too much thought before coffee

[adrienmundi]

I made the mistake of paying attention to NPR this morning, in which some sports commentator went on at great length about why the ovary-enabled teen golfer who has been competing successfully in the men's leagues should stop (in short: women will never be as good as men; women are special, beautiful magical creatures that should be seperate; it's unfair to women's sports to draw attention away by a superstar competing with men; it's a fool's errand to try to compete where a woman is bound to fail). For a bigwig at Sports Illustrated, this sexist idiot seemed painfully uneducated about developmental research and the narrowing gap between 'male' and 'female' high performance athletes over the years (a trend that's accelerating, btw). That this pissed me off should come as no surprise.

It got me to thinking. Lately, I've been diving deeply into liberal blogland, and a big chunk of that are feminist blogs. I experience some disjunct there sometimes, as well. I'll be reading along, agreeing with much that is being said, and get suddenly jolted out of the groove, confused and frustrated by the 'us' vs 'them' mentality.

I think both above situations are linked. In both cases, I think what's going is line drawing and border policing, and in each case, there is an implicit attempt to erase or overwrite me, and anyone else who does not wholly and unquestioningly endorse the binary-only paradigm. Speaking personally, it hurts me more when feminists do it, because one, they should know better, having been on the receiving end of sexist oppression, and two, every time they talk about 'men' and 'women', I know they're assigning me to the 'man' side, and have no interest in hearing otherwise.

This takes me to the point I woke up thinking about this morning; how can I live and exist as myself in a sociocultural world that refuses to believe I can exist? How can I interact with a system that I believe is unethical and unfair, but which allows no alternatives?

Like most days, I still don't have answers to these questions.

Comments

[laughingwoman.livejournal.com]

how can I live and exist as myself in a sociocultural world that refuses to believe I can exist? How can I interact with a system that I believe is unethical and unfair, but which allows no alternatives?


if it makes you feel any better, i don't think anyone wakes up in the morning with answers to these questions, regardless of orientation, affiliation, manner-of-being.

and, re: monday happies

i'm basically coming into the city from chattanooga to spend most of the day with a girlfriend who is great with child. my plane leaves at 9pm. she'll probably want me out of her hair 'round about time the husband comes home. i think she's in east lake terrace? but i could find my way around the city (i think). if there's someplace central-y that you'd like to meet. i can usually navigate around to little five points, or buckhead, or peachtree. or even better, meet somewhere central and travel in one vehicle so that i don't get lost. but i'll email you at livejournal with vitals info (cell #, email, etc).

yay!

[adrienmundi]

Yeah... I'd just much rather wake up to questions like, "God, is it 6:00 already?". Existentialism seems to go down easier after caffiene.

And yay, I'm really looking forward to Monday! I live in Decatur, so Little Five Points is certainly fine and accessible. If you're in East Atlanta, there are already options at hand there, too.

[grendel317.livejournal.com]

My first reaction to this was "Well, political punsters and extreme feminist bloggers might be on the far end of that curve." Having mentally reviewed things I've observed in our theoretically open and accepting mutual circle of friends, though, I have to admit I'm revising that opinion. No help in the "answers" department, I know.

I think my general experience differs in that a) I'm more easily (or at least more transparently) "slotted in" to most people's world view, b) I'm much less concerned with most people's world views, anyway, and c) I tend to view the world less as a big system and more strictly as a collection of individuals. The third point seems significant to me when I'm considering areas of incompatibility with the world, because it changes things from "one big question with no answer" to "LOTS AND LOTS of little questions, some of which might have answers, and the vast majority of which are rarely if ever relevant to my life".

Not saying any of that's better or worse, just offering a different perspective which may or may not be relevant or useful. I have to admit I'm usually a bit trepidatious about commenting in your journal, partly because I'm afraid of inadvertently offending you, and partly because I'm afraid of coming off as an arrogant prat. :-/

[adrienmundi]

As pointed out by Glas, the sports commentator was Frank Deford, a bigwig at Sports Illustrated. I don't think that makes him any more inclined to be open minded, though.

It's important that I don't live inside your head, and certainly cannot speak to your experience. I expect this caveat to matter a fair amount, as I'm likely to step on toes and come accross as an ass with a self-privileged perspective, but...

It's the c) which interests me most, in the above. I often say that I love indivuals (and I do, genuinely), but I hate people in groups (well, hate/dread/fear), and I think that you've articulated a part of the reason; individuals can be impacted, communicated with, etc. I do view the world this way, in part.

However, I also see patterns, particularly if individuals draw attention to them (ie, "Well, I'm an X, and because of that..."). As someone who's needs are not met by current social constructions, I see that a lot. More and more, as I'm less silent and less willing to just take it, I see that classic instance of "otherwise good people" justify their positions in regard to the status quo, and dismiss my concerns as uniquely my problems and my repsonsibilities. Me, I tend to think that inequity and injustice are my concerns, no matter where they fall, but then again, I'm no friend to the status quo.

I'm not sure, but I'm going to suggest that your a) enables your b), above. Do you think that maybe because you can be slotted in, that you don't experience hypercommon disjunct, either internally or externally, that it's easier to not care? What I mean to suggest, I think, is that since there's a place for you within culture, do you think that might make it easier to not care what others think of you? Again, I'm not casting aspersion, but there seems to be something there that keeps nagging at me.

And finally, comment, please, as often as you like. I trust your intent, even if I encounter something in your writing that might otherwise seem problematic. In other words, if I think I might be offended, I'll ask.

[adrienmundi]

Damn, I also meant to add, "I also hope you'll do the same" at the end of the last paragraph.

[grendel317.livejournal.com]

Sure thing, I will. No reason to yet. :-)

[grendel317.livejournal.com]

I certainly agree with your suggestion that appearing to fit in to broadly accepted catagories probably makes it easier not to care how I'm being categorized. I think I've even made this point myself at times. The differentiation I was trying to convey (not very clearly, in retrospect), was between a) concern for repercussions, and b) intrinsically caring what people think. Also, to clarify, none of those points was intended as any sort of advice or suggestions. I was just relating my (probably irrelevant) experiences in tangentially related areas, in the lack of anything useful to say.

I've been thinking lately about individual cases and generalizations. It seems like there's some useful insight in there somewhere, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it. On the one hand, assuming things about a person based on generalizations is often going to be inaccurate, and could be construed as specifically offensive or hurtful. On the other hand, generalization can be a valid and useful tool when considering many subject matters - geology or what kinds of food you like to eat, for instance. I'm not sure exactly where the distinction lies. I think perhaps it's to do with seeing the generalized group as a single entity, and a willingness to revise assumptions, but like I said, I haven't been able to put my finger on it.

[adrienmundi]

I like to think that I don't care, per se, what a given person may think (unless they're important to me), but I am often quite concerned with potential repercussions for transgressing the "natural". I suspect sometimes the latter may look like the former, and maybe sometimes they blur in such a way that even I can't tell the difference, even when I think I can. I don't know, honestly.

I think this carries over to individual vs general points, as well. While I'm generally open to people not sucking, to not being self-satisfied bigots or close minded, at the same time it seems, on a certain level, a question of safety to realize that odds are they likely will be, particularly where my own issues and body/role (and why my body is anyone else's business, when most others would fiercely resist me doing similar things to them, is beyond me) are concerned, at least initially. The balancing of those two are tricky, naturally, but I like to think that I leave room for people not to disappoint me.