|
Grex > Glb > #48: Transgender issues | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 54 responses total. |
lumen
|
|
response 25 of 54:
| 
Jul 14 04:50 UTC 1999 |
concerning resp:9 I think I'm with John in the fact that the Industrial
Revolution really polarized the sexes of peoples of all classes. I
think that before that time, the nobility could still afford to stratify
along gender lines, but the middle and lower classes usually did not.
I think we have also concluded that certain behaviors does not
necessarily slap a definite label on a person. I seem to remember it
mentioned several times that straight men have indulged in tranvestism.
As far as gender roles, I think strangely the opposite is beginning to
happen-- the rich are beginning to mingle them while the poor are
stratifying them. Redneck/"white trash," laborer Hispanics, and ghetto
blacks seem to come to mind.
I think we mentioned that women still have a double standard when it
comes to clothing-- the unaltered tuxedo is definitely an exception.
However, it is appropriate for women to wear some articles of men's
formal clothing in certain situations. Ties and casual or dress shirts
have been appropriate for some restaurant servers and flight attendants
who are women.
|
jazz
|
|
response 26 of 54:
|
Jul 14 12:26 UTC 1999 |
Another wonderful thing the Industrial Revolution brought us (outside
of pollution and factories) is the realisation of the concept of the nuclear
family, as oppsoed to the extended family. Utah Phillips would probably argue
that this was to stop the spread of oral history from the family's elders,
and to compromise the integrity of the family, and there's some evidence he'd
be right.
I don't think that the Industrial Revolution invented the concept of
gender roles; it's pretty obvious that they existed long before that, and
in more concrete forms at times. It's just that our gender roles in modern
America seem to, in large part, be traceable to that period.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 27 of 54:
|
Jul 14 15:28 UTC 1999 |
<quietly applauds the Utah Phillips reference>
I've heard the thing about the Industrial Revolution creating our current
gender roles, and I'm not sure I find it too convincing. At least some of
our gender roles (housework vs. "real work", nurturer vs. provider, and so
on) seem to be pretty much universal. If anything, one of the long-term
effects of the Industrial revolution is that, for maybe the first time in
history, anatomy does not necessarily determine what someone can or can't do.
|
brighn
|
|
response 28 of 54:
|
Jul 14 16:01 UTC 1999 |
What would be the purpose of stopping the spread of oral history?
I was going to make the same comment as Ori. Man hunt. Woman garden. That's
been the case as far back as anyone can reconstruct.
|
jazz
|
|
response 29 of 54:
|
Jul 14 17:16 UTC 1999 |
There's probably even a biological basis for why the human female is
shorter and has a more flexible spine and the human male has higher muscle
mass, lower fat, and more load-bearing capacity - the basic hunter / gatherer
split.
But there's a lot more than just how one earns a living to gender
roles.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 30 of 54:
|
Jul 14 23:08 UTC 1999 |
So what are you pointing to in particular as starting with the Industrial
Revolution? I don't know enough about the relevant history to be able to
think of anything...
|
jazz
|
|
response 31 of 54:
|
Jul 15 01:00 UTC 1999 |
That's cool, I'm holpelessly generalizing a complicated subject
anyways. :)
The current family, and the roles of the individuals in the family (and
therefore gender roles as preparing for the adult role in the family) draws
heavily on the nuclear family of Industrial Revolution Europe; wherein the
male works, the female often works, but in noticeably distinct fields.
|
brighn
|
|
response 32 of 54:
|
Jul 15 04:37 UTC 1999 |
Still nothing that doesn' trace back to hunter/gatherer society.
|
jazz
|
|
response 33 of 54:
|
Jul 15 13:10 UTC 1999 |
There is, though. In many ways, Iranian culture reverses Western
stereotyped roles; men are expected to be physically affectionate with one
another, openly emotional, and to write poetry and such, qualities ascribed
more to the stereotypical role of women in the West - women are expected to
be unemotional and pragmatic, qualities ascribed more to men in the West.
It's nicely documented in Edward Halls _The Silent Language_.
What was it that that first Jewel album said on the cover? "What we
call human nature is actually human habit." It's a good quote for the subject
of gender roles.
|
brighn
|
|
response 34 of 54:
|
Jul 15 14:22 UTC 1999 |
But in Iranian culture, the men still do the money making work and the women
still do the housekeeping...
I thought we were talking about family structure and pragmatic gender roles.
You still haven't provided any counterevidence for the claim that those
haven't really appreciably changed since Hunter-Gatherer times.
|
jazz
|
|
response 35 of 54:
|
Jul 15 16:20 UTC 1999 |
Then your confusion is understandable, since we've all been discussing
gender roles in general and as they apply to transgenderism.
|
brighn
|
|
response 36 of 54:
|
Jul 15 17:49 UTC 1999 |
oh. ok. =} In that case, I agree entirely. =}.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 37 of 54:
|
Jul 16 18:05 UTC 1999 |
Part of what changed during the Industrial Revolution was who lived in
the home... Formerly it wasn't uncommon for multiple generations of
the family to reside in one house. During the Industrial Revolution
it became more common for a couple and their children to live there--
and live away from the couple's parents... I also reember something
about lunch coming into play, but I don't remember exactly what though...
<frowns> It'll come to me eventually...
|
lumen
|
|
response 38 of 54:
|
Jul 16 23:24 UTC 1999 |
Family businesses also used to be much more common, especially during
the long agricultural eras. The whole notion of Calvinism and other
Protestant attitudes suggested individuals made the greatest successes,
and not the family. This, I'm sure, made it easier for there to be only
one breadwinner.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 39 of 54:
|
Aug 8 14:51 UTC 1999 |
Ooh...good point. That makes sense.
|
lumen
|
|
response 40 of 54:
|
Aug 10 18:45 UTC 1999 |
Of course, there are some modern faiths in which some members somewhat
reject this individualistic trend. It's not unusual for some Mormons to
run family businesses, especially in Mormon communities. Construction,
insulation, and salesmanship businesses (like Amway, Shaklee, and Nikken
biomagnetics) are some examp
|
jazz
|
|
response 41 of 54:
|
Aug 10 19:26 UTC 1999 |
I wouldn't use AmWay as a positive example of anything except how to
keep a pyramid scam almost within the bounds of the law.
|
lumen
|
|
response 42 of 54:
|
Aug 10 21:49 UTC 1999 |
I didn't intend it to be positive. I hate Amway myself. Nikken is a
more reputable company, but it is more or less the same pyramid scheme.
Scam? No, no, no, not at all. There is significant research that
magnetic therapy DOES work, and if the salespeople are honest and
believe in the product, there's nothing wrong with having a business
hierarchy to it. You must realize, however, that you don't become rich
in this kind of venture unless you get in early.
Believe me, I know a millionaire in Nikken who went from rags to riches.
He's a philanthropist and uses his riches to benefit others.
but anyway
|
jazz
|
|
response 43 of 54:
|
Aug 11 14:07 UTC 1999 |
Take from the foolish and give to the poor. I suppose that's not bad.
|
brighn
|
|
response 44 of 54:
|
Aug 11 18:46 UTC 1999 |
I disagree that there's nothing inherently unethical about pyramid schemes,
and leave it at that.
|
jazz
|
|
response 45 of 54:
|
Aug 12 13:20 UTC 1999 |
No, I agree with you there, but because I do believe stupidity should
be punishable ...
|
brighn
|
|
response 46 of 54:
|
Aug 12 16:14 UTC 1999 |
I wasn't disagreeing with *you*, John. =}
for once.
|
omni
|
|
response 47 of 54:
|
Jun 21 11:43 UTC 2009 |
And now 9 years and change later....
>
> I've learned a lot and wayyy too much to list here. But I'll give you the
>cliffs notes version.
>
> The main thing is I still wear ladies things; but I've become smarter.
>Tonight, I wore black pants (neutral looking, but ladies anyway), A t-shirt,
>a pair of panties and pantyhose. No one knew about the panties and hose, and
>no one even batted an eye at the pants I was wearing, and the t-shirt was
>one from Ohio Northern Univ (in Ada OH, if you must know).
>
> I've noticed that the hose (Sheer Endurance,Silk Indulgence) have spandex
>in them which helps my legs, and especially my left leg. I have a minor case
>of edema and my doc prescribed compression stockings. I told him flat out
that
>I will not pay 40 dollars for one stocking when I can spend 2.99 for a pair
>of better looking pantyhose.
>
> I still go out dressed, and the nice thing is that I pass, and pass well.
I have been for lack of a better word, mirrorphobic, that is, I don't like
looking at myself in the mirror. The othe day I dressed fully complete with
makeup and I took a picture. I didnt look all that bad. A few of my friends
told me I looked not too bad, and one didnt even recognize me. That boosted
my self esteem, and I'm getting over my little fear, so in a way it's been
good. I still want to be female. That has not changed.
|
keesan
|
|
response 48 of 54:
|
Jun 21 18:54 UTC 2009 |
Do you find that people treat you differently when you dress in women's
clothing? Or does it just affect how you behave?
|
omni
|
|
response 49 of 54:
|
Jun 21 21:44 UTC 2009 |
It really depends on the degree of dress that I'm in. My everyday duds are
very neutral and thus not detectable; and even when I'm dressed in full
regalia, including makeup, I blend in to the crowd. I'm very careful not to
be seen by my fellow workers, but I pass so well, that I doubt anyone would
recognize me if they did come across me. Usually, I dress up and walk down
to the grocery store, and I'm careful not to wear my heels.
|