Post with 1 note
The tension between the Individual and Society(The Other) on the basis of gender identity comes when either party absurdly believes the opposing should instantly conform to their beliefs. Gender is an odd two-fold organizational system used by The Other to establish a baseline for proper interactions with an unknown such as a person not well known to them and as a self-recognition system used by the Individual to reconcile their self image with The Others definition. Thus the Individual my find that they conform to many, all, some, or none of the The Others gender identifications since they know things about themselves The Other does not, while the The Other may simultaneously label them a conforming or contradictory gender identity at the onset or during the course of interaction. Where the tension between the two parties comes in is when one of the parties or both assumes the opposing should automatically or swiftly recognize and conform to their self-decided set of labels. What we fail, as a species, to realize is that this identification system is not an infallible and unanimous statement but a user edited system with individual hubs that may differ from the larger, society edited, idea. In plain terms, when meeting or judging the Individual, the Other uses social ideas on gender edited by personal ideas on the same topic to establish a baseline for how they should interpret and react to the individual and the individuals actions. The Individual in turn as an identity based on social norms edited by person ideas on the subject that describes themselves. Both systems used by all parties is in constant flux as it is amended over time. The Other’s actions change as preconceived notions are supplanted by more solid and tested theories about the individual. The Individual’s identity changes as they change their notions on what describes a singular gender and what portions of said genders describe them. The gender labeling systems of both parties can be reconciled given enough time and interaction, and can even be dropped entirely as a basis for interaction. However this has become a difficulty in modern society where both parties seem to demand instant conformity to their conceptions on the matter and no dialog is exchanged between the two.
tl;dr: EYYYYYY, YOOOOO!!!! Don’t expect me to know who you are without getting to know you first. I’ll forgive you for innocent mistakes if you forgive me for them. Eventually you wont be a gender to me, just a person who’s either cool, or kinda not cool.
But There’s like one person I can do that with and I barely ever talk to her unless I’m buying her lunch for the day -.- In the future I will note that this is an absolute must in a relationship with me. In the mean time, someone want to take me up on this?
I’d like to take a moment to talk about sexism today, particularly this article ————> Gatlin says female athletes should mud wrestle for Olympic spot.
Done reading? Okay let’s continue. Firstly before we I can talk about the above article we must clear the air about the definition of sexism I’ll be using, that is Merriam-Webster’s (MW) version. MW discribes sexism as: “1) prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :discrimination against women. 2) behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.” So to be sexist it must have the qualities of being prejudice, discriminatory, or fosters stereotypes of social roles based on sex. To further simplyfi this; sexism is characterized by preconcived judgments based soley on a persons sex, the act of basing decisions categorically based on an individuals or groups sex, or encouraging the categorization or acceptance of categorization based on sex. Simple? Simple. Onward we go.
Now with this definition in mind, can we say the above article is correct in labeling the statement sexist? No we can not. Yes it is an idea fostered in many sexual fantasys by men and women alike but that does not make it sexist, just sexual. The idea expressed by Gatlin is one of a sexual desire to watch two people he finds attractive wrestle naked in food stuffs. What he is not saying is that this is a legitimate way they can settle the tie breaker, which would be an excidingly sexist by our afformentioned definition. What this article fails to mention is that Gatlin goes on to praise their skills and weighs in on the actual options being considered and puts some shop thought as a runner into his opinion. He says “I think Jeneba is a great young talent and Allyson Felix is a darling of the sport”…”The plight we have here is that not only are they great runners who put a lot of heart out there, they’re coached by the same guy and they’re training partners.”…“They’re both great 200-meter runners as well, so why put them in a situation where they have to run against each other in a real race when they run almost every day against each other? They have to prepare for the 200. They have a whole field that’s ready to go out and make the field in the 200, too, so that’s not fair to them.”(Tie breaker not practical) The above article forgets to mention this part.
Now you might say that his praise doesn’t excuse an sexual remark about to young athletes (or any others he made) which, if they were sexist, would be the case. But an expression of sexual desire is just that, sexual. If we become afraid to express our sexual sides because of fear of being labeled sexist that becomes a form of sexual repression, another explosive social issue we wish to eliminate. Now is there a proper time and place to express such desires? Yes. Preferably not in an interview that will be watched or read by thousands and taken as an actual opinion on the solution to an athletic dilemma. And this issue runs both ways, for men and women. We should all be able to express our sexual desires when ever is publicly acceptable and in a publicly acceptable form. At the moment the standards for judging acceptability for each sex are very skewed of course, but that does not mean we should mistake inappropriate sexual-ism as sexism. Once we get proper identification down, then we can actually start working on solving the problems we face as a society.