Topic: Men and women are opposites but some are more opposite than others

[UCBerkeleyPostop]

Reposting this from a post I wrote today in my gender studies class forum:
In “Patriarchy, the System,” Alan G. Johnson likens patriarchy to a game of Monopoly in that it is artificially constructed  and sets up a hegemony in which it is normal to think of men as being the aggressors and women being subservient and “defining men and women as opposites.” (Kirk and Okazawa-Rey 34) As I have always thought, even way before “women’s studies” existed, that genders are not opposites, that all of us “do” and feel gender on a continuum. Instead of having a binary gender code, we should have a Kinsey type scale in which 1 is almost totally male and 7 being almost totally female. I say almost totally as I would argue that it is impossible to be 100% female or 100% male. Anyway, thinking about Orwell’s Animal House in which “All pigs are created equal except some are more equal than others,” I coined the phrase:

Men and women are opposites but some are more opposite than others.

So where am I on this scale? My girlfriend and I are constantly debating which one is more femme and which of us is more butch, for some reason, although we reject patriarchal gender structure, we both want to be seen as more femme. Anyway, I suppose I am about a 5 or 6 on the scale. What are you? 

[UCBerkeleyPostop]

No replies?

[Lo]

It seems that ever since I've really started learning about gender and my lack thereof, I've lost most of my ability to tell which side I'm on. I've lost my perspective. So I'd need someone else to rate me, otherwise I'd just shrug and say I'm probably in the middle.

But mostly I don't have "male" and "female" qualities, I have me qualities. These are my patterns of behavior, not those of a social construct.

[musicofthenight]

'Bout a 3, if you twist my arm and make me pick a number.  But my opinion on the subject runs more like this: there are those who study gender and those who live it.  There's value in each, but they're different things and somewhat unrelated.  May explain the lack of interest.

Like Lo said, I have no way to verify that self-assessment on my own.

[Danielle Emmalee]

I wouldn't exactly say that gender identity necessarily can't be 100% male or female.  Rather very few people are 100% feminine or masculine.  Meaning most women have masculine characteristics but I don't think it makes them less of a "woman" or less "female"

[Jessica Merriman]

My Dysphoria says 7. My mind says 5-6. Hard to evaluate yourself though. It's kind of like the worthless pain scale (1-10) we used on the medical helicopter. After a car wreck every one answered a 10 if they could. Heart attack, 10. Fractures, 10. See what I mean?

[justpat]

   I say 4 my so tells me I am a 5 .

[Yukari-sensei]

I like this topic, it makes me have to remember some very surreal moments in my life that have happened since beginning my transition.

Like it or not, often times my gender expression becomes a topic for discussion for my friends. My lesbian friend in the apartment across the hall expressed, "baby doll, you may have a penis, but talking to you makes me immediately file you under vagina! (She has files on this?! ) You are a complete girly girl!" That being said though, I had just finished applying a new nailpolish when a different friend knocked on my door and asked me to help him with a car problem (he couldn't remove his battery ) ME: "Ok, can I have that crescent wrench?" MALE FRIEND: "Which one is that one?" ME: "Did you remove the anti-theft bolt?" MALE FRIEND: "I didn't know it had one!"     I ended up screwing up my nails to help him...

So given all that, I'd rate myself at a 6 - others might disagree with my self-assessment.  In addition, I hope after transition that I pass well. I am going to go to a car dealership and aggravate any dealer with extremely detailed technical questions, who condescends to me for being a woman... something I've been warned to expect.

[Jake25]

Usually even among straight, cis people you see a feminine man and woman, or a masculine man and woman together. It seems to me those are the best straight pairings. I think there are many gray areas in supposed gender thinking. I've seen a lot of couples- again straight, cis gender- where the woman was the boss and the man was agreeable. Traditionally many people would say the man should be the leader and the woman the follower. People don't always fit into a mold.

I spent way too much time trying to figure out which gender was supposed to like sex more, which that also has nothing to do with gender. In my experience most women I know try to have woman to woman talks with me and I (an asexual transman) get disgusted when women talk about their sexual desires and try to ignore it. They get insulted when I won't respond to them about it. I flat out ignore men talking about it too. So my perspective on sex may be rare and may insult many people who sex is a physical need for. There's no need to be insulted by this. This is my experience.

[Paul Muad-Dib]

I feel the difference between the biological imperatives of the sexes is the real perpetrator, rather than a "patriarchy".

Men and women have different preferential 'moves on the board' that benefit or cost them in different ways because men and women are different when it comes to what they must do to survive in the world, due primarily to their biology. Genders aren't opposites at all; they do just have different roles because nature has forced that upon us, and then through sexual dimorphism and the extension of adaptation through culture, ensured that those acting like the sex they are 'not' are going to come up against obstacles. The human race has a strategy - a complex but effective one - for survival that meant identifying as a gender and then adopting the role of that gender made things run more smoothly and probably led to our becoming one of the most successful species on the planet. The fact we prioritize the safety of women and children for example, is one of the reasons we're so successful. If we truly were ruled by a patriarchy that put men in all things before women, we'd have died out long ago, because the human female - especially the pregnant one - kind of requires safety and resources and help from other human beings to successfully birth and raise a child. This 'patriarchal gender structure' needs to be ditched because I'm pretty sure we don't live in a world run by women-hating men in which women are not cared for and not protected and not provided for. Women get an awful lot of provision and help and concern for their safety in all societies. The traditional definition of the Patriarchy is that it exists only to subjugate women to benefit men. In a world like that, why would any man choose to help a woman? Or give her anything other than the absolute bare minimum for basic bodily survival? It's clear we do not live in such a world at all, because such a world would not last long.

So I think I could answer this question at some point, but when we clear up this Patriarchy business and start understanding that the way the genders treat each other is ultimately biologically-based, and comparing ourselves on a scale that probably isn't indicative of much at all isn't going to give us much useful information about ourselves? Honestly I don't think we're going to move on in this world until we understand the real reasons behind why sexism and sexual stereotypes evolved at all, where they succeeded and where they failed, and why. It's so persistent for a reason.