Susan's Place Transgender Resources

In the 1960s, 70s and well-into the 80s the standard for transitioning through the therapists/endos/surgeons with gatekeeping was that women be small and thin/medium 5'8" was about the height limit. 150# was about the weight limit. One had to appear 'feminine' prior to any surgeries or HRT. In point of fact most gatekeepers didn't change the old ways before the DSM changes of 1994.

The woman could not be married/stay married. Had to claim and live as a heterosexual. Promise not to reveal that she was/had been TS after surgery. She also generally had to live at least a year in gender-role without hormones. Her general presentation had to be that of Carol Brady or June Cleaver.

Otherwise she was winnowed out by the gender clinics and most surgeons.

The proscription against 'telling' was the origin of stealth. It also artificially maintained a 'low' number of diagnosed transsexual women as those who failed to meet the sexual objectification standard (resurrected in the BBL bs) were automatically excluded from a transsexual diagnosis and were not made part of the statistical record.

Besides those guidelines being the origins of the much argued about 'stealth,' they also led to women being forced into a sexually objectified life -- if you weren't willing to be the object of someone else's lust and sexual predation it seems as though you were not a 'true' transsexual. If the gatekeepers didn't find that they were attracted to you, you were out of the money as far as an 'accepted' transition was concerned. Most women had little recourse for getting hormones etc DIY. Information was rare outside of large urban areas in the West where gender-variant populations were fairly large.

Men were totally discounted from those guidelines because the prevailing view of psychiatrists was, still is, that 'women' cannot be aggressive sexually, or any other way. Women do NOT crossdress nor is it possible for them to 'become male,' let alone a female-configured body contain a male. Thus, the instance of FTM were kept at artificially low numbers which tended to support statistically the hypothesis of the sexologists that FTMs were so rare as to be non-existent. Most men simply stayed in the lesbian community as to go through the clinics at Chicago, Stanford, Johns Hopkins & Clarke Institute, etc was a useless endeavor.   

I think in our arguments about stealth/out, true and false transsexuality that many of us maintain in our minds those old standards of the HBS gatekeepers. I find that tendency, part of my own previously-held thoughts, to be both completely retrograde and in many respects profoundly antithetical to other beliefs I hold concerning democracy and the efficacy of an individual to better know her and his own feeling, thoughts and emotional content than does some 'expert' who is forever on the outside-looking-in. 

TBH, those standards seem to me very much misogynistic and demeaning toward both men and women period and especially to those with a transsexual history.

Just curious. 1) How many women here could actually transition under those standards? 2) How many men here would have simply done what your forebears did and remain in the lesbian community were those standards (seemingly called for by many of the so-called HBS movement) put back into effect? 3) Do you think that the danger from imposing such standards again out-weighs the difficulties involved in the current system? 4) Do you have any personal ideas about how the line between misogyny and sexual objectification and a meaningful diagnosis of transsexuality can be made? (Currently the much-discussed autopsy findings about the BSTc of the hypothalamus can only be confirmed by the death and subsequent autopsy of the TS person.)

Thanks for your ideas.


Please keep the discussion reasonable and safe and if your feelings are raw when you want to respond please hold that response until such time as you have cooled enough to maintain a civil post. Thank you.

Nichole

I don't know what the protocal was to transitioning in those decades as I never attempted to transition. I was too scared to. I do know that I have talked to a couple of people who did transition in the 70's and they really did not fit your description. They were all about 6 foot or bigger and I know that one was in the news letter for that community college that I went to. So, she wasn't exactly stealth.
I hope I was nice enough. I really don't like the way that you have threaten people on this thread. I would think that we are pretty much a very nice group of people. I know at times we do get carried away and feelings sometimes get hurt but no one was ever threaten by being taken off in a thread.
Just my opinion.
Sheila

If I was honest with them no. I would still have transitioned and had hormones and surgery, either by hook or crook but I don't think things have changed as much as you might hope. The doc already tried to impose those rules on me and failed. In fact the clarke is damn close to being shut down because of activists like myself and other. If they keep it up they will lose their funding and clinic. I have no qualms about lying to people who are only prepared to hear what they want to hear.

->-bleeped-<-boy

I could almost fit those guidelines..... Almost... But according to those Im a wee bit too tall...  :P
The people that created that standard probably never ran into some of the women I hang out with <myself included> Taller than 5ft 10... thin... and gorgeous to boot.

I dont think Id have fit into beaver cleaverville either...  I mean, I can be beautiful and sexy and all that... But I have an edge to me and I dont think any amount of beating or molding could dull it... <Infact, its become sharper the further Ive gone> Heheheh, I dont do the whole wholesome thing... sorry everybody... Red and black, tight jeans... tall boots... corsetts and all the edgyer stuff... Thats me. Im the punkgoth chick that causes whiplash when walking into an establishment on a good day... Or manages to blend into the woodwork on a bad one... *shrugs*  KK, I think Im done rambeling.....
/me sneaks up on one of those old foogies... taps them on the shoulder and shouts "!!!BOOOO!!!" then runs off laughing as they sit there shaking.

1) How many women here could actually transition under those standards?
I certainly would not have made the grade. I'm 6ft tall, and though hopefully HRT will help the matter somewhat, I am always going to be biggish. I'm not (this is a qualified not, mind you - things are mightily in flux upstairs at the moment) attracted to guys, so I would not be a heterosexual woman post transition.

2) How many men here would have simply done what your forebears did and remain in the lesbian community were those standards (seemingly called for by many of the so-called HBS movement) put back into effect?
N/A

3) Do you think that the danger from imposing such standards again out-weighs the difficulties involved in the current system?

I think reimposing such standards would be a profoundly tragic step backwards. It would in effect be a validation of all the homophobic and transphobic atttitudes society at large has, in an age when we are supposedly pushing for ever greater recognition of individual rights and self-determination.

Frankly though, I think that is one genie that could not be bottled again anyway. With the kind of access we have these days - to each other, to information, to medication, so frankly, if such standards were reimposed, it would simply drive us underground - which would be difficult, but doable. The major obstacles would of-course be legal transition and SRS, but even those, I believe, would be surmountable. As it is you hardly need a letter to fly to Thailand, and in South Africa you can pick up a counterfeit ID for R100 (around $15 - don't ask how I know this ...  >:D ). Obviously this is a dark scenario to consider, but I for one, would not let anybody deny me the right to transition, and I would do what I had to. ( And who knows, it might still come to that, if stories about Pretoria are to be believed ... :P )

4) Do you have any personal ideas about how the line between misogyny and sexual objectification and a meaningful diagnosis of transsexuality can be made? (Currently the much-discussed autopsy findings about the BSTc of the hypothalamus can only be confirmed by the death and subsequent autopsy of the TS person.)

I actually brought that up in a recent TransLondon meeting when they had a psychiatrist and an endocrinologist from Charing Cross GIC there, and I mentioned this new drug Alice put the news item up about a few weeks that mimics oestrogen in the brain but does not have the feminising effects on the body. Of course, that would not lead to a conclusive diagnosis due to the euphoric effects of oestrogen, but it might point in the right direction. I personally feel that the idea of diagnosis through HRT has some merit - the immediate effects of loss of libido and sexual function, along with them mental effects etc. , as far as I'm concerned, would be a severe blow to somebody who did not really want or expect those changes, and would probably weed out a fair number of "non-transsexuals" by their own choice rather than a gatekeeper's opinion. In cases where the patient somehow is classified as "not a transsexual", but welcomes those changes and subsequent ones, I frankly can't see a problem. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..., after all.

Whatever method we do come up with, it needs to be something better than what we have at present, as much better as the current system may be than older ideas, it is still in essence a question of convincing the therapist about something you ARE, which is coloured by his/her own beliefs and education. If psychological therapy is to have any real meaning, it needs to be a question solely of what you ARE NOT. If schizophrenia and other disorders that may present as TS have been discounted, I see no reason why somebody should be denied transition, whatever his or her brain-structure or background or whatever is. If the person is going to be a happier, more productive individual after transition, what right does anybody have to deny that?


Posted on: 06 April 2008, 12:55:18

---

And like Lynner, I would probably not do Stepford-wife all that well ...  ;D

~Simone

I edited the poll to add a fifth choice and made it possible for a vote to change. I'm going to remove the change vote this evening though and placed it there for those who had already voted and may have wanted to change their votes. Also placed a 30 day limit on the polling.

N~

I liked your well-thought-out ideas Simone.

Hmmm. Is it possible to change votes? if not, I recast for "to hell with the gatekeepers" - so add one there, and subtract one from "I'm too tall & stuff".  ;D

~K, vote changed. Thanks Nichole!  ;)

~Simone

Yes, small enough and lying to gatekeepers is not that difficult.

Of course a system where people lie to get treatment is a waste of resources and does not help people.

Getting HRT outside the system before official treatment would have been harder 30 years ago but not impossible.

I chose the first option, Nichole.  I'm only 5'7'', have never been married nor have any children.  My sexual orientation is: heterosexual.  Oh geez, I think I fit "their" profile pretty well, don't I?  Oh well.   ;D  :P

Did you know that there are some psychiatrists out there that still follow these guidelines?  I was never able to confirm those allegations of course, but according to these few personal friends, these therapists tried to convice them not to go through with transition because they were "not good candidates".   When they asked why, the therapists in question said that it had to do with "passability issues" and that they couldn't help them.  This was in the late 90's so there was NO excuse for this kind of behavior.

They did complain, sent letters to the board even, but they (the therapists) are still practicing psychiatry, so yeah...

tink :icon_chick:

Quote from: Tink on April 06, 2008, 01:59:22 PM
Did you know that there are some psychiatrists out there that still follow these guidelines?
...
They did complain, sent letters to the board even, but they are still practicing psychiatry, so yeah...

Unfortunately this seems especially true in public health. I have heard some very disturbing things about the gender clinic at the Pretoria Academic hospital, and we're all quite familiar with the ongoing struggle Berleigh and others have with the UK NHS and its policies.

I would think that psychiatrists in private practice would be somewhat less able to do this simply because they would want to retain custom, but I suppose entrenched beliefs are a powerful force.

~Simone.

Quote from: Tink on April 06, 2008, 01:59:22 PM
I chose the first option, Nichole.  I'm only 5'7'', have never been married nor have any children.  My sexual orientation is: heterosexual.  Oh geez, I think I fit "their" profile pretty well, don't I?  Oh well.   ;D  :P

Did you know that there are some psychiatrists out there that still follow these guidelines?  I was never able to confirm those allegations of course, but according to these few personal friends, these therapists tried to convice them not to go through with transition because they were "not good candidates".   When they asked why, the therapists in question said that it had to do with "passability issues" and that they couldn't help them.  This was in the late 90's so there was NO excuse for this kind of behavior.

They did complain, sent letters to the board even, but they (the therapists) are still practicing psychiatry, so yeah...

tink :icon_chick:

Actually, yes. I did know, Tink. If you ask me, I know you didn't, but, you know me. :laugh: IMO, the Bailey/Blanchard theory has to do with sexual objectification as well. Bailey says in his book that he could always tell the 'true' transsexuals from the 'false' one's (he used a different terminology) :) by whether or not his male graduate assistance would or would not have gone to bed with the woman in question.

I've never met personally any of those shrinks or therapists either, but I imagine they exist.

I'm lucky as well. I'm not het, but would lie through my teeth. I meet the other look-ist requirements. At least judging by other factors. But the whole objectification stuff just really burns me.

N~

I'd fail the physical requirements. And I'm married.

I don't know why, but words like "misogyny and sexual objectification" just don't stir my righteous indignation. I guess I'm not much of a feminist in that way. I wouldn't mind being desired as a "sex object," as I see that as a source of *power* rather than my persecution. Yea, I know, don't hate me, lol, but I just do. And I said "desired as," that being different than being raped, abused, etc. I don't think it's a requirement for being TS however.

Do you mean would I still transition if those standards were being imposed now? If so, then yes, I would.

In fact, I pretty much DID. I didn't have an easy experience in getting my "approvals," and I'm convinced it was because I didn't meet the expectations of what a "classic transsexual" is or does.

~Kate~

No matter what the rules nothing is perfect and there is always a work around. It just might be more costly. Call the therapist patrol. :police: ;)

There was actually a height limit? Wow. I knew about them having to be straight and present in a feminine manner and all that but not that it was that strict that you had to have a certain body type.

My answer: I'm a man and I've never been in the queer community really, so I'd just have lived as I always have - male presentation to the best of my ability. Though I probably would've had to deal with more homophobia and sexism back then. I'd still be myself though.

I'd say probably not, however I was more passable when I was younger. But I wouldn't have been able to conform to June Cleaver stereotypes, no way! Even when I transitioned in the early 90s, those attitudes still existed among some therapists so I was careful to not go to one of them.

Z

I often wonder how people like Christine Jorgensen and Jan morris did it since essentially they didn't fit "their" profile when they transitioned.  Another thing I read somewhere was that at that time prospective candidates for HRT/SRS needed to fill out an endless questionnaire about physical/sexual abuse and sexual orientation.  Any MTF who said they were sexually attracted to women was "disqualified" on the spot, so people started to lie in an aim to get HRT/SRS.

The ironic part of it all is that most pre-op heterosexual MTF's I know became asexual during transition, for we didn't wish to involve ourselves in any kind of sexual activity, having the wrong anatomy and all.  It is not like that guy said...what's his name? ...Oh yes, Blanchard...that hetero MTF's transition to have more boyfriends... ::) ::)  Jerk!

tink :icon_chick:

Christine Jorganson had her surgery overseas, I think Amsterdam. I used to work in the store that she shopped in. I have waited on her a couple of times, that was down in Laguna Niguel, Ca. I also waited on the tennis person, too. For the life of me, I can't think of her name. That was in Costa Mesa, Ca. She seemed very snobby to me. There were a couple of others at the community college I went to. They were very nice, one would have fit the description and the other, no way. She was well over 6 foot and she had been in the service, I believe she was in Vietnam, and she had been married with children. She was in the RLT stage. That was in Mission Viejo, Ca. These were all in the conservative county of Orange County, Ca. You know the OC.
Sheila

QuoteI also waited on the tennis person, too. For the life of me, I can't think of her name.

I believe you mean Renee Richards.

i'm like you Nichole, i don't identify as hetero either. but i would fit most everything else, i believe i'm about 5'10 maybe a little shorter, i haven't been measured in years. but i'm blonde, blue-eyed, and only weigh like 120( i made it to 130 once and never seen it again). i don't want to be anyone's sex object but my lovely wife's, but i have been hit on by guys on more than one occasion, one about took a cement nosedive to open a door for me and my son...lol. i would definitely lie to get everything i needed as well, makes me glad i'm only going to be 25 this year, makes some things so much easier.


i'm loving a lot of these newer threads, they have lots of insight,

Best Wishes
Mickie

Nice to have company, Mickie. I prefer other women. Given the choice I would imagine preferring another trans woman to most men, although, as I have said before, I'm bisexual. Now for this.

Quote from: Kate on April 06, 2008, 02:19:27 PM

I don't know why, but words like "misogyny and sexual objectification" just don't stir my righteous indignation. I guess I'm not much of a feminist in that way. I wouldn't mind being desired as a "sex object," as I see that as a source of *power* rather than my persecution. Yea, I know, don't hate me, lol, but I just do. And I said "desired as," that being different than being raped, abused, etc. I don't think it's a requirement for being TS however.

Kate, I hardly hate you, or even see a reason that I might. But, I believe I see some reasons for discovering that sexual objectification is not the route to go as a goal. Maybe especially for a woman with a trans history. In point of fact, I think that misogyny and sexual objectification is the main reason that trans women, and to a degree trans men, especially Thomas Beatie, are killed, maimed, dismissed/descried and injured on such a frequent basis among a population where the condition is fairly rare.

Male libido and the sneaking suspicion that the male in question might well think himself 'less than' or 'gay' if he beds you, or even wants to.

I had a situation arise a while back that might give you some insight into the sexual objectification part.

Pre-SRS, as you know, you cannot get an "F" on your DL in PA regardless of how much sense it makes to have one given looks, and other "passing" qualities. But pic is my current one and all ID is in my name, not 'his.' I believe that that is one of the major reasons why women often have trouble finding work and in getting killed. "Passing" women, not the elusive 'men in drag.'

In that incident I was stopped in a NJ township because I had a burnt-out headlamp. It had apparently gone out while I was parked and when I started the car didn't come on again. I was driving through this town when I was pulled over by a cop. No big deal, I thought, I've been stopped by cops before. They have always gendered me female and 2 of the 3 who had done so had consistently referred to me as 'ma'am' and 'miss.' The one who didn't was fascinated by the DL info. He was, however, polite asked to call me by my first name. So far so good.

So, cop arrives at the window: "Hello, ma'am. Did you know you had a burnt-out headlamp?" "No, officer, it was fine this morning driving to work." "Well, it's out now, let me see your license, registration and insurance card, please, ma'am. I guess I'll write you a warning ticket this time." I do. He proceeds back to his car where he apparently noticed the "M" designator.

I sat for 15 minutes and another car shows up. Cop exits, talks to cop one and then approaches me. "Hello, ma'am. Could you explain something to me, please." "If I can, officer." "Why does your DL say "M?" "Ummmm (never had this happen before)." "Because I am a pre-operation transsexual, sir. Is that a problem?" "Yes, it is, we have to make sure you are real." (Yep, in "enlightened NJ" a township cop said that and plenty more. Accused me of being false and trying to trap men. Spit on me and yelled at me unmercifully for about five minutes and ended by throwing my school id and voter's registration card through my window. Also suggested I might be "a Mexican who drives with a fake license and no social security card. You know 'they can't get social security cards!")

Cop one came back to the car after that and holds out the DL showing me what is on it: "M" "That says male and you look like this?!!! What are you trying to do, fool men?" By then I was crying and they were fuming. A third cop showed up and cop one handed me a ticket for $54. They left. I sat and cried for about 5 minutes. Total time? 40 minutes on the side of a road while people slowed and stared.

Now, Kate. What do think the problem was? You know me, am I interested in attracting males?

So who was attracted to whom? And what was the result of that do you think? 45 minutes of abuse and grilling on a roadside. Why, because "something about Nichole" touched those yokels very deeply. Their own sense that if they found me an attractive woman then there must be something wrong with their 'pickers.' And that questioned their sexuality. And when they discovered that, then something HAD to be wrong with me.

I made a complaint with the township and the state Division on Civil Rights. The DCR process takes 6 months for them to investigate. The township asked if my headlamp had been out. When I said 'yes' they said well "pay the ticket." The woman on the line dripped with disgust.

Look-it, I understand that most MTFs have spent years being identified as our incorrect sex. I understand the reaffirmation and pleasure that comes in being ided as who we are rather than as something we are not. I also understand that many so-called GGs eat-up being sexually attractive.

But, to hold the sexuality and insecurity of a man in my hands, on my thighs, shoulders, calves, breasts and back is a burden not worth bearing. Yet, for thousands of years that is absolutely what women have done. We have built for men this edifice that they call an ego, a self-worth. "I am better than she is. I can f... her any time I want and she will love it."

That way leads to death, dearie. Not just for you and me, but for women everywhere. Goddess, in Bangladesh and Pakistan women are raped and then stoned to death for having been raped. You don't find that sexual objectification and a deep hatred of women as the objects of lust=misogyny?

Yes, it feels good to be admired. It even feels good to be lusted after. For so long we were not noticed at all and when we were noticed it was as someone we didn't feel we were/are. But, do we accept changing from males to objects as a step forward and upward?

I can not. Will not. 

I hope nothing like that occurs with you during these next few months before your SRS. And I hope you find a handle on how you are going to live life as a woman. But, I suggest that when you go to bed with your first man that you be very very sure before you relate your past. And that you be very very sure every time after that that you can bear the weight of being someone else's source of self-esteem and efficacy. It's a heavy burden and has lead to the deaths of way more than Gwen Araujo -- who, if you recall, was deemed 'deceptive' and asking for it -- as much by trans women and women as by men.

The entire edifice of privilege and subordination, objectification and power makes me sick.

Nichole     

BTW, am I a feminist? Hell, yes. And, imo, anyone who doesn't at least consider the implications of exactly the way life is in USA, UK, Canada and the EU, not just Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, is asking for more pain than she probably really wants. All that 'chivalry' comes with a very high price-tag. How much money you got?

N~


Posted on: April 07, 2008, 05:21:57 PM

---

BTW 2, don't talk to me about "carry-letters" if they gender you female then whatever you give them isn't going to matter once they start to question themselves. You might try  THIS (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,31626.0/topicseen.html) for some reasons why.

N~

Quote from: Nichole on April 07, 2008, 04:58:27 PM

By then I was crying and they were fuming. A third cop showed up and cop one handed me a ticket for $54. They left. I sat and cried for about 5 minutes. Total time? 40 minutes on the side of a road while people slowed and stared.

Sorry that happened to you Nichole! And it stinks that you weren't able to press charges against the cops. There's no reason for them to treat you like that. Grrr.  >:( They need some serious diversity training!

Z

I probably could have, but it's hard to say. I tried to get help in 1970. I had all kinds of things and feelings in my head since the age of 5 or 6 that didn't fit with a male body and social role. When I was  20 years old, I was single, 5' 7'' weighed about 120. I was totally passable with a minimum of makeup, and I freely dressed as I chose. I had no job and little money, so I went to whatever free clinics were available in San Francisco and the Bay Area at the time. I met with several counselors who had some experience with the Gay/Lesbian communities, but they were clueless as to what to do with me. Whatever help was available at the time was out of reach to me. Even now, some people will present for help with GID, and the therapist doesn't know anything about the SOC or in some cases, is  unaware that GID specialists exist. For some people, even today, finding help can be a challenge.

It's more than whether or not a person with GID could have been given help. Prior to about ten years ago, FINDING help was truly difficult. Trying to transition in those early years was a DIY sort of thing from the start, without the benefits of HRT, and FFS was not in existance. Forget about SRS. I was unable to find help in 1970, so whatever standards and guidelines existed were known by few professionals at the time.  If help could have been found, I wouldn't have been able to pay for it. The Internet has done a great deal of good in making both information and community available.  I wish that I had it years ago!

sorry you had to put up with that kind of abuse nichole.

I'm not a violent person by nature, but when I hear things like what Nichole has described, the Hannibal Lecter in me comes out.  I would love to find those a**holes in a corner, and..  :icon_bat: :icon_bat: :icon_bat:  >:( >:(

My heart goes out to you, Nichole, and I'm so very sorry you had to experience the ire of those %^&$#!

tink :icon_chick:

Quote from: Tink on April 07, 2008, 07:45:02 PM
I'm not a violent person by nature, but when I hear things like what Nichole has described.  The Hannibal Lecter in me comes out.  I would love to find those a**holes in a corner, and..  :icon_bat: :icon_bat: :icon_bat:  >:( >:(

My heart goes out to you, Nichole, and I'm so very sorry you had to experience the ire of those %^&$#!

tink :icon_chick:

my sentiments exactly. some men have no shame.  >:( so sorry to hear this, sweetheart. wish i had been there.

I love your heart, Tink. Thanks so very much.

Thanks to Nero, Tasha and Zythyra as well.

My worry is that other women & men wind up experiencing very much of the same thing. And I'd rather they not. Decided that maybe I should just make an object lesson of myself. It can happen, and it isn't about looks, ID, letters and all of the things we think will protect us sometimes.

It's about what's inside of people and how they regard us all. I think we often forget that, so, hopefully someone will read that and remember.

I also have to admit that I would love to see you get those a**holes in a corner!!  :laugh: :laugh:

I'd PAY to just be there!!  :laugh:
:icon_hug: :icon_hug:

Nichole

i understand now that you're bi, guess i'm a little late Nichole. i worked with men everyday because of what i do, i really don't think i would be able to handle coming home to a man after working with the disgusting ones i do..lol. but to each girl their own i suppose.

all the best...
Mickie

I meet the height requirements, but I'm married and too heavy so I said to hell with the gatekeepers. Even if I got my weight down which I am working on daily, I'm still married.

5'8" was about the height limit.
That would disquality half the genetic women in Minnesota.  I'm a Scandinavian goddess.  Back then I was 5'10".

150# was about the weight limit.
Likewise, I was 175#.

One had to appear 'feminine' prior to any surgeries or HRT.
I was.  I've always looked feminine.

The woman could not be married/stay married.
I would have told them to go screw themselves.  On the other hand my ex overruled me.

Had to claim and live as a heterosexual.
I'm sorry, I can't be anything but bisexual.  But back then they didn't believe bisexuals existed.  Some people still don't.

Promise not to reveal that she was/had been TS after surgery.
It is to laugh.

She also generally had to live at least a year in gender-role without hormones.
I lived full-time for three years without hormones.

Her general presentation had to be that of Carol Brady or June Cleaver.
They can take a hike on that, too.  I would have been a bra burner.

Quote from: Tink on April 07, 2008, 07:45:02 PM
I'm not a violent person by nature, but when I hear things like what Nichole has described, the Hannibal Lecter in me comes out.  I would love to find those a**holes in a corner, and..  :icon_bat: :icon_bat: :icon_bat:  >:( >:(

My heart goes out to you, Nichole, and I'm so very sorry you had to experience the ire of those %^&$#!

tink :icon_chick:

Oh yeah, count me in.

~Simone

Quote from: Nichole on April 06, 2008, 11:44:00 AM
In the 1960s, 70s and well-into the 80s the standard for transitioning through the therapists/endos/surgeons with gatekeeping was that women be small and thin/medium 5'8" was about the height limit. 150# was about the weight limit. One had to appear 'feminine' prior to any surgeries or HRT. In point of fact most gatekeepers didn't change the old ways before the DSM changes of 1994.

That's how it still is in the U.K, only much worse. But I didn't know anything about height restrictions. I'm small built and only 5' 7" and have lived 5 years RLT yet I have still been refused a referral from the psychiatrists at Charing Cross, London. They haven't given me an explanation.

Long Post. Sorry all, had a lot to say...

The saddest thing is that many of those older "standards" are still firmly in place the world over: In Brazil, you have to be passable, and beautifully feminine at that, to even be considered for transition; as I understand things, and I dearly hope I speak under correction here, the whole "you're an extreme version of gay - you should be attracted to your birth sex" attitude still holds sway in South Africa; And we all know and loathe the NHS requirement that you live as your target gender for a year, change your name and everything before they will consider you for HRT.

But you know, as much as that is society's fault, it is our own as well. We need something from them, so we end up doing whatever we need to to get that: Approval from therapists; Acceptance from friends and family; Legal recognition. We lied back then to get what we needed, and we lie now.

I'd go further though and say that many of us lie to ourselves as well. Or rather, not a lie exactly, but we internalise the definitions that are set for us: Witness how many TS people latch onto Blanchard and Bailey, or scratch out every crumb of new research or circumstantial evidence that might prove our biological origins.

But of course, we go further than that. We spew invective against this subgroup of TG, or that subgroup of LGBT. I've met one or two (okay, more than one or two) gay people who would be at the front of the queue to burn me simply for what I am, and the same can be said of the attitude some transsexual people have towards CD's, TV's and others, and some of the most racist people I have ever met were black.

We're human, and as such, we have an aching need to be understood and accepted, not just by society, but by ourselves too. As much as we are trans, I would contend that many of US are transphobic, simply because we were programmed to be that way. We latch onto anything that will legitimise it, to ourselves and we hope to others. I mean, I'll be honest here: The only reason I initially accepted myself as TS was because I started reading about the medical evidence and theories. Before that I really did know what I was, but I hatedhatedhated it, despised myself. I equated myself with all the negative protrayals I had seen in the South African media as a child, and even though I had rejected Christianity by the time I was 14, the narrowly moralistic programming it left behind still creeps up on me every now and again. I have to constantly watch my thoughts to prevent myself from falling into old patterns and beliefs. And I've lied. Lied to doctors, to family, to friends, all in abject terror that, if I did not present the right "face", they would reject me.

So when somebody like Thomas Beatie comes along to challenge that acceptance, to challenge the self image we've constructed as WOMAN or MAN, and perhaps more critically - present to the world, we go at him like a pack of wolves. Instead of granting that every one of us is unique, we try and kill what does not fit the little boxes.

I am a racist, sexist, classist, bigot. I am homophobic, transphobic, narrow-minded, and I judge people all the time. But we're human too. The definining thing that makes us human is free will - the capacity to choose. And that's not a religious platitude, but a reality. We can reason, we can inspect our thoughts and choose which ones we want to keep.

You're not an enlightened, accepting individual because you happen to expand what society accepts just enough to include yourself.

So thanks for reading, and today, as Nero's signature says: "I stand before you all, quite naked."

~Simone

Quote from: lady amarant on April 08, 2008, 05:32:00 AM

I am a racist, sexist, classist, bigot. I am homophobic, transphobic, narrow-minded, and I judge people all the time. But we're human too. The definining thing that makes us human is free will - the capacity to choose. And that's not a religious platitude, but a reality. We can reason, we can inspect our thoughts and choose which ones we want to keep.

You're not an enlightened, accepting individual because you happen to expand what society accepts just enough to include yourself.

Fantastic post Simone!!!!!!

On an album I have, folksinger Utah Phillips talks about humans being inherently violent as similar to being an alcoholic. Says he wakes up every morning, looks in the mirror and says "Hi, I'm Utah, and I'm violent". Then he makes a conscious choice to act non-violently is his life. I believe it's pretty much the same regarding sexism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, classism, racism, etc. We've all internalized these stupid ugly things from negative societal conditioning, and it is up to us to make a choice as to how we think and act. We can be better than our programming. That's what I aspire to.

Zythyra

I'm so sorry Nichole, that's a terrible experience you went through. The godlike "cop attitude" (of a few, not most) + homophobia is a bad, BAD combination to deal with.

But the difference between you and I though, is that I assume you don't want male attention? That you could just never have a man look at you again and you'd be just fine with that?

Thing is, I WANT it. I want them to like me, I want them to find me attractive and desirable. And let's face it, men are biologically programmed to spread their seed amoungst healthy (aka "sexy") females without much regard for their personality. I'm perfectly fine with that. Those instincts aren't their fault, and to insist that they behave according to more female instincts (luring strong and stable providers into creating and raising babies with them) isn't exactly fair, IMHO. We do live in a civilized and evolved society, so those instincts have been incorporated into our culture to allow us to function together fairly, but they're still THERE. Many men walk around all day simply rating women as "do-able" or not, and many women look at men as "capture-able" or not. It's the game we play, and it'll be around until the end of time.

And it's a game I WANT to play, now that I'm on the correct side finally. I DO hear you, and appreciate the warning as I'll admit that I'm as naive as a 13-year-old girl right now, all giggly and dreamy over the prospect of FINALLY being able to flaunt my femaleness with men. But for whatever reason, men are *terrified* of me, so it's hard for me to realize the gravity of your warning. So far, they've always cowered to me (or ignored me utterly), becoming oddly meek and docile when dealing with me. Which is really ashame, as I WANT to be "adorable and cute" with them, not scary. But hey, SO BE IT, if that's how they're gonna treat me, then that's what I'll work with.

~Kate~

Quote from: Kate on April 08, 2008, 08:53:19 AM

But the difference between you and I though, is that I assume you don't want male attention? That you could just never have a man look at you again and you'd be just fine with that?

Thing is, I WANT it. I want them to like me, I want them to find me attractive and desirable. And let's face it, men are biologically programmed to spread their seed amoungst healthy (aka "sexy") females without much regard for their personality. I'm perfectly fine with that. Those instincts aren't their fault, and to insist that they behave according to more female instincts (luring strong and stable providers into creating and raising babies with them) isn't exactly fair, IMHO. We do live in a civilized and evolved society, so those instincts have been incorporated into our culture to allow us to function together fairly, but they're still THERE. Many men walk around all day simply rating women as "do-able" or not, and many women look at men as "capture-able" or not. It's the game we play, and it'll be around until the end of time.

And it's a game I WANT to play, now that I'm on the correct side finally. I DO hear you, and appreciate the warning as I'll admit that I'm as naive as a 13-year-old girl right now, all giggly and dreamy over the prospect of FINALLY being able to flaunt my femaleness with men. But for whatever reason, men are *terrified* of me, so it's hard for me to realize the gravity of your warning. So far, they've always cowered to me (or ignored me utterly), becoming oddly meek and docile when dealing with me. Which is really ashame, as I WANT to be "adorable and cute" with them, not scary. But hey, SO BE IT, if that's how they're gonna treat me, then that's what I'll work with.

~Kate~

You'd be wrong in that assumption, Kate. I adore it when men give me attention.

I'll be very honest about that. And about this: I think on some level all women do so.

Now you may, and have, said: but you're a lesbian and you have a history of assault at the hands of males. What do you mean you crave and adore their attentions? I mean exactly that.

And furthermore I'm not ashamed of it, well, not on most days.

The other day a man told me that were I not committed and he wasn't committed he'd chase me 'like a dog chases a bone.' Yep, tingly and happy and proud of that. Even in light of the last event I told above.

What makes this so? I'm not certain, but I'll tell you what I think.

I think it has to do with ingrained conditioning.

I like being attractive to other women. Another lesbian intern has expressed some attraction to me. That feels good, but not, tbh, quite as good as those remarks and suggestions from men make me feel.

But, like other women and men I would rather have attention and compliments from the 'superior' sex. For that is exactly so ingrained in me, that men are rational, objective and to be desired for compliments and what they think is important, that I fall for that as much as you do. Although our current sexual orientations are different.

You see, women 'say things to be nice.' "Women lie to remain in relationship." "Guys say whatever they really mean." "Guys' opinions are more important than are the opinions of other women, or my own." Afterall, they are the preferred sex.

I know, bullcrap. Yet, just like Simone said up there, we internalize all that conditioning and actually at very deep levels believe it. I am not different than anyone else here or elsewhere in that respect. Except that I am aware of it and sometimes realize just how silly my responses are.

Like that singer Z mentioned, I have to consciously make an effort to realize that my conditioning defines my responses to such things as attention and compliments from men.

Nichole

Posted on: April 08, 2008, 04:23:23 PM

---

What was the point of this thread? That we internalize 'sexual objectification' in the same way that other women do. Our needs in some ways may differ from the needs of adolescent girls and women, but in the overall they remain the same: when one has a vested interest in being 'seen' as the object of a sexual attraction then she or he applies themselves to attaining that objective.

To be 'stealth,' to attract a member of another sex to ourselves, to receive praise for how we 'are seen' becomes an over-ridingly important occupation. One we often have so deeply ingrained within us that we  fail to recognize it for what it is.

We, like all people in our culture (Western) are innundated with images of what and who are 'attractive.' We long to attain that attraction and validation. Because, socially, that appears, at least, to be an ultimate attainment.

Yet, that very objectification is also the reason that we pay, sometimes, the cost of attainment in violence, degradation, depression and anxiety. If we 'pass,' if we are stealth and then outed we run a very real danger of being slain or maimed.

Is there another way? I'm not certain. We can talk about changing paradigms, but we must also look to the length and weight and speed of the 'train' we are trying to halt. That is overwhelming for the individual, less-so for a large political coalition: something like women of all sorts, GLBTs and men of understanding and dignity.

But, the force of advertising, 'reality' tv and other socially ingrained and supported uses of objectification will not quietly stop doing the things they do. There will be resistance and attacks. We will hear all sorts of dialogue about how 'useless' such projects are.

Yet, within ourselves we can make changes one at a time. But, that will also be difficult. I know this from personal experience and an inability to erase and expunge the very notions and goals that accede to such objectification within my own make-up and sense of self.

Thanks for your contributions to the thread. You all have given me things to ponder and for the most part the discussion has been polite and not given over to anger. It's led me to a line of research I had been looking for and toward a deeper evaluation of myself.

Thank you all.

Nichole

Hi Sage,

i know what you're saying here, but you have to remember that boys are pretty much in the same boat.

not only do we expect boys to be good-looking, we expect them to be bright, honest, gentle, and caring. and most of all, that they don't act stupid.

the entire feminist thesis is flawed. because, really, at the core of it all is a sad but true statement (now the title of a book i haven't read) which is, God hates ugly.

yes, now i am objectified, sometimes (thank heavens). the flip side of that coin is ignored.

but, i was sometimes objectified as a boy, too. (and i can't tell you how many times i was ignored)

neither is any good, but ignored is worse, for either sex.

unfortunately, you'll have to take this argument up with mother Nature. please ask her why she shaped human nature this way, and, if you would please, let me know the answer she gives you. i've been wondering about that one myself.

-ell

Hi, Prophet In the Cave,

I don't disagree that we are all to some degree objectified. Just as the slave owner was objectified as he objectified his slaves.

As stated somewhere above the differential is that little ole measurement called 'power.'

A feminist thesis is flawed only when it loses track that one objectification is the reflection of the other, and, as you say, it manages to objectify both. A democratic and humane feminism doesn't do that. It celebrates biological diversity and works for releasing people from being objectified and toward being subjects.

The flaw with much of 'radical feminism' results in screeds like Janice Raymond's against males, heterosexuals, trans women and ignores trans men and androgynes altogether. Like much 'identity politics and philosophy' it demonizes and neglects what doesn't fit into circumscribed categories and objectifies what it perceives as the weakest link of the 'other side.'

Life isn't about sides, Prophet, but about recognizing integration, whether we like that or not.

Mom shaped human nature to be protean. She also gave us these brains to free ourselves, but we continuously use them to further circumscribe ourselves and attempt to make a changing universe static so we feel a sense of security.

Security seems of ultra-importance to those who content themselves with only the recognition of their own mortality. They ignore the fact of their coherence through time and space. The desire for security leads to all sorts of indescribably narrow boxes. Witness its repeated use by US politicians who wish to provoke fear in order to establish their own power and control.

N~

Quote from: Nichole on April 12, 2008, 02:33:59 PM
As stated somewhere above the differential is that little ole measurement called 'power.'

N~

But Tink said that she's actually gained power...

When I was 20 years old, I was very passable, and liked to wear the mini skirt, etc., that was so very popular in 1970. I was known on the street, Telegraph Avenue, in Berkeley, California. and never had any problems, but one incident always stayed with me. The police drove by one afternoon, and asked me to please get into the car, that they needed to talk to me. They drove me just around the block, pulled over to the side, and stopped. They then explained to me that they were aware of what I was, and that I should be careful, as there was a very serious problem, both in Berkeley, and also San Francisco, with the very rapid rise in reports of rape, as well as other sexual assaults. From that point on, I felt the vulnerability that goes with being young, female, and attractive. Forget about any fantasies about how nice it will be to be wanted sexually by a man.  Reality is something else. Yes, it does feel good to be wanted. It gave me a wonderful feeling of being accepted as a woman, and more; but once I also became aware of my vulnerability in the real world, I learned to be much more like a genetic woman. Not all men are gentlemen, and some men are truly dangerous. Being lusted after is one thing. I can live with that, I enjoy it, but everything is viewed with an air of caution. I've always felt that "women's intuition" is to a large degree a survival tool, inbred into all women to allow the woman to survive the dating routine!

Quote from: ell on April 12, 2008, 05:28:08 PM

Quote from: Nichole on April 12, 2008, 02:33:59 PM
As stated somewhere above the differential is that little ole measurement called 'power.'

N~

But Tink said that she's actually gained power...

Perhaps though, it's not so much in gaining power as in knowing what to do with the power you have. As a male, I had access to the same power that cisgendered males do in terms of physical power, aggression and ambition, male privelage. But I never used it, because I didn't want it, nor did I know what to do with it.

Transitioning, we gain access to some of the tools of power members of our true gender have access to, and it fitting better, we DO gain power, in that we now know how to exercise it. However, do not make the mistake that males do still have all that unequal power for socio-economic, cultural and political reasons, and they DO know how to exercise it... usually against women.

~Simone.

Quote from: ell on April 12, 2008, 05:28:08 PM

Quote from: Nichole on April 12, 2008, 02:33:59 PM
As stated somewhere above the differential is that little ole measurement called 'power.'

N~

But Tink said that she's actually gained power...

True. If one really thinks about it. Male and female power IS equal, but different. Men may rule the world, but men are ruled by women.

5'8"?!   150 lbs?! :icon_yikes:

hahahahahaha :icon_hahano:

I haven't been 5'8" for neigh on 35 years.  The last time I was even close to 150 lbs was when I used to dig holes in cemetaries.  Legally.  That would have been ... oh ... 1977 when I was a sophmore in college.

If you look at the "idealized" standards for a woman, I could see where and why these numbers were chosen, as well as the rest of the criteria.  This was when June Cleaver was considered the perfect woman.  I remember being raised to think that.

I'm not saying that it is right.  All I am saying is I undersatand where they were getting the standards from.

I would like to say that we have come a long ways since then.  And we have a long ways to go.

The Women's Movement changed the way that we, as a nation, viewed women in general.  I would like to that that, as a result, the standards for transitioning (mtf) were also changed.

Chaunte

Quote from: ell on April 12, 2008, 05:28:08 PM

Quote from: Nichole on April 12, 2008, 02:33:59 PM
As stated somewhere above the differential is that little ole measurement called 'power.'

N~

But Tink said that she's actually gained power...

There are many kinds of power, and power is complex and varied.  Much of the power dynamic is who demands power?  And who is willing to let them have it?  The feminist perspective is about unearned power being demanded and reluctantly being granted because the grantor feels she has no choice.  Someone freely and willingly exchanging power with another is a whole different thing.

I'm not 5 foot 8, but my Waist to hip ratio is now 0.69 which is miss world territory and I'm 6 foot
tall (which most models are), so hey maybe I had squeeked by under the make them have
a boner rule  ;)

Quote from: Nichole on April 12, 2008, 02:33:59 PM
The flaw with much of 'radical feminism' results in screeds like Janice Raymond's against males, heterosexuals, trans women and ignores trans men and androgynes altogether.

Nobody was really identifying as androgyne back when Raymond wrote TS Empire. This seems to be relatively recent, just the last few years. Of course there were FTMs but that didn't fit into her thesis.

Z

Quote from: Lisbeth on April 12, 2008, 06:13:50 PM

Quote from: ell on April 12, 2008, 05:28:08 PM

Quote from: Nichole on April 12, 2008, 02:33:59 PM
As stated somewhere above the differential is that little ole measurement called 'power.'

N~

But Tink said that she's actually gained power...

There are many kinds of power, and power is complex and varied.  Much of the power dynamic is who demands power?  And who is willing to let them have it?  The feminist perspective is about unearned power being demanded and reluctantly being granted because the grantor feels she has no choice.  Someone freely and willingly exchanging power with another is a whole different thing.

indeed Lisbeth that is so very true  :)

anyway, to answer your query, Sage, i guess i couldn't because of height.

still, i don't quite see the point of all this.

i don't see the point of railing against medical establishment gatekeepers, unless you'll also note how much they help. since i have to include my therapist, endocrinologist, and psychiatrist in that group, i'd have to say they help alot.

as for feminists, i appreciate that they have done much good for women. but they have also done much harm to that most important realm of child-rearing and stay at home moms. talk about taking away a woman's dignity! this in turn has done a great deal of damage to the culture and quality of life of children.

and i used to hate feminists for their male-bashing.

but i don't hate them so much anymore, because now i see that they have left a huge vacuum of soft female space in their wake. yes, i'm an anti-feminist, child rearing, soft female! i am very subservient to men (if they are polite). the other day, three young men all took a step back as i passed them in the parking lot, and i was tickled to death. i know! it's old-fashioned of me. but i honestly enjoy that little role. and men, who often haven't seen the likes of such behavior, ever, seem to be like, "what? is this for real? a soft female? i didn't even know they existed." and they graciously provide female space for me.

well, i'm more than happy to move into that space.

-ell

I'm not sure they really help since they
apply things to us with close to zero knowledge.
There's so little real studies of TS
and those done are so flawed, that at
saying they help is going way beyond what they actually offer.

Psychiatrist know zilch about what makes a TS, and if
its mainly physically driven, then what they do is misapplied.

Endo's there's zero real studies of TS and not likely to ever
be seeing how complex this area is and how expensive it
is to study it. Even studying HRT for women has probably
cost several billion dollars till now and there's still no conclusion....
So, its all empirical results, which we could get ourselves from
reading the recommended dosages spread all over the net
(they are the same guideline as what they use).

The doctors help, but they're not specifically linked to gender,
I would get my health checked for about the same things
regarldess of taking HRT or not.

I could go on like that...

In truth, the current system is put in place for legal reasons mostly,
if the doctors prescribe or operate something,
they must be a reason to do so.
Same thing for insurances, they need a justification for paying for HRT
and paying for SRS.

Right now, since TS's are self-declared, they have to put somebody
to insure those further downstream that people are not doing something
"crazy".

But, there would be other solutions,  at least for the legal aspect of this.
Informed consent would insure that you know the implications of what your asking.
That's enough for major plastic surgery... Which are mostly on demand even
if you ask something quite crazy. Though, that doesn't cover medication
(strange you can ask to have your face cut on demand but HRT is not given
the same consideration...).

The second issue, insurance is a more thorny one, since removing the gatekeeper would
mean that you would lose insurance coverage.

That's one of the reason some people don't want GID to not be a mental illness and
instead are pushing for it to be a physical illness. Problem is that for now, there's no
real definite proof of the latter.

Quote from: ell on April 12, 2008, 10:46:23 PM
as for feminists, i appreciate that they have done much good for women. but they have also done much harm to that most important realm of child-rearing and stay at home moms. talk about taking away a woman's dignity! this in turn has done a great deal of damage to the culture and quality of life of children.

and i used to hate feminists for their male-bashing.

but i don't hate them so much anymore, because now i see that they have left a huge vacuum of soft female space in their wake. yes, i'm an anti-feminist, child rearing, soft female! i am very subservient to men (if they are polite). the other day, three young men all took a step back as i passed them in the parking lot, and i was tickled to death. i know! it's old-fashioned of me. but i honestly enjoy that little role. and men, who often haven't seen the likes of such behavior, ever, seem to be like, "what? is this for real? a soft female? i didn't even know they existed." and they graciously provide female space for me.

Sweetheart, I want you to understand that there are five different kinds of feminists: Liberal, Cultural, Socialist, Radical, and Postmodern.  Only Radical Feminists are the male-bashing kind.  You and I will also eventually have to deal with the fact that I am a Postmodern Feminist.  I am sympathetic to the Liberal and Cultural Feminists.  I disagree with the Socialist and Radical Feminists.

Your Lisbeth

Wow! I didn't know there were that many separate classifications for feminists.

Well I worked for 8 years as a social worker with other women workers and my boss was a woman, wonderful lady. And here I will be starting a volunteer job in a woman's shelter and never encountered any problems.

Hi Ell

Quote"what? is this for real? a soft female? i didn't even know they existed." and they graciously provide female space for me.

I'm with you Ell, I certainly ain't about to to rock the boat. I don't like rocking boats anyway. I leave that up to Wing Walker the professional boat rocker. "soft female?" Realy??? This is getting is interesting. Pushing women into the work force? I also agree that the results are not good especially when it comes to the children. I had enough kids in my care to know some about that, I was lucky that I only had to work for four hours each day Rural Mail delivery between 11 am and 3:00 pm So I was home to send the kids to school and be there for them when they got home from school.

Cindy

Quote from: ell on April 12, 2008, 10:46:23 PM

as for feminists, i appreciate that they have done much good for women. but they have also done much harm to that most important realm of child-rearing and stay at home moms. talk about taking away a woman's dignity! this in turn has done a great deal of damage to the culture and quality of life of children.

and i used to hate feminists for their male-bashing.

but i don't hate them so much anymore, because now i see that they have left a huge vacuum of soft female space in their wake. yes, i'm an anti-feminist, child rearing, soft female! i am very subservient to men (if they are polite). the other day, three young men all took a step back as i passed them in the parking lot, and i was tickled to death. i know! it's old-fashioned of me. but i honestly enjoy that little role. and men, who often haven't seen the likes of such behavior, ever, seem to be like, "what? is this for real? a soft female? i didn't even know they existed." and they graciously provide female space for me.

I agree with you to an extent.  I think that many of our nation's problems can be traced back, in part, to a couple generations of kids who have pretty much been left to raise themselves.  Whether from ambition or from economic necessity, parents are frequently not around to guide their children into thinking beyond themselves, or acting as part of a responsible member of their communities. Besides which, just as women should not be forced into the role of June Cleaver, neither should they be forced into the roll of Ms. Corporate Ballbreaker.

I also think we, as a society, are doing men a disservice by forcing them into the same old "boys don't cry", "men have to be tough" attitudes, while simultaneously taking away their only positive roles as protector, provider, and knight in shining armor.

HOWEVER...

Having been raised by a mother who grew up in the 50's and 60's, and who had feminist leanings, I have heard about what it was like before feminism, and I can state unequivocally that, so long as I am forced to live in a female body, I will be eternally grateful for the feminists who have brought us to the point we are at today.

Some examples:

*When my mother was applying for school, most of the top universities (if they accepted women at all) had quotas of the number of women they would accept, after which they took men with less qualification.  (As I recall, Stanford, for instance, was 10%) 

*At the school she went to, women were required to wear skirts unless it was -50 degrees out. (It was frequently -30.) 

*Her roommate was constantly being campused because she couldn't get back from her job as a nurse in time for the 9 o'clock curfew, which was only imposed on female students.  This had to be especially galling for a woman in her late twenties, who had been taking care of herself for years.  But female students were required to live in the dorm, regardless of age. 

*As a working woman, my mother was turned down for jobs and denied promotions because, "You'll just be running off to have children, so it would be a waste to give you that position."

It's because of the feminists that women have the choices they have, that sexual harassment is no longer acceptable in the workplace, and that our daughters celebrate "girl power", rather than being reminded daily of their second class status.

Did feminists go too far?  Yes, sometimes they did.  But sometimes you have to push too far to bring the status quo back to where it needs to be.



And, having finished my rant, back to the topic of the post: I'm afraid I would have 3 strikes against me. 1. I'm male, 2. I'm gay, and 3. even if I were straight, and they accepted FtMs, I'm much too short to ever be a chick-magnet.  :P 

Quote from: Lisbeth on April 13, 2008, 12:29:43 AM
Sweetheart, I want you to understand that there are five different kinds of feminists: Liberal, Cultural, Socialist, Radical, and Postmodern.  Only Radical Feminists are the male-bashing kind.  You and I will also eventually have to deal with the fact that I am a Postmodern Feminist.  I am sympathetic to the Liberal and Cultural Feminists.  I disagree with the Socialist and Radical Feminists.

Your Lisbeth

oh, hi Sweetie. i'm actually supportive of equality in jobs, pay, etc. and i think it's ridiculous that the ERA never passed. (of course, the ERA itself is ridiculous, because women's rights are already clearly covered by the Bill of Rights).

-ell

Quote from: ell on April 13, 2008, 12:36:05 PM

Quote from: Lisbeth on April 13, 2008, 12:29:43 AM
Sweetheart, I want you to understand that there are five different kinds of feminists: Liberal, Cultural, Socialist, Radical, and Postmodern.  Only Radical Feminists are the male-bashing kind.  You and I will also eventually have to deal with the fact that I am a Postmodern Feminist.  I am sympathetic to the Liberal and Cultural Feminists.  I disagree with the Socialist and Radical Feminists.

Your Lisbeth

oh, hi Sweetie. i'm actually supportive of equality in jobs, pay, etc. and i think it's ridiculous that the ERA never passed. (of course, the ERA itself is ridiculous, because women's rights are already clearly covered by the Bill of Rights).

-ell

Well, beloved, that puts you in the Liberal Feminist category.  *kiss*

Posted on: April 13, 2008, 01:13:41 PM

---

Quote from: Lisbeth on April 13, 2008, 12:29:43 AM
I am a Postmodern Feminist.  I am sympathetic to the Liberal and Cultural Feminists.  I disagree with the Socialist and Radical Feminists.

QuoteThe True Feminist
You are 88% on your way to being a Feminist!

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpanther.is3.okcimg.com%2Fusers%2F138%2F44%2F13804501642086226962%2Fmt130949214.gif&hash=c5911153f05d287ba4235b91156a16e6f3334a3c)

You are a fellow Patriarchy Blaming Feminist, my bosom-buddy in the Sanctimonious Women's Studies set. You know sexism where you see it, and you're not afraid to call it out! You know a lot about Feminism, and you got your head on straight when it comes to politics too. In general, you're just pretty awesome and you judge people for who they are, not what arrangement of parts they have and the roles they are expected to play.

P.S.
If you liked my test and want to bitch about sexism and talk about Feminism with me, feel free to message me. Us Feminists got to stick together!

The Feminist Test (http://www.okcupid.com/tests/12363218950614693416/Feminist) written by proudfeminist (http://www.okcupid.com/profile?u=proudfeminist%5B/url) on OkCupid (http://www.okcupid.com[/url), home of the The Dating Persona Test (http://www.okcupid.com/online.dating.persona.test%5B/url).

View My Profile(proudfeminist) (http://www.okcupid.com/profile?u=proudfeminist%5B/url).

 :)

Same rating basically, 89%. Dja write the test, Lisbeth?

The problem I have with all this abstrct discussion of feminism here
is that it doesn't seem to relate at all to the lives of most
women I know. I'm in university right now in my PR degree
which is about 85% female from 22-40, with most in their
late 20's and these women don't believe there is
any limitation to what they can't do.

They do see relents of past discrimation that's being
worked out of the system, but with 60-65% (in Quebec)
of people in university being women, its ineluctable that
eventually, they will have the economic levers of power.
You can't stop a rising tide. When there will be enough
women in place at all levels they'll take over and
many men will be wondering where it all went wrong!!!

If anythihg, men need their own equivalent
of the feminist revolution of the 70's so they
can break free of their gilded prison.

What will remain in 20 years, men will be left
with physical intimidation as their only means
of power by then if things continue the way
its going now.

There is a tipping point coming,
and mysoginy as a last stand,
especially in politics, will
be the last frontiers,
since men will have
the equal numbers there for some time yet.
Reactionary forces will be on the losing end of history,

Men will have to change or they will the seed of their
own destruction. It is not feminism that's driving
men down right now, but their own conservatism
as a whole.

Quote from: Nichole on April 13, 2008, 07:49:16 PM
:)

Same rating basically, 89%. Dja write the test, Lisbeth?

Nope.

Quote from: Keira on April 13, 2008, 08:55:14 PM
There is a tipping point coming,
and mysoginy as a last stand,
especially in politics, will
be the last frontiers,
since men will have
the equal numbers there for some time yet.
Reactionary forces will be on the losing end of history,

Yes, here, too, the majority of college students are women, and they are going out to fill the ranks of middle management.  But the "glass ceiling" is still in place, and only 1 1/2 percent of the corporate leaders, the presidents and CEOs, are women.  For this revolution you are talking about to take place, women must not only control the intellectual capital that comes from education, but also money and power.  That will be a long time in coming.  Those with money and power do let it go lightly.

I cannot get the image out of my head of the woman deligate to the 2003 Republican National Convention who said, "Laura Bush is a real lady.  She knows her place."  There are far too many women who have internalised that sexism for me to believe that change will come quickly.  Reactionary forces always are on the losing end of history, but last stands are always very bloody affairs.  The United States is becoming a dangerous place to live.  For anyone who is in a stigmatised group: people of color, women, LGBT people, immigrants.  I can feel the grip on our rights slipping.

I don't think the glass ceiling really exists anymore.
Most of the diffence in pay can be accounted for women
working less hours, less dangerous work, less part time work, etc.
The remaining part can be accounted by women working in
traditionally female occupations (like data entry) which
were paid less and women being less experienced
than the men (since they've entered the market
in great numbers later, especially in the jobs that pay more).

After all that, there does exist a bias built from mysoginy, but
it is crumbling because of the intense global competition makes
the old boys club and nepotism economically unviable.

Its good old capitlism that will make women triumph.
Companies need all their best resources just to survive
and sexism in promotion can only lead to self-destruction
of the company unless everybody does it (which you
can no longer assure (you could in the 70's).

Those with money and power do let it go lightly.  -- I'm not sure they ever let it go at all.  In the course of history they often go right down to the old chopping block with it.  But cultural revolutions happen more slowly, as one generation dies off, its attitudes tend to perish with it.  And, though things are not perfect, change has happened.  And younger generations have their own way of creeping in.  Twenty years ago there were almost zero female stagehands.  Now we have a pile, and they all got in through the Rock and Roll door.  Rock started hiring female hands and techs when no other aspect of show biz would.  Do some of the 'old timers' have problems with it - yup, from time to time.  Oh well. 

Its good old capitlism that will make women triumph.  Companies need all their best resources just to survive and sexism in promotion can only lead to self-destruction of the company unless everybody does it (which you can no longer assure (you could in the 70's).

Well, it worked for racism pretty much that same way.  In the end it will work out that way for TG also.

Reactionary forces always are on the losing end of history, but last stands are always very bloody affairs.  --  Yes, because the ones in power have, well, power, and can hold on long past the point of reasonable departure. 

The United States is becoming a dangerous place to live.  For anyone who is in a stigmatised group: people of color, women, LGBT people, immigrants.  I can feel the grip on our rights slipping.  --  Oh boy O, and then some.  Nor do I have any hope that the next occupant of 1600 is going to roll it all back either.  Make a couple of symbolic changes, but nothing major - they passed the Patriot Act, effectively suspending major sections of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta (don't ever let anyone accuse them of thinking small, they did what every British King since 1215 had only been able to dream about).

still, i will resist their depredations with tenderness and a spiritual self. what else can i do? without these things, i wouldn't like myself, and i'd probably go crazy.

-ell

Quote from: tekla on April 14, 2008, 09:39:02 AM
Its good old capitlism that will make women triumph.  Companies need all their best resources just to survive and sexism in promotion can only lead to self-destruction of the company unless everybody does it (which you can no longer assure (you could in the 70's).

Well, it worked for racism pretty much that same way.  In the end it will work out that way for TG also.

Did it now? *shakes head*

Quote from: ell on April 14, 2008, 10:39:30 AM
still, i will resist their depredations with tenderness and a spiritual self. what else can i do? without these things, i wouldn't like myself, and i'd probably go crazy.

-ell

That's all most of us can do.

Quotestill, i will resist their depredations with tenderness and a spiritual self. what else can i do? without these things, i wouldn't like myself, and i'd probably go crazy.

-ell

I do agree with this statement as well. Someone has to stay back to pick up the pieces afterwards.

Cindy

Quote from: Lisbeth on April 14, 2008, 11:45:26 AM

Quote from: tekla on April 14, 2008, 09:39:02 AM
Its good old capit(a)lism that will make women triumph.  Companies need all their best resources just to survive and sexism in promotion can only lead to self-destruction of the company unless everybody does it (which you can no longer assure (you could in the 70's).

Well, it worked for racism pretty much that same way.  In the end it will work out that way for TG also.

Did it now? *shakes head*

I agree with Lisbeth in part one. We don't often lynch blacks.

But places where the standards are set, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, etc one could observe and see de facto segregation that you'd never find in Alabama and Mississippi. Delineations into townships where people are actively avoiding minority people. And saying, "well, most of them don't WANT to live here anyway."

Probably true, any idea why?

NJ has a law that allows rural/suburban (really very little difference there) to allocate their required low-income housing units to Camden, Newark, Elizabeth, Trenton, Paterson, New Brunswick, Hackensack and the Amboys. Now just make a guess as to what ethnic/racial groups tend to over-populate those areas and under populate white and economically viable areas. Take a guess to where, invariably, the worst school systems are located.

Jim Crow in practice. If you guessed Latino, African-American, new immigrants without advanced degrees you'd be absolutely spot-on.

Attitudes by many, like some I have seen here, that the racists are "in the states of the old Confederacy" are just plain wrong. They are alive and well throughout the country. It's easy, apparently, for people who do not live among minorities to suppose that the old state-racist areas are the places where the problem exists.

A trip to Oakland and a stay for a few days might illustrate that.

Quote from: Lisbeth on April 14, 2008, 11:45:26 AM

Quote from: ell on April 14, 2008, 10:39:30 AM
still, i will resist their depredations with tenderness and a spiritual self. what else can i do? without these things, i wouldn't like myself, and i'd probably go crazy.

-ell

That's all most of us can do.

And disagree with her in part two.

And that is what normally keeps change from occurring, that sense that we individually are too small to make a difference. Which is true, individually. Collectively 'we' tend to be much stronger, albeit, less well-organized and more easily discouraged, more inclined to decline collective-action and more inclined to dismantle those mechanisms earlier than the power-brokers.

Let's just say that Obama becomes president and defeats McCain by 57%-43% -- a landslide defeat. Does anyone suppose that the Bushes and the very wealthy and very influential are going to throw-up their hands and say, "O, well, so it goes. We gave it a good shot, but got badly beaten. Let them run the country their way. We quit."?

Or will they re-congregate and begin to build for the future when they will take their outward control right back?

The more liberal, spiritual and humane amongst us could take a very good lesson from them.

N~ 

Quote from: Nichole on April 14, 2008, 02:58:15 PM
Attitudes by many, like some I have seen here, that the racists are "in the states of the old Confederacy" are just plain wrong. They are alive and well throughout the country. It's easy, apparently, for people who do not live among minorities to suppose that the old state-racist areas are the places where the problem exists.

You just have to look in the mirror really. Every time your heart beats a bit faster because you are alone at a busstop with a black guy, you are reinforcing it. Stereotypes may be rooted in history, but that does not mean that they are universal, or even common. They are just visible. And the reason they stay around is because they are reinforced through social and economic inequalities. It's easy to think oneself done with the bad bits of your past when the laws change, but if the kids in the townships still don't have books to read, they are gonna grow up just like mom and dad.

The most damaging form of bigotry is the subtle kind, because it's so very easy to miss. Especially within oneself. And sadly it is all too common for people to think they are accepting when they really aren't.

As to part two. Individuals can and do make a difference. All they have to do is lead. And a leader isn't somebody who expects people to follow. It's just a person who says "I'm gonna do this, despite what it might mean for me.". Nelson Mandela and FW De Klerk. Gandhi. Harry Benjamin and Christine Jorgenson. Hell, Thomas Beattie.

The only thing keeping us from changing the world is fear and the need to save our own skins.

~Simone.

Quote from: lady amarant on April 14, 2008, 03:22:12 PM

The only thing keeping us from changing the world is fear and the need to save our own skins.

~Simone.

She gets a gold star.

N~

um, sorry, Sage, but i heard the main reason that the women's movement is no longer moving is because of -- women!

if a man stays at home, he's a wimp. the women's movement cannot progress further until women, themselves, can accept men in the roles of stay-at-home dads. This has not happened. it's a double standard that women expect to receive equal treatment in male roles but consistently refuse to allow men to remain in traditionally female roles.

^ that was paraphrased from a sociology show i was watching a while back.

men still have to be providers. men still have to pay. if they don't, what woman would want them?

At 77% of the salary men make, what woman could afford them, Ellie?  :laugh:

And then add-in all the objectification and women vilified consistently, even by TSes and you've got what...?

N~

Actually the man as provider is going off in dodo land
at least with the women I speak too.

A couple of studies substantiate this in the younger generation at least.

Women want men to be stable, but they're not asking for
them to shoulder the burden.


Women have children later and later (now 28 I think around here),
by that time they have time to establish a career (they also have less children).

Here, they're only espected to pay on a first date (and not expecting anythign out of it)
after that, it all depends on how much money the partners have.
Often having people paying in alternance is a good way to go.

As I said Nichole, much of the 77% is due to different life choices between
men and women and past systemic discrimination, not current one.

Maybe 10% is still due
current to systemic discrimination. Even if every job paid the same for both
sexes of same experience and hours worked,
there would still be a difference in pay.
If you work more overtime,
you get more money. For genetic or societal reasons, men work more hours.
Women do a lot more part time work (partly because in the past they
didn't have the education so they had difficulty on the job market, not
sure if it will hold up in the future of if this is just transitory)

I had the whole pay list of an engineering firm of 200 and all the 20% of female
engineer with similar experience had similar pay to their male counterpart.

Quote from: Keira on April 14, 2008, 07:55:17 PM

... For genetic or societal reasons, men work more hours....
Women do a lot more part time work. 

Middle-class white women in the US often are paid comparably in professional areas as the men working the same jobs.

Men work more because they are generally given a 'pass' for picking up children, doing homework with the children, and caring for a household. Many, if not professional women do all of that.

Single women have very difficult times doing all of the above and making living wages, professional or not. How many 'single fathers' you figure you'll have on the welfare rolls?

I worked six years at a major city DHS office. I had one single male raising children. He was a major anomaly. My co-workers were astonished he was there. None of them had ever had one.

N~

Quote from: Nichole on April 14, 2008, 07:00:42 PM
At 77% of the salary men make, what woman could afford them, Ellie?  :laugh:

And then add-in all the objectification and women vilified consistently, even by TSes and you've got what...?

N~

i'm just passing along the info, my dear.

and, by the way, the women's movement shadows the really important power structures in the US: Families. when it comes to powerful families, true, sis doesn't have as much clout as her older brother. still, she doesn't have to work, if she doesn't want to. she can get educated anywhere she wants to, or not. try going up to her and telling her she hasn't got any power.

the powerful families want us to focus on such 'national' (read as plebian) things as the women's movement, to deflect attention from themselves, and their sons and their daughters.

That men get the child is something a bit out of men's control
right now.
But, there has been a fast marked increase in joint custody right now,

I'm just tired of woe me dialog that I hear that seem to not
reflect all the data on the ground.

There's a lot of movement right now, a lot.

There are problems with certain segment, and many women are
in poverty, but that reflect as much past discrimination as current ones.
We have to fight for those women in the present, but we also
must look towards a much brighter future. I believe it and
because I see it in the face of the flood of young women going to university
(university is very cheap around here $2200/year so anybody can go).

I feel feminism is often disconnected from the masses of young women
or look down on those who are oblivious to their whole manifesto.
This is a very widespread view amongst women, I haven't invented it.
Feminists should question what went wrong to lose the ear of most women?

Quote from: Nichole on April 14, 2008, 08:20:54 PM
Men work more because they are generally given a 'pass' for picking up children, doing homework with the children, and caring for a household. Many, if not professional women do all of that.

Isn't this what Ell was saying in the first place, except for the extra bit that it's not just males that expect this to happen? There's been a very strong emphasis on making it acceptable for women to show more traditionally masculine traits, but much less on making it acceptable for men to show traditionally feminine traits. Sure, that has happened too (which is inevitable, since someone has to do the laundry and pick up the kids), but more as a result of women getting more career-oriented rather than a way to enable that.

  Nfr

Quote from: Seshatneferw on April 15, 2008, 04:15:26 AM

Isn't this what Ell was saying in the first place, except for the extra bit that it's not just males that expect this to happen? There's been a very strong emphasis on making it acceptable for women to show more traditionally masculine traits, but much less on making it acceptable for men to show traditionally feminine traits. Sure, that has happened too (which is inevitable, since someone has to do the laundry and pick up the kids), but more as a result of women getting more career-oriented rather than a way to enable that.

  Nfr

The reason we all work more is a demand for 'productivity.' Americans work longer with less time off and less job satisfaction than any other western european-based nation. Feminism hasn't declined to work for men showing "traditionally feminine traits." Men themselves have chosen not to do that.

To blame the female for most of the problems is nothing new at all. We bleed, the crops don't grow. Someone becomes psychotic, its the way his mother raised him.

So if both parents have to work, then it's only fitting that the woman do the laundry and pick-up the kids? (Surely that was not your point!?)

N~

Quote from: Nichole on April 15, 2008, 05:37:56 AM
The reason we all work more is a demand for 'productivity.' Americans work longer with less time off and less job satisfaction than any other western european-based nation. Feminism hasn't declined to work for men showing "traditionally feminine traits." Men themselves have chosen not to do that.

To blame the female for most of the problems is nothing new at all. We bleed, the crops don't grow. Someone becomes psychotic, its the way his mother raised him.

N~

Sage, your anger about this is extreme. what is more, it is guiding you.
-L

From my experience, there is still a very definite sense of male privelage around the question of work and domestic duty.

Case in point: I'm quite close to the receptionist who works at our offices. Her partner is semi retired, while she works a full week, over and above spending about 2 hours a day in commute. Half the time he's around the house or out playing golf.

She still gets to go home and make supper; Do the cleaning, washing etc. Neither her partner nor her son will lift a finger to help. And this is not an isolated incident, amongst many of my female friends and acquiantances, this is a common theme - even people in their early 20's.

~Simone.

Quote from: ell on April 15, 2008, 10:38:44 AM

Sage, your anger about this is extreme. what is more, it is guiding you.

Anger? Hardly. Passion? Yes.

I find nothing to be angry about and much to change, Ellie. I also find that many people, but maybe trans women in particular, tend toward accepting the propagandist views that "equal pay for equal work" are the only colorations that are privileged for males to be narrow and short-sighted. The notion that "everything has changed?" Hardly.

For instance, I have no problem being what you referred to as a 'soft female.' It's who I have always been. But, I am not looking to recapitulate my mother's generation's ideas about 'the place and deportment' of women. Why would I, for example, be at fault for my own sexual assault? Yet, that idea still maintains itself as people look at what someone was wearing, where they were, did they flirt, did they have a drink, or three, etc when the matter of rape comes up.

Often enough I am held responsible for some male's urges and controlling them! Now how, just exactly, is that supposed to work? In the example I gave a few pages back. The cops' sense that they 'couldn't tell' seemed to be the problem. "This says MALE!"

I'm not able to be convinced that the problem was mine for not looking like they 'expected' a trans woman to look to them. Instead, the problem was them. My existence said nothing about their sexuality or manliness. Write the ticket and begone. Pretty simple.

The examples Simone gives above are all too usual. The 'privilege' is to work ouside the home to make ends meet, take care of the home and the emotional needs of everyone but yourself who lives in the home and be 'pretty and perky' all at the same time. Ever heard any guys being asked to be 'pretty & perky?'

And are university women different? Many are, those without partners and children can live a very different life. Except that often enough they find that within the academy their opinions are short-shrifted in favor of a man's opinion. Good work is often "good for a woman." WTF is that all about?

Their job prospects upon graduation may be severely curtailed. "Do you plan on having children?" (At the same time it's still instilled to a great degree that women need to have children to be 'complete.') Yet, to say you want them is to hurt job opportunities in many respects. Or even if the question is never asked, and it is illegal to do so, often enough the presumption is that she will at some point. Even today there seems a very real prejudice that one "chooses a man, he's got a family to support."

Inequalities and unrealistic expectations and lack-of-expectations abound. And women with a trans history who pay no attention to such things truly should get a bit more educated, imo. Because it will affect them whether they 'pass' or not.

I know (trans) women who didn't think they were affected in such ways. They maintained executive-level work after they transitioned. But, now, a few years down-the-road, they see others promoted, their formerly respected views declined and womanhood has struck them like a ton of brick. They were not prepared to live life the way most girls are indoctrinated to some degree, even today, to live it. They thought nothing of substance would change: "I'm accepted by my employer."

For those that's true for, good for them. I am happier than I can express. But before anyone thinks they are through that door and that for her there is no 'glass ceiling' or double-standard, wait a couple of years. You may be very surprised. And for those that think what happened to you, Nichole, will never happen to me, pray it doesn't.

BTW, not living in Montreal seems a decided disadvantage. $2200/year for college? You can't find that in most community colleges in USA.

So, no, Ellie, I am not angry at all. I am concerned, flabbergasted and dismayed that women don't even manage to hold open the possibility that all is not well at this point in the relations between women, men and society.

N~ 

   

Quote from: Nichole on April 14, 2008, 04:37:00 PM

Quote from: lady amarant on April 14, 2008, 03:22:12 PM

The only thing keeping us from changing the world is fear and the need to save our own skins.

~Simone.

She gets a gold star.

N~

QuoteThe United States is becoming a dangerous place to live.  For anyone who is in a stigmatized group: people of color, women, LGBT people, immigrants.  I can feel the grip on our rights slipping.  --  Oh boy O, and then some.  Nor do I have any hope that the next occupant of 1600 is going to roll it all back either.  Make a couple of symbolic changes, but nothing major - they passed the Patriot Act, effectively suspending major sections of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta (don't ever let anyone accuse them of thinking small, they did what every British King since 1215 had only been able to dream about).

World trade has made the world competitive. Cultures are now playing second fiddle. Fear is used to keep people from rebelling. Soon the food shortages will start to effect those that ignore the weak. It will only be then that people will see we are all in this same boat. Meanwhile back at the ranch they farm out costly labor to those willing to work for less.

Corporations have exceeded many nations in power. Marketing has a hold on people's behavior. It is only when we refuse to buy, live, and work in environments that discriminate will we free and have the rights that go along with the responsibilities being neighbors.

I'm gonna run out of gold stars, Lisa, if you and Simone engender similar responses.

Give the woman a gold star! ;)

N~

Quote from: Nichole on April 15, 2008, 02:41:55 PM
I'm gonna run out of gold stars, Lisa, if you and Simone engender similar responses.

Give the woman a gold star! ;)
N~

i hate to say this nichole but  maybe something more then just a good star is needed . and it maybe not be

much but might i suggest  a  big  :icon_hug: and some  :icon_bunch: and a  :icon_drunk: to go with that

gold star

Hi Nichole
Well me not know enough about woman's rights to argue much about it but I quite ready to take the course. Where do I sign for the course. It's all Paula's fault me going to whack her on head with newspaper.  ;D

Cindy 

Please advise me if I have stepped over the line of copyrighted documents as that is *not* my intention.

IMHO, the Feminist Majority Foundation and the National Organization for Women have darn near made themselves irrelevant in a world that cannot see the continuous sexual and gender discrimination.

I have no clue as to how the Feminist Majority Foundation or NOW feels about transwomen.

Wing Walker
Thank you


Dear Feminist,


Join the Ms. community today to get the Spring Issue in your mailbox.
I'm pleased to give you a sneak peek into the exciting Ms. spring issue. Join today and get this provocative issue delivered to your mailbox.

Ms. asks: What's the measure of a woman? Too often, it feels like it's the width of our waists rather than the content of our characters.

Caroline Heldman tells how women increasingly see ourselves as visual objects in our media-saturated, body-obsessed culture. The result? Huge hidden costs for our self-esteem, our brainpower, and even our sex lives.

Also inside:

Election '08: what women really want
A Ms. exclusive by renowned pollster Celinda Lake reveals what women really want from the next president.
Ms. Money Editor Martha Burk gets to the bottom line: Your Money, Your Vote.
14 million-dollar women
In a major Title IX victory, women coaches and sports administrators at Fresno State won a stunning $14 million in sex-discrimination suits.
Too poor to parent?
For low-income women, a bare fridge or an unpaid electricity bill can mean losing your kids to the state-especially if you're African American.
Why we can't sleep
Women suffer disproportionately from insomnia- why don't more sleep research dollars go toward finding out?
For only $25.00 you can receive a full year of this award-winning, world-changing publication. You can also take advantage of this special offer to give Ms. to family and friends.

Don't miss out - join the Ms. community now and get breaking feminist news in your mailbox.

For A Strong Feminist Media,


Katherine Spillar
Executive Editor

Quote from: Nichole on April 15, 2008, 05:37:56 AM
So if both parents have to work, then it's only fitting that the woman do the laundry and pick-up the kids? (Surely that was not your point!?)

No indeed. What I was trying to say is that while women are trapped in the current cultural set-up, so are men, although in a different way. Women who want equality strive to get to a more privileged position than where they are; men would have to move towards a weaker position than what they have. Behind the gender inequality there's an underlying set of values that puts strength over weakness, and because of this it's still something of a no-no to let go of male privilege.

  Nfr

Quote from: Wing Walker on April 15, 2008, 11:51:54 PMI have no clue as to how the Feminist Majority Foundation or NOW feels about transwomen.

NOW has explicitly come out in support of transsexuals (http://www.now.org/organization/conference/1997/resolutions.html#transgendered). The FMF's mission statement (http://feminist.org/welcome/mandp.asp) affirms support of "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights."

There is a trans feminist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfeminism) movement a-building. Please join in.

Quote from: Seshatneferw on April 16, 2008, 08:19:55 AM
No indeed. What I was trying to say is that while women are trapped in the current cultural set-up, so are men, although in a different way. Women who want equality strive to get to a more privileged position than where they are; men would have to move towards a weaker position than what they have. Behind the gender inequality there's an underlying set of values that puts strength over weakness, and because of this it's still something of a no-no to let go of male privilege.

  Nfr

that was very well said, Sesh,esh,esh...i don't know how to pronounce your name

Quote from: Seshatneferw on April 16, 2008, 08:19:55 AM
No indeed. What I was trying to say is that while women are trapped in the current cultural set-up, so are men, although in a different way. Women who want equality strive to get to a more privileged position than where they are; men would have to move towards a weaker position than what they have. Behind the gender inequality there's an underlying set of values that puts strength over weakness, and because of this it's still something of a no-no to let go of male privilege.

  Nfr

Thank goodness!!!

I was about to be truly amazed and was wondering who was posting using your credentials!!!  :laugh: :laugh:

"Weakness" and "strength" themselves don't seem all that problematic for me. The way we culturally load those two words is.

It is NOT weak to care for children, to find compromising positions and ameliorating discourse at the workplace, for instance. To foster positive relationship rather than to "fight to the final man."

A new understanding of 'winning' may be necessary. To win seems to me to be along the lines of Marx's "From each according to her means and to each according to her needs." To win sometimes means to make concession for a better overall interaction, a focus on a more distant future than on the quarterly 'bottom line.'

As things stand those 'other' understandings of 'winning' seem to be more fully embraced by women than by men in our culture. Of course, not by all. There's that rather unremarkable occurrence of women taking on the 'traditional' personae of men in order to 'prove' themselves.

The Hilary conundrum: where she has to appear to be 'strong,' yet is also criticised for not showing warmth and compassion. Or for showing warmth and compassion and being critisized for not being strong enough.

As long as women are stuck between those two choices with 'no-win' being the order of the day whichever way they take, then we still have a basic inequity and double-bind inflicted on one sex and not the other. She becomes either 'ball-cutting bitch' or 'whiny bitch.' Those are very difficult places for anyone to stand.

And I think the basic lack of problem with Obama in similar situations due to 'his presence' (read bass voice, strong personal looks and stature, etc) despite the fact that there are no doubt  many people who are otherwise scared to death that he is African-American is indicative of exactly that split about the ways we view women and the ways we view men.

White guys have been flocking to vote for a man of color -- white guys who have prolly never voted for, nor ever thought they would vote for, ANY man of color. Yet, Obama is more acceptable to them than Hilary.

And I suspect it is ABSOLUTELY because she is female.

And it's that basic 'blindness' that I perceive in many women of TS history that puzzles and totally eludes my understanding.

BTW, WW -- yes, NOW has accepted trans-women for about, if not more than, a decade. They often actually make pushes for T-rights in particular areas. Not every lesbian is a 'WBG' (women-born-girls) believer and out to exclude trans women from the 'company of women.'

My experience says most are not. My experience also says that most are unaware of transwomen among them in many cases. They know trans men from the milieu, but trans woman, except for those who do/have frequented the bars and org scenes, they are generally ignorant of.

There's a problem on both sides, but TS women who identify as 'lesbian' after transition are often much less likely to mix with other lesbians. I suspect that the reason has to do with comfort-level.

Of the people I have known there are TS hetero women who decline to work for T-causes and prefer offering their time and effort to women's shelters, hotlines, etc.  They seem liklier to do so than the so-called lesbian TS women, in my experience.

But, I do think that any woman who merely dismisses 'feminism' may well do herself a major disservice without at least making that dismissal-decision based on some real study rather than accepting the pap of the Rush Limbuagh-set.

Nichole

Quote from: ell on April 16, 2008, 10:25:54 AM
that was very well said, Sesh,esh,esh...i don't know how to pronounce your name

Thank you. Don't feel bad about pronunciation -- no-one else really knows either, as Egyptians didn't write down their vowels. It's customary to add e's to taste.

  Nfr

Quote from: Hypatia on April 16, 2008, 09:44:19 AM

There is a trans feminist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfeminism) movement a-building. Please join in.

Well I am a Ms and a feminist but please don't make me a transfeminist.

Ann

I have only took a quick look in there, sounds interesting. I will read more when I get back from volunteering at the Vancouver womans shelter.

Cindy

Quote from: Anonymouse on April 16, 2008, 04:18:06 PM
Well I am a Ms and a feminist but please don't make me a transfeminist.

What do you mean?

Anyway, I have my own take on the subject. My reaction upon first reading that Wikipedia article on trans feminism I linked to was:

I looked into trans feminism and found that some voices associated with it are advocating that feminists ought to be concerned with transgender issues. When I read about it, this was new to me.

If anyone had asked my idea of what trans feminism is, I would have seen it from exactly the other side. I would have said trans women ought to be concerned with feminist issues. Like, ask not what your feminism can do for you-- Ask what you can do for your sisters.

Quote from: Hypatia on April 16, 2008, 07:27:51 PM

Quote from: Anonymouse on April 16, 2008, 04:18:06 PM
Well I am a Ms and a feminist but please don't make me a transfeminist.

What do you mean?

I simply think that there is plenty of space within mainstream feminism. I only see disadvantage in setting ourselves apart from other women. I'm also a lesbian but I don't consider myself a lesbian feminist. I am many things but I don't see the need to set myself apart from other women.

Ann

I agree with this post, I know I am trans, but why should I tell anyone I am if it's not ncessary? I have not found the reason to do so in the past 8 years living full time. But I have no problem addressing myself as trans with other transfolks. I have worked on some jobs where it was in the area of support of women, and I am still working for the support of women at a local shelter. So yes in the presence of other TS women I would have no problem identifying as trans feminist but in the presence of other  women I would go with the same label as other women, that is as feminist. Nobody has asked, well no one has yet.

Quotesimply think that there is plenty of space within mainstream feminism. I only see disadvantage in setting ourselves apart from other women. I'm also a lesbian but I don't consider myself a lesbian feminist. I am many things but I don't see the need to set myself apart from other women.

Ann

Cindy

Quote from: Hypatia on April 16, 2008, 07:27:51 PM
I would have said trans women ought to be concerned with feminist issues. Like, ask not what your feminism can do for you-- Ask what you can do for your sisters.

Well, yes, although it's hard to offer help if you are rejected as a member of the card-er,penis-carrying member of the patriarchal oppression. For a long time that's what feminism (as opposed to gender equality) meant for me -- the more militant offshoots of the second wave. It's only relatively recently that the feminism I see has evolved into something I feel comfortable identifying with. Then again, this is largely due to some personal bad experiences, and for instance my wife (whose opinions on these issues are pretty much the same as mine) has never had trouble calling herself a feminist.

  Nfr

Quote from: Seshatneferw on April 17, 2008, 05:31:58 AM

Quote from: Hypatia on April 16, 2008, 07:27:51 PM
I would have said trans women ought to be concerned with feminist issues. Like, ask not what your feminism can do for you-- Ask what you can do for your sisters.

Well, yes, although it's hard to offer help if you are rejected as a member of the card-er,penis-carrying member of the patriarchal oppression. For a long time that's what feminism (as opposed to gender equality) meant for me -- the more militant offshoots of the second wave. It's only relatively recently that the feminism I see has evolved into something I feel comfortable identifying with. Then again, this is largely due to some personal bad experiences, and for instance my wife (whose opinions on these issues are pretty much the same as mine) has never had trouble calling herself a feminist.

  Nfr

ooh, i like the term gender equality better than feminism.

Quote from: ell on April 17, 2008, 10:12:47 AM

ooh, i like the term gender equality better than feminism.

So, Ellie is a "trans gender-equalist?" ;)

N~

Honestly speaking, I didn't expect much support in my views in this thread. Many TS women are like Nfr and have concretised a view of 'feminist' as being averse in the extreme to the acceptance of women with a trans history. But, if one examines the sources of much of that you'll find it mostly in Janice Raymond, Mary Daly, Germaine Greer (who appears more of a Germaine-ist than anything else) and the owner and many of the attendees at MWMF.

IOW, women who define women 'essentially' as consisting of vaginas, ovaries and being raised as girls. Those definitions seem to me to be as objectifying as most things spewed by the He-Man Woman-Haters Clubs.

Some of their objections, particularly those regarding "over-the-top feminine sexualization and gender-role presentations" among trans-women I couldn't more agree with than I already do.

Like them I find that sort of caricature demeaning of women's experience. I tend toward the same pov when it comes to 'boy-craziness,' particularly in women over thirty. I can see having male lovers, but only on a more or less 'equal respect' basis. I suspect there are a number of trans women who base their sense of self on how well they are able to have intimate relationships with males.

Relationships most certainly can be satisfying whatever sex/gender package they come in. But, to base validation on the opinion of a male about me? Fugidaboudid!!

Nichole

Quote from: Nichole on April 17, 2008, 12:31:51 PM
Relationships most certainly can be satisfying whatever sex/gender package they come in. But, to base validation on the opinion of a male about me? Fugidaboudid!!

Being found attractive by men is (would be) very important to me. Being desirable, being wanted by males... it IS important to me. Part of who I am is my sexuality... or WOULD be, if I ever find a chance to explore it.

I don't need to take a tally of sexual encounters to find validation, but I DO need the validation of knowing I'm desireable.

I keep reading posts here about people barely even starting hormones, and yet getting hit on, flirted with, catcalled, whistled at... and it makes me SO seething with jealousy and frustration, you have NO idea.. especially since most don't even WANT the attention of men. And here I sit, wanting it SO badly, and... nothing. Just that "scared" and shy look I always get.

Sorry, I'm getting off topic. Not much of a feminist in me I don't think ;)

~Kate~

I presume I would have transitioned then too or else I would have killed myself trying.  How about the "only child business"?  I meet that standard too.  :o

Quote from: Hypatia on April 16, 2008, 09:44:19 AM
There is a trans feminist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfeminism) movement a-building. Please join in.

It is pretty clear that the idea that all women share a common experience is wrong.  There is much diversity in the experience of women.  The experience of being a woman is very different for white middle-class women, black women, Hispanic women, asian women, and Muslim women.  So too, the experience of lesbians, straight women, bisexuals, and trans-people are different.  Yet there are those in the feminist movement who would shoehorn every woman into the white middle-class mold.  Or, as the Radical Feminists do, into the white cisgendered lesbian mold.

We really don't need a separate category of feminist for every type of woman.  That lends itself too much to the divide and conquer strategy of many conservatives.

Diversity is perhaps the main reason I am a Postmodern Feminist.  We have no illusions about confusing the thing itself with references to the thing.  (And if you're not a Postmodernist, that last sentence probably didn't make any sense at all.)  We believe in the diversity of women.

Quote from: Kate on April 17, 2008, 01:02:25 PM
And here I sit, wanting it SO badly, and... nothing. Just that "scared" and shy look I always get.

~Kate~

Kate,

i think they're sensing that you want their attention. of course they're gonna be scared and shy if you look at them. don't look at them! by not looking at them, it gives them a chance to look at you, with no pressure, and drink it all in, so to speak. trust me, they will start digging what they see.

-ell

Quote from: Lisbeth on April 17, 2008, 01:24:04 PM
Diversity is perhaps the main reason I am a Postmodern Feminist.  We have no illusions about confusing the thing itself with references to the thing.  (And if you're not a Postmodernist, that last sentence probably didn't make any sense at all.)  We believe in the diversity of women.

Seeing the moon and not the finger pointing to moon.

Posted on: April 17, 2008, 02:53:05 PM

---

Quote from: Kate on April 17, 2008, 01:02:25 PM

Quote from: Nichole on April 17, 2008, 12:31:51 PM
Relationships most certainly can be satisfying whatever sex/gender package they come in. But, to base validation on the opinion of a male about me? Fugidaboudid!!

Being found attractive by men is (would be) very important to me. Being desirable, being wanted by males... it IS important to me. Part of who I am is my sexuality... or WOULD be, if I ever find a chance to explore it.

I don't need to take a tally of sexual encounters to find validation, but I DO need the validation of knowing I'm desireable.

I keep reading posts here about people barely even starting hormones, and yet getting hit on, flirted with, catcalled, whistled at... and it makes me SO seething with jealousy and frustration, you have NO idea.. especially since most don't even WANT the attention of men. And here I sit, wanting it SO badly, and... nothing. Just that "scared" and shy look I always get.

Sorry, I'm getting off topic. Not much of a feminist in me I don't think ;)

~Kate~

Fair enough, not much of a feminist. That makes you ... ? You're still a woman, Kate.

As for the

QuoteI keep reading posts here about people barely even starting hormones, and yet getting hit on, flirted with, catcalled, whistled at...

Not everything you read on a board HAS to be true, as you know all too well as a mod.

But, even if they are all true, why would you internalize that? Shy men are not problematic and often are shy because they ARE attracted. Those big hulking lusters often are very demure when they are in the presence of what cows them. And beauty, although talked about a lot by guys, often puts them off their feed.

All of that lust and attraction kinda shrivels up into a very small and shy package.

You are assuming the opposite. That's, as it often is with attractive women, because you are totally unable to see that often enough they are interested, just think they'd strike-out and be embarrassed. Nothing angers men more than their own embarrassment. Truly, no one wants rejected. Publicly rejected is the worst.

But, you've got to believe in yourself. You are quite lovely, dear. I am pretty certain that more men than you want to imagine have found you attractive and desirable. You just haven't run across one yet who has the moxie and the confidence, or the impertinence and gall, to tell you that.  :)

N~

Quote from: Nichole on April 17, 2008, 02:22:57 PM

Quote from: Lisbeth on April 17, 2008, 01:24:04 PM
Diversity is perhaps the main reason I am a Postmodern Feminist.  We have no illusions about confusing the thing itself with references to the thing.  (And if you're not a Postmodernist, that last sentence probably didn't make any sense at all.)  We believe in the diversity of women.

Seeing the moon and not the finger pointing to moon.

Or, indeed, the the finger pointing at itself as if it were pointing at the moon.

Quote from: Lisbeth on April 17, 2008, 04:40:08 PM
Or, indeed, the finger pointing at itself as if it were pointing at the moon.

Ok, you win.

Now, please explain to me how to do something I just cannot seem to do with my body and I am curious about what the trick is.

How can I get a finger to point to itself? It kinda hurts to try it!

N~

Quote from: Nichole on April 17, 2008, 04:48:22 PM
How can I get a finger to point to itself? It kinda hurts to try it!

It's pretty easy if you use Perl. (But then again, what isn't?)


#!/usr/bin/perl

my ($ref, $deref, $refref);
$ref = \$ref; # omg self-ref!!!
$deref = $$ref;
$refref = \$ref;
print "This is a reference:       $ref\n";
print "This is what it refers to: $deref\n";
print "This is a reference to it: $refref\n";
exit;


Here's the command line:


> ./ref.pl
This is a reference:       REF(0x9d32c90)
This is what it refers to: REF(0x9d32c90)
This is a reference to it: REF(0x9d32c90)
>


:icon_booty-nerd:

Quote from: Nichole on April 17, 2008, 04:48:22 PM

How can I get a finger to point to itself? It kinda hurts to try it!

N~
[/quote]

Luckily zen wisdon is somewhat more flexible than your finger  :)

Ann

Quote from: Anonymouse on April 17, 2008, 05:33:10 PM
Luckily zen wisdon is somewhat more flexible than your finger  :)

Ann

The zen wisdom I have no problem with. It's that Escher-bit that points to the Zen wisdom I'm having some difficulty with.  :laugh:

Ok, let me walk up these stairs, now these, now these and now these, whew, lots flights!!

O, Goddess!! Wait, this crack looks just too familiar!! It is!! It's the crack in the original landing I began on, down there, or is it up here??!!

N~

Quote from: Nichole on April 17, 2008, 05:56:38 PM

The zen wisdom I have no problem with. It's that Escher-bit that points to the Zen wisdom I'm having some difficulty with.  :laugh:

Ok, let me walk up these stairs, now these, now these and now these, whew, lots flights!!

O, Goddess!! Wait, this crack looks just too familiar!! It is!! It's the crack in the original landing I began on, down there, or is it up here??!!

N~

Drawing Hands was always my favorite.

I seem to have climbed those steps many times before I stepped off and found my own path.

Ann

Quote from: Nichole on April 17, 2008, 04:48:22 PM

Quote from: Lisbeth on April 17, 2008, 04:40:08 PM
Or, indeed, the finger pointing at itself as if it were pointing at the moon.

Ok, you win.

Now, please explain to me how to do something I just cannot seem to do with my body and I am curious about what the trick is.

How can I get a finger to point to itself? It kinda hurts to try it!

N~

Maybe you should take yoga.  *grin*

Quote from: Nichole on April 17, 2008, 02:22:57 PM
But, you've got to believe in yourself. You are quite lovely, dear. I am pretty certain that more men than you want to imagine have found you attractive and desirable. You just haven't run across one yet who has the moxie and the confidence, or the impertinence and gall, to tell you that.  :)

I have to agree with Nichole on this Kate. Granted, I only saw that one picture, but that picture was amazing - blurry phone-camera-work and all.

Men are a generally simple bunch. They need to feel secure, and when confronted by a beautiful woman, they aren't. There is a rather horrid but fairly accurate thing as far as men's attitudes toward women I've heard said by some real 'dudes' in my brother's circle of acquaintances. I won't repeat here, but I'm sure you'll have come across it, or some version of it, yourself. Basically, it boils down to pretty women being for sport, and ugly women for settling down and having kids. I find that revolting, but it illustrates why I am horrified by the idea that I might actually be developing an attraction to men.

Quote from: lady amarant on April 18, 2008, 08:44:59 AM

... Basically, it boils down to pretty women being for sport, and ugly women for settling down and having kids. I find that revolting, but it illustrates why I am horrified by the idea that I might actually be developing an attraction to men.

You planning to be 'sport' prey or 'domestic servant' prey, Simone?  :laugh: :laugh:

Sad, but true analysis though. I long to never be with a partner whose largest compliment toward my sex is "Why! I'd f... her!!"

I always realize when I've heard that (2-3 times) directed at me or other women: "No, arschloch, you wouldn't. Why does it even strike you that you might rise to the least standard of any of us?!!"

Nichole

Quote from: Nichole on April 18, 2008, 12:52:10 PM

Quote from: lady amarant on April 18, 2008, 08:44:59 AM

... Basically, it boils down to pretty women being for sport, and ugly women for settling down and having kids. I find that revolting, but it illustrates why I am horrified by the idea that I might actually be developing an attraction to men.

You planning to be 'sport' prey or 'domestic servant' prey, Simone?  :laugh: :laugh:

Sad, but true analysis though. I long to never be with a partner whose largest compliment toward my sex is "Why! I'd f... her!!"


Nichole

what i've been trying to tell you, Sage, is that it works both ways.

i once had a gf who only told me she loved me during orgasms. it made me feel so badly...

-ellie

Quote from: ell on April 18, 2008, 01:00:17 PM

Quote from: Nichole on April 18, 2008, 12:52:10 PM

Quote from: lady amarant on April 18, 2008, 08:44:59 AM

... Basically, it boils down to pretty women being for sport, and ugly women for settling down and having kids. I find that revolting, but it illustrates why I am horrified by the idea that I might actually be developing an attraction to men.

You planning to be 'sport' prey or 'domestic servant' prey, Simone?  :laugh: :laugh:

Sad, but true analysis though. I long to never be with a partner whose largest compliment toward my sex is "Why! I'd f... her!!"


Nichole

what i've been trying to tell you, Sage, is that it works both ways.

i once had a gf who only told me she loved me during orgasms. it made me feel so badly...

-ellie

O, don't fool yourself, Ellie. I understand that women are as capable of that sort crass objectification as men. But, your instance is the exception from my experience, not the rule.

My experience of men is just the opposite.

N~

The power dynamic in both racism and sexism is not equal both ways, and that is what matters the most. Hence the imperative need for feminism.

Quote from: Nichole on April 18, 2008, 01:06:08 PM

Quote from: ell on April 18, 2008, 01:00:17 PM

Quote from: Nichole on April 18, 2008, 12:52:10 PM

Quote from: lady amarant on April 18, 2008, 08:44:59 AM

... Basically, it boils down to pretty women being for sport, and ugly women for settling down and having kids. I find that revolting, but it illustrates why I am horrified by the idea that I might actually be developing an attraction to men.

You planning to be 'sport' prey or 'domestic servant' prey, Simone?  :laugh: :laugh:

Sad, but true analysis though. I long to never be with a partner whose largest compliment toward my sex is "Why! I'd f... her!!"


Nichole

what i've been trying to tell you, Sage, is that it works both ways.

i once had a gf who only told me she loved me during orgasms. it made me feel so badly...

-ellie

O, don't fool yourself, Ellie. I understand that women are as capable of that sort crass objectification as men. But, your instance is the exception from my experience, not the rule.

My experience of men is just the opposite.

N~

But i'm not fooling myself. as i was telling one who is near and dear to me, i've had only four really great relationships in my life. two were with women, two were with men. there are some really great men out there. and there are some really great women, too. and yes, great numbers in each category who have, um, difficulties of some sort. haven't you ever experienced a time in your life when you, yourself, were...difficult?

-ellie

Quote from: Hypatia on April 18, 2008, 01:11:56 PM
The power dynamic in both racism and sexism is not equal both ways, and that is what matters the most. Hence the imperative need for feminism.

A definite truth that is generally ignored.

Does Louis Farrakhan hate whites and is it a bad thing he does. He does, it is. However, his ability to wreak damage to whites is far, far less than our ability to demean and harm him.

Many people seem to think that when they declare that 'segregation' or 'objectification' has ended and is bad that the battle stops then. Yet, the ingrained habits of hundreds or thousands of years and the beliefs and cultural/social institutions that are erected on the basis of those 'old' truisms are not all wiped away by decree. They linger and color all aspects of the interactions between women and men and blacks and caucs for decades, centuries and millenia after the decrees are issued.

The so-called 'playing-field' is not equalized by simply deciding to allow the other team to take the pitch when your team's strikers have the ball 6 yards in front of an empty net! It's too easy to make a self-fulfilling declaration at that point of "See, I told you they'd never be able to hold their own."

Nichole

Posted on: April 18, 2008, 02:32:46 PM

---

Quote from: ell link=topic=31530.msg225398#msg225398... haven't you ever experienced a time in your life when you, yourself, were...difficult?

-ellie

Of course not, luv!!  :angel:

Oops, yes, a few times, actually. But, only when attempting to defend feminism to a group of unsympathetically-inclined women of a transsexual history!!    :laugh: :laugh:

Nichole, Dressed in A Sage-gown

uh huh

You can't just remove an imbalance and say 'problem solved'. The effects of said imbalance have to be corrected as well. White people in South Africa are quick to shout: "Leave the past in the past, Apartheid is over!" but the effects of Apartheid are still deeply ingrained in attitudes and beliefs, in socio-economic inequality, in learning, in access to opportunities, in earnings, in everything.

Much of society hasn't even gotten so far as to admit that women have been wronged at all, let alone correcting things. Yeah, a lot is happening, but the glass ceiling is still there. Men still earn more than women doing the same job. Women are still expected to be a servant around house and home and to wait on the menfolk, no matter what the situation might be as far as career and earnings. Feminism is still necessary. Hopefully that will not always be the case, but for now it is.

Feminism isn't just for women though. Earlier in the thread, a comment was made that men are as much slaves to patriarchy as women are, and I think that is true, to some extent. I mean, as a guy, I qualified with a degree in programming, as was expected of me, and should by all accounts have gone on to rule the world, or something to that effect. The fact that I gave it up to go teach English to little Taiwanese kids, drift around South Africa and go to a Buddhist monastery before ending up in London working as a nurse ... well, let's just say that is not seen in ANYTHING like a favourable light. In many ways, I was already "a traitor to my kind", and really, I think being trans didn't come as much of a shock to anybody, though perhaps a surprise. Guys are expected to fulfil certain roles, and society often deals harshly with them if they go against that.

~Simone.

Mmm hm, but lots of mothers don't want their boys to femme out, and are very careful about the chores they assign. as far that goes, i busted my booty doing boy chores as a youth. give me a break.

i didn't cook, iron, or do laundry, but mom didn't mow the lawn, do heavy gardening projects involving large stones and railroad ties, drill a well, clean the pool, work on the driveway, wash the car, work on the car, rake the leaves, clean the rain gutters, remodel the basement, replace plumbing pipes, move heavy furniture, paint exterior walls and fences, fertilize & water the lawn, clean the garage, etc., &tc.

Sheesh! anyone who says that men have nothing to do around the house is, well, really full of it awfully wrong.

-ell

ps.
however, i think my mom suspected that i was going to femme out eventually, anyway. but she really tried to slap me out of it, bless her heart.