gender.) The range of physical traits like height, facial shape, body hair, ability to put on muscle mass - is distributed so that there is complete overlap between the range of possible traits for people assigned male and people assigned female. Much is made of slight trends in things that are "more common" for one binary sex or the other, but it's statistically quite minor once you get over selection bias. However, these traits are ascribed gendered connotations, often extremely strongly so. As such, the experience of presented and perceived gender is strongly effected by physical traits. The practice of gender therefore naturally expands to include modification of physical traits. Meanwhile, the social movements to change how gender is constructed can include pushing to decrease or change the gendered association of physical traits - although this does not seem to consistently be a priority.

Gender roles are related to the hypothetical ability to bear children, but more obliquely than is often claimed. It is popular to say that the types of work considered feminine derive from things it is possible to do while pregnant or tending small children. However, research on the broader span of human history does not hold this up. It may be true of the cultures that gave immediate rise to the colonial gender roles we are familiar with - secondary to the fact that childcare was designated as women's work. (Which it does not have to be, even a nursing infant doesn't need to be with the person who feeds it 24 hours a day.) More directly, gender roles have been influenced by structures of social control aiming for reproductive control. In the direct precursors of colonial society, attempts to track paternal lineage led to extreme degrees of social control over women, which we still see reflected in normative gender today. Many struggles for women's liberation have attempted to push back these forms of social control. It is my firm opinion that any attempt to re-emphasize childbearing as a touchstone of womanhood is frankly sick. We are at a time where solidarity in struggle for gender liberation, and for reproductive rights, is crucial. We need to cast off shackles of control in both fights. Trying to tie childbearing back to womanhood hobbles both fights and demeans us all.

Gender is baked deeply enough into our culture that it is unlikely to ever go away. Many people feel strongly about the practice of gender, in one way or another, and would not want it to. However we have the power to change how gender is structured and enforced. We can push open the doors of what is allowable, and reduce the pain of social punishment and isolation. We can dismantle another of the tools of colonial hedgemony and social control. We can change the culture!

[soracities]

God I had such a wonderful literature teacher in high school. It pains me to admit that I spent most of his classes either sleeping or daydreaming about death and other equally depressing subjects. I remember thinking even then, I used to like books. Why can't I get myself through this readings why are all of these poems so lifeless to me? And like the rest of my classmates I just googled the Spanish equivalent for SparkNotes for all the readings and got a 10 in every exam. Now I find myself seeking out those same poems and sonnets and books and wishing I could turn back in time to actually listen to this passionate guy who had been all over Europe and knew 5 languages and lived so much and was so specific about which translation to get for every poem and have strong opinions about 10 other translations. I just want to grab my past self and shake them hard and scream "WAKE UP!!!!!! This thing you're ignoring right now will be the only spark of hope and joy you will find in your 20s please it's can save your life NOW if you manage to open your eyes and ears for a little bit"

Now I'm getting a degree in english, and I'm an auxiliary teacher at a primary school and it really feels a bit depressing to know that sometimes not even a great, passionate and talented teacher can make someone with an underlying interest in the subject actually pay attention and enjoy a high school class. Or maybe I was just an idiot and it's a me problem. Or maybe literature is meant to pass you by the first time around and make you go and get it out of your own will at your own time.

I think there's definitely something to be said for finding the right literature at the right time, absolutely--but I also think the fact that you still remember this teacher and the incredible passion and attentiveness he brought to those classes, that you are holding this recognition close to you now, even if you weren't able to give it the attention you wish you had at the time, counts for something, too 💕 in spite of everything something of his teaching still remained with you, even if it's being appreciated after the fact, and I think that, for most teachers, that impact alone means a great deal! Maybe you didn't appreciate the class itself, but you are appreciating the poems and those outlive every classroom and what greater influence is there than that? (And sometimes it's not even the subject itself that remains with you, but the actual teacher. I had an incredible English teacher also, but I know the impact she left on some of my friends had little to do with the poems and plays and everything to do with who she was as a person, and this is, I think, one of the most important things that come from a marvellous teacher)

I don't think you were an idiot at all--I think that whatever you were going through at the time must have been so immense, and as frustrating as it is to look back and wish you could have managed things differently, I think it's so important to allow yourself some grace for the fact that who you are now, looking back, and who you were then, are two different people--some circumstances, I think, are beyond a pupil and a teacher's control but we do the best we can with what we have, and what you have now, and what you had back then, probably look very, very different. Have you ever considered reaching out to your former literature teacher? Writing a letter or an email to let him now what you feel about his classes now, being older, and what this recognition means to you?

I think it's amazing that you are where you are now, with the passion you have now, and also with the awareness, even if you couldn't appreciate it at that time, of what a passionate teacher can bring because it will help make you a more attentive and better teacher as a result. I think teaching is one of those vocations you need to love with your entire being and if you can bring that love and that attentiveness with you to the best of your ability at any given time, then this counts for something, even if not immediately in the classroom itself 💕

[thatfaerieprincess]

if one more well meaning relative asks me if i have done any drawing recently i will start screaming and flip a table 🤪🙃

[toytulini]

thinking about my oc Bytte. and. her gender is Aro. her Aromanticism is inextricable from her gender experience.

[neverendingford]

.

[mumblesplash]

so i’ve been watching jojo’s bizarre adventure and i think i’ve figured out the source of all their powers

[catboybrain]

sniffles sadly. every day im so sad that fnaf didnt go with placing vanny into aftons role.... god forbid women do anything ! ! !

[ceaselessbasher]

THE HUMBLE WORKER THAT DOES THEIR BEST STILL GETS PAID THE SAME AS THE REST THE HUMBLE WORKER THAT DOES THEIR BEST STILL GETS PAID THE SAME AS THE REST THE HUMBLE WORKER THAT DOES THEIR BEST STILL GETS PAID THE SAME AS THE REST THE HUMBLE WORKER THAT DOES THEIR BEST STILL GETS PAID THE SAME AS THE REST

[psalmsofpsychosis]

one thing about me is, i'll always always always value creativity and experimental ideas and stories and new structure-breaking narratives above established "commonly valued" creations, even if the creative idea's execution is less than ideal, even if the established story is "perfect and spotless". Like, i literally dont care, unconventional and paculiar and unexpected works of art are infinitely more valuable to me whether in subpar execution state or in perfect structure. If you did it differently and did it your way your creation will always be more important to me than any predictable and "proper" narrative made in complete and utter obedience of well reinforced explicit and implicit rules. "this is very well made in all the technicalities look at all these clean details—" catch me give a fuck. It's cliche, repetitive, it's boring, i dont care. We live in a time where obedience of known metrics seemingly ranks higher than any form of outside-the-box creativity and i'm done with it. Say something new, say something personal, say something earnest and paculiar and weird or i'm out of this theater.

[aroaessidhe]

2023 reads // twitter thread    

The Battle Drum

sequel to The Final Strife, a queer Ghanian/Arabian high fantasy world where people are divided by blood colour

the nightly hurricanes are getting more deadly, and Sylah travels to unknown lands to discover the truth and find help

meanwhile Anoor is trying to manage her new political position while framed for a murder she didn’t commit

[unproduciblesmackdown]

the way that randos seem to have learned a tiny bit more about autistic people and are using this newfound power to give their ableism more range, like [inspiring: this gender-respecting bully will only give victims swirlies in bathroom that aligns with their identity] and [guy who researches your identity so that his microaggressions are more accurate] like oh radical that now you're throwing around the word "autistic" more comfortably as meaning shit like someone's "clueless" or "has an interest or perhaps talent" or what nonsense will follow when someone's breaking out the term "social skills" like oh nice, people accessing all the abilities of Autism Parents without having to be a parent

[ziracona]

I guess what should be considered with Marie is whether your character starts a relationship with her because of their shared past drawing him back to her, or because he just feels bad for what part of him did to her. I don't know about Marie, but the idea of someone hooking up with me purely out of pity would be awful, worse than a rejection. No one is obligated to start a romance they don't want to soothe someone else's pain. Of course it's all up to you and how you're playing him, godspeed

TuT everyone seems to hear my quandary as “Am I responsible for this girl’s suffering and thus indebted to get with her to make her better.”

That’s really not it at all. I’m not responsible. I didn’t do that shit. And none of this has ever been based on pity. There’s certainly a level of justice to it and what’s right vs wrong in motivation, but fairness and pity ain’t the same at all.

It’s not “Do I have a responsibility to get with Marie?” (Read: do I owe it to her to romance her to make up for what a part of me did?) — its “Do I have a responsibility to get with Marie?” (Read: is this my dead wife?)

There’s a lot to consider. But. Idk why everyone seems to hear my distress as “Should I pretend to be in love with this girl so I can right a cosmic wrong and heal her, because I’m sort of a part of what did it to her and I feel bad?” and it distress me

I’m not a bad person TuT I don’t just think that way.

It’s “If this is a part of me’s dead wife, who he destroyed and abandoned, am I to me Izanagi? And am I Izanagi to her? Because if so, that means she’s my wife. It means I’m a part of the person who abandoned her, but more than that it means I have a chance to be a better me. It means I have a ‘for better or worse’ and even if I don’t remember the me who made that vow, we are the same person, and that matters to me. I take it serious. I wouldn’t abandon my wife. If we are Izanagi and Izanami to each other, that is more important to me than my character’s preferences or former plans. That’s my wife. I have a responsibility to her, and to myself. I have a chance to end the cycle of abuse. I have a chance to save someone. And even if I don’t remember her, and don’t remember making that promise, if we are to each other those two, it doesn’t matter, and it’s my wife memory or no. And I would put everything else aside for that. That isn’t pity. It’s responsibility sure but not in a begrudging way. In a desperately important choice of love. I would chose the spouse a part of me vowed to love over everything, because they’re me even if I can’t remember, and even if I never do. I would love and become who I need to be, because if that’s my wife, it matters, and it will always matter. The question is if I have that responsibility, if I have that bond. Because I don’t know if I am Izanagi to her. And I know my thoughts and my answers, but you can’t tell someone they love you. And I don’t know if I am to her, and if she does, and I don’t know how to know. So I don’t know what to do. It’s about what I want and who I am being tied to a determinate framework, and not having the other half of the equation, and if I have to guess, trying to figure out what the right thing is to do.

[marxism-lelouchism]

time to read this article by the author of ornamentalism surely this will be fine

erm. the end of the pandemic? in march 2022? right after the biggest spike in cases in the us in january 2022? ok.

nonblack asian americans stop “borrowing” from afro-pessimism and keep it out of our mouths challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)

[cruelsister-moved2]

still not sure what anyone means when they use the word transmasc and i think various ppl mean various different things by this like its become a very meaningless term to me bc it literally means anyone who is transitioning in a ‘masculine’ way which is.... not a gender. like i keep seeing ppl use that word like its a gender but i mean theres transmasc women and transmasc men and transmasc ppl who are both or neither so unless you’re talking about something that relates directly to transitioning then it feels like ur just reinventing the whole afab solidarity thing again

[castielmacleod]

The thing with me and Thee Prequel. Is that it frankly doesn’t deserve to exist in my opinion and so the only and I mean the ONLY capacity in which I even slightly personally care about it is in what I can steal from it for my personal canon. Which…. is really is only a step or two down from where I already am with spn itself. Like when it comes to my little self-indulgent rewrite project, spn canon is just a big long buffet table from which I’ve tried a bit of everything, despised most of it, and now I’m going back and picking out a few specific things I actually DID like for my takeaway box. So within that analogy, spn/win is like I turn around from the main buffet table and there’s another smaller buffet table where all the gluten-free options are. And I’m not allergic to gluten myself, I don’t NEED to eat gluten-free, I could easily ignore this entire table, but as I happen to pass by, well… if I notice something there that looks good, then there’s really no reason not to grab it and add it to my takeaway box, is there. That’s kind of my philosophy on that.

[suckinitup]

see i dont think mark ever explicitly told ashe “no you cant go outside and have friends.” i dont think he ever said “stay in your room every day” or “dont go to the store” or “never learn to drive or take the train or go to a restaurant.” what happens, with homeschooling, and especially with homeschooling like ashe’s, is the Rot. the monotony of day-in and day-out where little ever changes. It wasn’t Mark that wouldve kept ashe inside, it was the Sludge. and mark, always going in and out of the house, would have had NO way to know about it. i dont really know where im going w this anymore just. grhehhrgrgr winters family