srl wrote:
> Then a female breaks those assumptions, and some people don't know what to
> do with the situation because they have all these ideas about "women".
> Or a female doesn't look like females are "supposed" to--- maybe ze gets
> called "sir" half the time b/c ze's really butch. Maybe ze doesn't
> identify as a "woman" at all.
<nodnods>
I go into a mixed tech/nontech gathering with Dancer, and wind up subtly
directed to be with the 'wives'. Who are talking about kids and husbands,
usually, before I extricate myself. (or start teaching)
> But, yet, we persist in seeing geeky females and butches as "women"--- in
> the same category with Barbie, Cindy Crawford, and Ricki Lake. There's
> such a range of female genders, but we have so few words. That really
> should change. We persist in using this XOR model of woman/man, but I'm
> sure there's a better way.
I'm not sure that classifying people further is the answer. Reclaiming
'person' - or some other gender-neutral identification - might be an
answer. But having studied stereotyping, I don't think that's quite an
answer either - people stereotype because it's how our brains are wired.
We categorise and classify instinctively. Sigh.
Jenn V.
--
Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species
for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jenn Vesperman http://www.simegen.com/~jenn/
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
