Feminism - Now with an extra helping of gender roles

[Lyanna Stark]

To celebrate TP shutting down the last feminism thread which derailed into talking about why feminism is useless to some men (for the Nth time), I thought we instead could focus on something more interesting: Gender Roles.

By way of popular culture.

Note: [warning]This contains some spoilers for the series "The Hunger Games", albeit rather few, so if you are totally unfamiliar with it and want to remain unspoiled, I'd recommend skipping this post completely. [/warning]

As a newly baked "Hunger Games" fan, I've dived head first into all the interesting articles written about the rather gender bending description of the story's heroine, Katniss Everdeen. Not only is she herself an unusual hero in that she gets to be badass, shoot shit, kick the crap out of people and even kill outright, but she also has a potential love interest who is not your average Hollywood boyfriend. In fact, this article points out that normally, Peeta Mellark would be a Hollywood girlfriend, not a boyfriend. I found myself thinking that this shouldn't really stand out, that surely, there's got to be women who are the "strong silent type", but I couldn't think of anyone really. In this I think "Hunger Games" is pretty unique.

Further, another article points out that the movie adaptations of the books are totally unapologetic about the fact that Katniss is taller than Peeta. So not only is Katniss portrayed as more badass than Peeta, she's also taller. This is not explained or lingered on in the films either, it just is. The article made me feel kinda bad for always going for taller men, on the other hand as I am nearly a dwarf myself (5'4) it would leave me with a very small (no pun intended) sample if I tried to find someone even shorter than myself. In any case, it is an interesting thing to consider. Why is it that women are so height conscious? I remember lots of my tall friends constantly wearing flats and walking hunched over. (Hopefully this won't entice an avalanche of Evo-Psych explanations of cavemen preferring to drag only short women to their lairs :p )

Lastly, I found this article which tries to use "Hunger Games" as a proof for gender constructivism. While in general, I support a non essentialist stance, I feel that this gets pretty forced. Naturally, I think that people should be freely able to choose their gender expression etc. but I am getting a different vibe from this article, as if anyone choosing a binary gender expression and/or a monogamous relationship is actually limiting themselves, per definition. Which I think is quite unfair. Or am I just an uptight old bint who should welcome the 21st century and realise my binary gender expression is outdated? :crying:

Just a super quick abbreviated explanation for new people:

Gender Essentialism is the belief that our gender role/gender expression/gender identity are all inborn and correlates with our physical sex. (In other words: Magic Vagina Powers )

Gender Constructivism on the other hand is the theory that gender is constructed and separate from our physical sex (In other words: We're all blank slates but society forces us into a mold).

[Maithanet]

As a newly baked "Hunger Games" fan, I've dived head first into all the interesting articles written about the rather gender bending description of the story's heroine, Katniss Everdeen. Not only is she herself an unusual hero in that she gets to be badass, shoot shit, kick the crap out of people and even kill outright, but she also has a potential love interest who is not your average Hollywood boyfriend. In fact, this article points out that normally, Peeta Mellark would be a Hollywood girlfriend, not a boyfriend. I found myself thinking that this shouldn't really stand out, that surely, there's got to be women who are the "strong silent type", but I couldn't think of anyone really. In this I think "Hunger Games" is pretty unique.

Interesting that you pointed to Peeta as an odd gender-role choice, because I think it goes double for Finnick, who really was the opposite of the man-with-tits archetype. Finnick seemed like a woman written as a man. He's always described as beautiful, and when he's introduced, Katniss is quite wary of his charms. But during the games, he is always in a supporting role, in spite of being the biggest and strongest. It is later revealed that his one true love was being held hostage by the Capitol, and that he was blackmailed into providing sexual services to the elites (which probably included men). Once his love is rescued they are happily married, and he fades into the background as a supporting character.

Does anyone else agree that this seems like a role that is typically filled by a woman? I feel like he was sort of the embodiment of a lot of feminine gender roles in a way that is rarely seen in a straight male character. That's not to say that he was a bad character, any more than man-tits character is necessarily bad, it is just an usual reversal.

Further, another article points out that the movie adaptations of the books are totally unapologetic about the fact that Katniss is taller than Peeta. So not only is Katniss portrayed as more badass than Peeta, she's also taller. This is not explained or lingered on in the films either, it just is. The article made me feel kinda bad for always going for taller men, on the other hand as I am nearly a dwarf myself (5'4) it would leave me with a very small (no pun intended) sample if I tried to find someone even shorter than myself. In any case, it is an interesting thing to consider. Why is it that women are so height conscious? I remember lots of my tall friends constantly wearing flats and walking hunched over. (Hopefully this won't entice an avalanche of Evo-Psych explanations of cavemen preferring to drag only short women to their lairs :P )

One of my friends is about 5-3, and he did stand-up. One of his jokes was about how people would give him shit that his girlfriend is taller than him, and he'd reply "what else am I going to do? Only date midgets?"

[Rorshach]

Re: the heitght issue: there are probably quite a few reasons for going for higher men, but the one that immideately springs to mind is that there is a height difference on average. Hence, you would expect that 'guy taller' would become the statistical norm. I can see this helping shape expectations so that over time, it would be seen as the way it should be.

[Seli]

...

Lastly, I found this article which tries to use "Hunger Games" as a proof for gender constructivism. While in general, I support a non essentialist stance, I feel that this gets pretty forced. Naturally, I think that people should be freely able to choose their gender expression etc. but I am getting a different vibe from this article, as if anyone choosing a binary gender expression and/or a monogamous relationship is actually limiting themselves, per definition. Which I think is quite unfair. Or am I just an uptight old bint who should welcome the 21st century and realise my binary gender expression is outdated? :crying:

...

Tricky. I might be oldfashioned in my way of thinking myself, but I think that people for whom the binary fits should not be afraid to feel comfortable there. Which harkens back to discussions we had on the board earlier about where femininity and masculinity fit in.

[sologdin]

gender roles are manifestly inferior to gender rolls. who doesn't like NC-17 breakfast pastries?

[Gneisenau]

What about practical aspects ? Open relationships require a ton of work and communication over a monogamous relationship (which already requires alot of work).

[brook]

I've got to admit I hadn't really thought about that aspect of Peta and Katniss' relationship before now. The relationships in the hunger games pretty much universally annoy me but that aspect is well done.

I can't really call myself either a gender essentialist or a constructionist, I tend to believe that some level of core gender identity is innate but that nearly all the trappings around that are socially constructed.

Where the article loses me is it seems to assume that you NEED to be poly in order to have a full range of gender expression in relationships. The idea that you can express different aspects of yourself within the same relationship doesn't seem to even be a factor the writer considered. Sometimes in my relationship I'm the strong, protective one. Other times I feel like I can be weak and know I will be safe and neutered, I don't actually need a different partner to express my full self even if that is what works for others.

[Galactus]

gender roles are manifestly inferior to gender rolls. who doesn't like NC-17 breakfast pastries?

1d100 rolls? 1-30 nonbinary, 31-65 male, 66-100 female?

[Galactus]

On the constructivism on-essentialism I guess I'm in-between: We construct genders, but they're not constructed in a vaccuum but in an actual, physical reality.

[Lily Valley]

gender roles are manifestly inferior to gender rolls. who doesn't like NC-17 breakfast pastries?

Other times I feel like I can be weak and know I will be safe and neutered, I don't actually need a different partner to express my full self even if that is what works for others.

Solo's having gender rolls, brook's getting safely neutered....I like this thread much better than the last one.

[brook]

and that is what I get for posting before 7am :lol:

For the record I AM safely and happily neutered :P

[emberling]

Lastly, I found this article which tries to use "Hunger Games" as a proof for gender constructivism. While in general, I support a non essentialist stance, I feel that this gets pretty forced. Naturally, I think that people should be freely able to choose their gender expression etc. but I am getting a different vibe from this article, as if anyone choosing a binary gender expression and/or a monogamous relationship is actually limiting themselves, per definition. Which I think is quite unfair. Or am I just an uptight old bint who should welcome the 21st century and realise my binary gender expression is outdated? :crying:

I'm not sure the article is saying that binary gender / monogamy are inherently restrictive to anyoneall people; only that there exist certain people (with Katniss as an example) who are genderqueer in a way that would be inherently restricted by accepting binary gender and monogamy for themselves.

Though when I put it that way it sounds almost tautological. Genderqueer people are restricted if we accept binary gender? Say it ain't so! But it does seem to point out a synergy between polyamory and genderfluidity that is interesting...except it still strikes me as off. Can't I express my gender in the ways I interact with people I'm not fucking? (If not, I guess I'm not expressing my gender at all. Huh.)

It reminds me a lot of that one nasty bisexual stereotype. I'm not against polyamory for those whose boat it floats, but come on. Take any two different relationships that anyone has had...straight, queer, whatever...those two relationships aren't going to be fulfilling exactly the same needs, bringing exactly the same good qualities to light. So when you take a triangle like this and you say, well, each one illuminates a different side of her! It's more yeah, that's how it works than wow, obviously it is a TRAGEDY if she can't have BOTH. It would be cool if she could have both! I'm very tired of triangles in large part for that reason--because it seems a very manufactured conflict based on nasty old stereotypes, based on possessiveness and jealousy aspects of machismo etc. But I do not like this implication that a person is not wholly themselves unless they have a particular optimally-affirming configuration of romantic relationships, no matter what form those relationships take. I am myself without romantic relationships.

[Cuellar]

Personally I think Hunger Games is a somewhat bad example. Katnis' mother is sorta worthless (especially as a female role model). Her sister follows the more traditional gender role. Peta vs other hunter dude seems like the standard good guy nerd vs bad guy survival love interest, with Katnis consistently picking the shittier option. Obviously a lot of the women in the story are hardcore killers and badasses, but it is pretty specific to the game folks.

I'm not 100% essentialism, but after seeing my kids I am more of a believer. We raise our kids with no specific gender focus. When my daughter was 1, she was very "motherly" to the 9 month olds. At 18 months, my son had a broom he liked to clean with, but he sometimes walked around swinging it in the air trying to bash stuff with it (which my daughter never did). While a lot of our gender role is cultural, there definitely is some % that is innate. Whether it is greater than 50%, I probably doubt it.

[karaddin]

and that is what I get for posting before 7am :lol:

For the record I AM safely and happily neutered :P

Also for the record I played no role in said neutering, I may be a wonderful adaptable partner but that's outside my wheel house.

Lyanna unsurprisingly I have thoughts on this :p will read those articles and reply later.

[brook]

*shrugs* I have three boys

My eldest as a toddler was always trying to mother and cluck over any babies (or failing that pets) he came in contact with. Even now at nearly-ten he'll often do the same. Before he started school and got a better idea of what he was 'supposed' to like his favourite toys were dollhouses and the toy kitchen and pram.

My middle boy was mostly utterly uninterested in babies, obsessed with cars and trucks from a young age and is much more typically 'boy' in all his interests.

The youngest falls somewhere in between the older two in interests.

If my eldest had been born a girl would I be using him as evidence that aspects of gender roles are innate? Rather than 'yeah kids have such different personalities'

[karaddin]

Ok I can't say I particularly liked that jezebel piece, I feel it is falling into a common trap and conflating gender expression, gender roles and your innate "gender" all into one thing. This is an area I really think the language is lagging, and absolutely has failed to catch up to what we seem to know from trans people, I don't actually think innate gender is a good phrase for it largely because this conflation and confusion is far too common. I like the subconscious sex term that Serano uses, as I subscribe to the belief that this part is hard coded into us - our brains are one, or the other or both or neither or any other combination thereof. On the surface this sounds quite essentialist, but it's different in that they put the source of truth as genitals of chromosomes, I say it's the brain.

Where you take your gender expression from there is a mix of who you are and the upbringing, so on the whole I think both essentialist and constructivist approaches are wrong for what they tend to be arguing about and reality is a mix of the two. People often look at things like trans women doing stereotypically female things, or particularly the little trans kids "always wanted to play with dolls" and simplify this. It can be that the child just innately wanted to do those things, but it can also be that on a subconscious level the child is aware that these activities are coded female, this child is treated like a boy but is in reality a girl and wants to be seen as such, so they engage in activities that are coded female to increase the odds of being seen as the girl they are. Changes in behaviour after adult transition can get even more confusing, for example I didn't care for flowers before but after transition I suddenly like them a lot. Is this caused by hormones increasing the sensitivity of my senses (they did)? Is it caused by my always having an appreciation for it, but suppressing it before because it wasn't acceptable? Is it caused by me knowing that appreciation for flowers is coded not just as female but as feminine and I want to be seen in a feminine light? I think it's probably a combination of all three of these things.

So I think we start with a subconscious sex, along with unrelated predilections for rough play/fantasy play or whatever, and our subconscious absorption of gendered expectations inform how we will express ourselves and the roles we adopt from a very very young age.

To loop back around to why I don't like the conflation in the jezebel piece, the argument being made about how Katniss gets to express different gender with different partners isn't even referring to her gender expression. She is always a feminine woman, even in her arena outfits I very much read her as feminine (granted this is based on jlaw, not the book) and this doesn't change with either of her partners. Likewise Peeta never strikes me as feminine in his expression. What the piece is actually referring to is the gender roles manifested in the relationship, and these absolutely are flipped from the norm with Peeta.

I also agree with you that there is a bit of a sense through it that embracing nonbinary is superior to being binary, and I think I recall Serano talking about this sentiment within queer feminist circles a fair bit in whipping girl. I find any movement like that to be ridiculous, it's supposed to be about empowering people to be themselves, not to just conform to a different ideal. For someone non binary then absolutely they should be far freer than is possible in todays society to embrace that and live it. In contrast I'm very much a binary identified woman, and a feminine one at that, telling me I can't be like that is no better than the current situation of denying non binary individuals their identity - any solution that trades the current problems for new ones is a short sighted one I'm not interested in.

[emberling]

Not entirely comfortable being held up as an exemplar of nonbinariness. I expect that embracing and living my gender will eventually look no different from thousands of women who identify as such doing the same. Can't know until it happens, though. Stuck in an awkward place right now due to various timing issues.

[karaddin]

Sorry I didn't mean to do that to you - I'll edit that post.

[Robin Of House Hill]

After reading that Jezebel article, it took considerable effort to keep my head from exploding. I guess I will have to to get a PhD, so I can project my own internalized feelings onto movie/book characters that are far too two dimensional to infer what she did.

On the binary vis-a-vis non-binary, I am totally binary identified, feminine, though my expression is calculated to have a harder edge than how I feel. It makes me feel more secure. I can understand, intellectually, what it must be like to be non-binary, but emotionally, I cannot make the connection as to how it feels. Therefore, it makes me uncomfortable when I hear talk of eliminating the concept of gender rolls. I guess that puts me at odds with some feminists.

[Lyanna Stark]

Only have 5 minutes to reply because meeting. Bleh.

But I do not like this implication that a person is not wholly themselves unless they have a particular optimally-affirming configuration of romantic relationships, no matter what form those relationships take. I am myself without romantic relationships.

I agree with this, and apart from the somewhat snarky "you limit yourself if you aren't polyamorous" bit, this stood out to me too. Perhaps it's just me thinking it's a bit of a sore point that women can never really be "anyone" unless they can reflect themselves onto a (male) surface, but the article did make me think of that. That somehow, you're defined by your romantic relationships. What happens when you aren't in one, or when you don't desire one? If this is true, then I suppose we fall into nothingness when we don't affirm ourselves and our gender expression in the context of a relationship. I dunno, perhaps I am just getting it wrong, or maybe the writer of the article didn't really put his/her point across very well.

Ack had lots more to post but time has run out!