Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretchucker
I think it's interesting that we keep going back to this notion of the "effeminate man" or "tomboy". Obviously, these ARE frames of reference that exist within our current discourses on gender.
What I was trying to get at in my original post was that rather than thinking of qualities as "masculine" or "feminine" we need to deconstruct BOTH genders and build up again afresh, free from the anchors with which we define character attributes. Obviously this kind of sociological revolution cannot happen overnight. But as I said, I think part of the problem is the emphasis on discussing and criticising portrayals of men and women as men and women, rather than just as people.
|
Yes, we should not attach a vast array of moral character qualities to people based on gender, gender traits, gender identity, ethnicity, age, etc. I certainly don't want to assume someone is going to rob, lie, etc, based on those attributes. In a free speech society, people are going to be free to choose to bend gender appearance and behavior. And most individuals have a genetic and/or semi-permanent gender traits that we associate with effeminate male or tomboy. Those characteristics do not equate to sexual preference. In both cases, nobody should be harassed, harmed or treated unfairly. I hope none of that sounds overly proverbial.
That being said, I'm not sure what you mean by we need to "deconstruct BOTH genders and build up again afresh".