Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 >One huge problem with everything you just said is that women with >autism >can't do about 90% of what you talked about, and by *definition* -- >literally -- men with autism do in fact highly value information in >the >form of perseverative interests. > >So while perhaps your beliefs stand up if you're talking about NTs, >they >don't suit the autistic spectrum at all. Which means that, once >again, it >is a case of NTs having one wiring and ACs having another entirely. > Hi you are right and many Autistic Women actually display masculine traits and many Male Aspies Feminine ones, such as sensitivity etc. hardly ever wears makeup and is very tom boyish. Steve > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 --- gareth wrote: > > > Hi Gareth, > > > > Jesus himself would be called a bum today as he > didn't have a job > at > > all. > > > > Steve > > yes he would. at least untill he showed what else he > could do. > > Gareth > -------If he did, he'd be locked up in a psych ward somewhere and pumped full of drugs. Nanne ===== " Let's go get drunk on light again---it has the power to console. " -- Seurat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 > > > Hi Gareth, > > > > > > Jesus himself would be called a bum today as he > > didn't have a job > > at > > > all. > > > > > > Steve > > > > yes he would. at least untill he showed what else he > > could do. > > > > Gareth > > > -------If he did, he'd be locked up in a psych ward > somewhere and pumped full of drugs. not in india or old style Tibet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 wrote: >I do not have a brain that is constructed like a typical male brain. >I'm glad of that. I feel more gender neutral than male. I feel more gender neutral than female, even though I'm completely " normal " in biological sex characteristics. Like you, , it's the brain that makes the difference. >... I find most of the >stereotyped male behaviors to be fully unacceptable, and in no way do I >wish to be " a man " if that is what men are. I find many stereotyped female behaviors like fingernails on a blackboard. Other stereotyped female behaviors seem to be characteristics of " cherished subservience " and objectionable on that basis. And many " normal " " female " charcteristics (the sort of thing that comes up when someone says " Women do ____ " " Women think _____ " " Women like _______ " etc.) are merely alien for me. I never rank as " a woman " by those standards. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 Clay wrote: >(That's all I got, I'm still tired from dealing with another >outrageously ignorant " super-aspie " on another list.) 8<{) ROTFL! When I read the above, all I could think of was " It's a bird, it's a plane, no......it's.......SUPER-ASPIE!!! " I just thought it was funny! :-D Take care, Gail :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 > wrote: > >I do not have a brain that is constructed like a typical male brain. > >I'm glad of that. I feel more gender neutral than male. > I feel more gender neutral than female, even though I'm > completely " normal " in biological sex characteristics. > Like you, , it's the brain that makes the difference. I don't well understand the concept of an identity that is based in femaleness (or maleness, or gender-neutrality), but as far as I've heard lists of " male-brained traits " and " female-brained traits " I fall mostly on the male end. I feel the effects of female hormonal fluctuations though. -- " It's a handy trick, to have the oppressed play violins at the entrance way to new captivity. " -Dave Hingsburger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 From: " gareth " Saturday, August 09, 2003 3:38 PM > > Hi Gareth, > > > > Jesus himself would be called a bum today as he didn't have a job > at > > all. > > > > Steve > > yes he would. at least untill he showed what else he could do. > > Gareth True...then he could start a career as a televangelist ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 Miko715@... danced around singing: > > wrote: > > >I do not have a brain that is constructed like a typical male brain. > > >I'm glad of that. I feel more gender neutral than male. >Jane said: > > I feel more gender neutral than female, even though I'm > > completely " normal " in biological sex characteristics. > > Like you, , it's the brain that makes the difference. > >Agreed, myself as well, yes. Same here... I've got the biological sex characteristics, but zero leanings towards being 'female' behaviorally. It's not because my parents didn't encourage me to be more girly when I was little, just because it's not how I am. I don't understand why people are attracted to anybody they don't have a deep emotional bond with, as I don't have that kind of interest for men (or women) unless I'm already extremely attached... I didn't even identify with being *human* until I met others on the spectrum and realized that we're a different kind of human. I remember being irritated when I was perseverating on role-playing games on my computer as a pre-teen and the newer games wouldn't let me have a character with the gender of " other " rather than " male " or " female. " I didn't want to be either gender! Incidentally, what is the meaning of the term that has been used in reference to the fellow in charge of Autreat? Does that mean " other " or...? DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy " It's not 'being fussy' -- it's knowing what you want. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 > > > > > That's all I got, I'm still tired from dealing with another > > outrageously ignorant " super-aspie " on another list.) 8<{) > > > > What is a " super-aspie? " Hi Jeanette, Well, not many here would have " got " the reference, but there used to be someone on another list with the screen name, " Superaspie@... " , (something like that), and he was bounced for spewing a lot of nonsense about how aspies were actually superior to NTs, were going to take over the world, (shades of " Pinky and the Brain " ), with a lot of racism and sexism thrown in, to boot. The guy was so arrogant and boastful about how intelligent he was, (though you couldn't tell it by his spelling), and when someone would try to pin him down to prove some outrageously stupid thing he had said, he just ignored them and went off on another rant. If you want to analyze it, it was all over-compensation, of course. I don't know what ever it was that happened to him in his life, but he was certainly embittered, and wanted to feel better than *somebody*, so he made himself out to be " better " than all these other groups of people. I guess he was looking for somebody to agree with him, but he didn't find any there. Everyone got so annoyed with his arrogance and belligerence, that they stopped talking to him. He dropped out, and I don't know what happened to him. Clay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 > > wrote: > > >I do not have a brain that is constructed like a typical male brain. > > >I'm glad of that. I feel more gender neutral than male. >Jane said: > > I feel more gender neutral than female, even though I'm > > completely " normal " in biological sex characteristics. > > Like you, , it's the brain that makes the difference. > Yes, I feel the same way- I have more male interests than female. The only girly side comes out when I decorate- I like green, florals and n things. I think this discussion proves that women and men are almost the same ( except for some obvious things!) - they just choose to be different. A lot of aspies here are gender neutral or have more " opposite gender " interests. Aspies go with thier hearts, unaware or unconcered about the miserable NT " gender norms " that are imposed on society. In that way, it is shown that if people had free choice they would be androgenous a lot of the time. The " gender norms " are a law given to us by the patriarch. Since they are so obsessed that women and men MUST be different ( or the men would be women), these stupid rules govern society. Women are forced to get rail thin (female invisibility to make fearful men more comfortable), wear make-up to cover thier real faces, and remove all body hair- just so that they will create and accentuate the " differences " of males and females. A lot of traditional female dress, attitude, etc. is imposed upon women as a badge of servitude. Example: Skirts: Did you know that in ancent times women wore skirts to keep them from running away from thier men? High Heels: Like chinese feet binding, designed to limit female movement and accentuate parts of the female body, objectifying it and giving pleasure to men. Female submissiveness is intoduced long before purberty - " be a good girl " , " girls are ment to be seen and not heard " . Little girls are punished more often and much more severely for similar offenses than boys are in elemenary school. Boys are told they need to be winners, and girls are told they need to be sweet, pleasant, submissive, " feminine " . ICK!!! and it's enforced later in life - " Are you good enough for him? " , " men are strong, women are bitches " Blah, Blah, Blah. Fuck it all. I was told once that I'd make a good guy. I have a somewhat feminine appearance in the sence of curves and small boned. On occasion I wear feminine things that I like ( not heels, and rarely a skirt unless it has free movement). My androgeny can be confusing to NTs and it's fun. One day I was renting a room from a friend and helping her with repairs to the house ( I 'm a fair handywoman). I went into the kitchen in a pink lacy thing, and said " I need to charge my Makita " in my usual deep, blunt tone, holding my drill. My friend laughed hysterically. It wasn't at me- that's for sure. She thought it was unique and funny- dressed so feminine acting so male! Jeanette PS: My feminist ideas come from many sources like Marilyn French, Dworkin (early work), Gloria Steinem, in case you were wondering. Feminism is one of my strong interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 > > From: " gareth " > Saturday, August 09, 2003 3:38 PM > > > > > Hi Gareth, > > > > > > Jesus himself would be called a bum today as he didn't have a job > > at > > > all. > > > > > > Steve > > > > yes he would. at least untill he showed what else he could do. > > > > Gareth > > True...then he could start a career as a televangelist ). > > quite!! indeed, yes :-0) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 > > > > > > That's all I got, I'm still tired from dealing with another > > > outrageously ignorant " super-aspie " on another list.) 8<{) > > > > > > What is a " super-aspie? " > > Hi Jeanette, > Well, not many here would have " got " the reference, > but there used to be someone on another list with > the screen name, " Superaspie@A... " , (something > like that), and he was bounced for spewing a lot of > nonsense about how aspies were actually superior to > NTs, were going to take over the world, (shades of > " Pinky and the Brain " ), with a lot of racism and > sexism thrown in, to boot. The guy was so arrogant > and boastful about how intelligent he was, (though > you couldn't tell it by his spelling), and when someone > would try to pin him down to prove some outrageously > stupid thing he had said, he just ignored them and > went off on another rant. > > If you want to analyze it, it was all over-compensation, > of course. I don't know what ever it was that happened > to him in his life, but he was certainly embittered, and > wanted to feel better than *somebody*, so he made himself > out to be " better " than all these other groups of people. > I guess he was looking for somebody to agree with him, but > he didn't find any there. Everyone got so annoyed with his > arrogance and belligerence, that they stopped talking to him. > He dropped out, and I don't know what happened to him. > > Clay he changed his name to gtlee1000@... (only joking!) :-o) Gareth (really :-)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 apart from wondering where the idea that patriarchies developed with the advent of agrarian society (nomadic tribes have this too) I wondered just how idyllic a matriarch would really be.  http://www.promatriarchy.net/essentials/mosuo.html This sounds like bliss for the females, but then i think about the bitch packs i have encountered and i wonder what would happen to anyone who failed to conform, and this is a highly conformist, rigid group.  personally i would have been up shit creek there, as i prefered dark clothing even when i was young, and i could not have lived communally.  i have rarely enjoyed the company of women, as most seem so inspired to destroy difference if it is not the particular brand of difference they support.  men generally appear to be more accepting, although the barefoot and pregnant brigade does still exist. i note that this group is not about equal rights at all.  the males appear to be drones sexually as well as in the workforce.  it does appear to be a gentle society, and then i wonder if it really is, or have they got those guys by the goolies so that they are actually very effectively suppressed. there is also this group: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-05/uop-imm050902.php Sounds lovely, but i note that there is a contradiction: " Social prestige accrues to those who promote good relations by following the dictates of custom and religion. " then at the end of the article, referring to the adoption of islam as the religion, " Had the Minangkabau chosen to fight rather than to accommodate the numerous influences that impinged on their world over the centuries, had they chosen to assert cultural purity, no doubt their 'adat' would have long ago succumbed. The moral of the Minangkabau story is that accommodating differences can preserve a world " (from Women in the Center).  interestingly, they actually did fight when islam was first introduced.  these things are only small, but they bother me, because i think the authors are not telling the whole story.  They do not refer to the way same sex relationships are addressed, nor the methods of conflict resolution.  they make no mention of the disciplinary measures of those societies.  people are predators.  i don't think these descriptions really explain examples of matriarchies well.  actually,  i think we are only beginning to overide natural predator behaviour because basic needs are so easily met now.  roll on socialism. > >Message: 3 >  Date: 09 Aug 2003 02:33:09 -0700 >  >Subject: Re: Multi-rant > > > >> Equality is false as it is taken to mean something different to what >> the word actually means. As most people have been arguing in the >> previous posts, it is now taken to mean in a nutshell " theres no >> difference3 beetween men and women " > >No, we're just saying men and women have more overlap within a wide >range of (heterogenous) possibilities than you think.  Of course there >are differences.  You act like more exist than really do.  And you're >strawmanning all over the place. > > > >-- > " Disability inspiration is a form of propaganda that glosses over >oppression while simultaneously reassuring normals about the superiority >of their ways. " - B. > > > >Subject: Re: Multi-rant- Gareth, feminism and the patriarch > > >> > Ill leave the rest of your post, because you were >> > expressing an >> > opinion, without having a go at me. This is fine by >> > me. Above, >> > however, you seem to imply that i am so wrong, so as >> > not to >> > neccessitate a response. Well, for one, have you >> > ever though that he >> > might actually like being called a nigger? >> >> --------I think I'll join your brand of thinking, and >> start calling you an Asshole --- is that okay? >> >> Ah, Gareth,  >> >> You are under the Patriarchal illusion.  Being a stanch, strong >feminist myself (not the fun kind!), I am unmoved by your >misogynistic, hatelful, racist rants and see through it all to what >the real issue is and who you really are.  You are overflowing with >hate, but you must mostly hate yourself.  Your extremely limited view >of masculinity does not allow you to exprience full humanity.  You >must be afraid and very insecure. >> >> And I feel sorry for you.  No self- respecting woman would accept >the sort of logic you throw out. >> >> The patriarch originated 10,000 years ago or so, as agriculture >came into being and hunting waned off.  Some small, fearful and >insecure men were terrified that they would cease to exist, and >wondered what they were good for- they could not give birth, hunting >was less important, now what?!  They were jealous and terrified of >women's ability to give life.  Instead of seeing how they could >contribute to life, and as equals, they made up thier own club- " the >boys hunting club " and decided they had to define themselves as anti- >woman. They chose to define themselves as " unwoman " or non-birth or >non-nurturing, and took the opposite of all those things.  So they >then called themselves " men " and defined " manhood " , thinking that was >the only way they could exist. >> >> Everything that involved rearing a child and giving birth, as THEY >saw it - was only " woman " .  The opposite of that then is " man " .  >Since nurtuing, creation, emotion, etc. is involved in child rearing, >they said men are un-nurturing, destructive, unemotional, etc.  Of >course, they decided that men were better than women, since they were >in fact fearful and insecure and were desperately compensating for >thier feelings of smallness.  >> >> In fact, women became not even human in thier eyes, were objects to >be used by them since they thought were " better " , in fact they >thought they were gods.  Interesting, how Goddesses started to be >replaced by gods, around the time of the rise of the patriarch. >> >> So, simply having a peins is not enough in the good ol' boys club.  >Driven by an insane fear that is totally unbased, males had to prove >they were " men " or they were not accepted as men, and were treated >like " women " -abused, slaves and servents to men- " penetrated " .  Less >than animals. >> >> The Patriarchal sceme goes like this: To prove " manhood " requires a >series of harder and more ridiculous trials, until one " top man " is >found out of all the men, and he becomes thier leader.  " Initiation " >into " manhood " is done at puberty, and noted by brutality, much like >the hazing that frat boys do to eachother.  A " man " can tough it >out.  If a boy cries or shows any weakness, he is treated like >a " girl " and either ostrisized or put at the bottom of the pecking >order.  Initiation is a sort of " birth through the male " - the only >way a " man " can give " life " , and when a male is accepted into the >club he becomes human in thier eyes. >> >> Also, a very important gateway into the boys club involves >intercourse.  Not " making love " - it is about controling a woman and  >hurting her in some fashion through a sexual relationship, to prove >he is in control of woman- and all that is " female " .  Most of the >time it involves deception- not careing about a woman and saying you >do.  Cheating and degrading woman is important to prove you are >a " man " - according to the patriarchal rules.  When a boy has >intercouse, and " survives " with his " manhood " intact, ie, in control, >and remains uncaring or at least unattached, he has proven to himself >and his buddies that he is indeed a " man " and is accepted into the >club. >> >> All that is " female " is then degraded, less than human, destroyed, >excluded. >> >> It goes to the extreme of excluding/ (and controlling) all that >is " female " - banishing it- because they are terrified that if it >gets " too close " to them (ie, they actually realize she IS human and >start to care, or even have a feeling other than anger), they may >become " women " and cease to be human- or be " men " . >> >> An example is the Taliban-  those rotten, worthless SOB's are so >hateful and fearful of the " female " that a woman must cover all parts >of her body or be severly beaten.  Women are not allowed to do >ANYTHING- hold a job, GO OUT without a male presence, or even laugh!  >> >> Since the entire patriarch is founded in fear and an illusion >of " manhood " , this fallecy must be proven over and over and over.  >The " top dog " is challenged over and over.  Patriarchal systems are >marked by hierarchy, destruction and deception- and anti-feminine >themes.  The patriarch is not concerned about life or human survival- >it is concerend about being the top man, the top of everything >sparing no cost. >> >> The result is this evil and rotten patriarchal society we live in. >The govenment, corporate america, etc. are all based on patriarchal >themes. The Patriarch is the root of all evil- in my opinion. It's >all about who's better than, who's getting ahead, who's gonna have >all the power. They don't care who they hurt in the process- they >don't even care for thier own survival in the long- run.  If they can >be the top dog, that's it.  It's very destructive and disgusting- and >unnatural. >> >> Did you ever notice that the more " macho " a culture is, the more >messed up it is- the more violence, illness, and problems they have?  >Do you ever wonder why screwing over someone is so common- even >preferred?  Everyone wants to be at the top, instead of trying to >live as equals- as a human family, helping eachother instead of >always trying to stab eachother in the back. __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 Jane, How does one pronounce those pronouns? Is the x pronounced like a " z " as in the first x of Xerox? Re: Multi-rant >...Incidentally, what is the meaning of the >term that has been used in reference to the fellow in charge of >Autreat? Does that mean " other " or...? Yes, it means " other. " Intersexual. If I were at work, I could give you the URL for xyr [non-gendered pronoun form for his/her] web site. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 > I remember being irritated when I was perseverating on role-playing games > on my computer as a pre-teen and the newer games wouldn't let me have a > character with the gender of " other " rather than " male " or " female. " I > didn't want to be either gender! Incidentally, what is the meaning of the > term that has been used in reference to the fellow in charge of > Autreat? Does that mean " other " or...? Yes. Jim Sinclair is intersexed. While in many people this means having physical characteristics of both male and female or somewhere in between male and female, xe was born with characteristics of *neither* male *nor* female. Xe uses the pronouns " xe, xyr, xem, xyrs, " if I recall correctly (equivalent to " she/he, her/his, her/him, hers/his " ). This is discussed at the bottom of xyr website: http://www.jimsinclair.org/ where there is a whole section on intersexuality. I also think xyr website should be on your list of good introductory autism-positive sites. -- " Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer. " -Bruce Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 > The " gender norms " are a law given to us by the patriarch. Since they > are so obsessed that women and men MUST be different ( or the men > would be women), these stupid rules govern society. Women are forced > to get rail thin (female invisibility to make fearful men more > comfortable) Then the patriarch must be a really recent invention, because standards for female beauty are different across cultures and have changed toward " rail-thin " very recently (within the lifetime of some of the people on this mailing list, I'll bet). > A lot of traditional female dress, attitude, etc. is imposed upon > women as a badge of servitude. Example: Skirts: > Did you know that in ancent times women wore skirts to keep them from > running away from thier men? In ancient times *men* wore skirts. > Female submissiveness is intoduced long before purberty - " be a good > girl " , " girls are ment to be seen and not heard " . Little girls are > punished more often and much more severely for similar offenses than > boys are in elemenary school. Boys are told they need to be winners, > and girls are told they need to be sweet, pleasant, submissive, > " feminine " . ICK!!! Boys are also systematically trained out of showing their feelings, looking " effeminate, " being anything other than super-macho. > My androgeny can be confusing to NTs and it's fun. One day I was > renting a room from a friend and helping her with repairs to the house > ( I 'm a fair handywoman). I went into the kitchen in a pink lacy > thing, and said " I need to charge my Makita " in my usual deep, blunt > tone, holding my drill. My friend laughed hysterically. It wasn't at > me- that's for sure. She thought it was unique and funny- dressed so > feminine acting so male! That's what my mom's like, sort of. She upholds a lot of the female codes for dress and behavior, but few to none of the ones for things like that kind of role. So she'll be running around in feminine clothing acting generally feminine and swinging an ax or lugging a chainsaw around. (Unfortunately, she's had very little power tool safety instruction until I *insisted* she ask for some after she sliced her little finger nearly in half trying to catch a chainsaw she'd dropped after carrying it up a *ladder* to use it to cut something that didn't need a chainsaw anyway. So she'd better have had some by now, because I know she's back to work on the house. And I'm betting a lot of the reason nobody bothered to teach her safety is because she's female and nobody expected her to be using these tools. It's why they wouldn't let her train as an architect, too.) -- " In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our minds. In loyalty to our kind, we cannot tolerate their obstruction. " -Jefferson Airplane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 Sorry Clay didn't know you were that old :-) Jesus was a Carpenters Son. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 > How does one pronounce those pronouns? Is the x pronounced like a " z " > as in the first x of Xerox? Yes. X is pronounced like Z. Xe rhymes with he. Xyr rhymes with her. Xem rhymes with them. -- A revolving concretion of earthy or mineral matter accumulates no congeries of small, green bryophytic plant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 >...Incidentally, what is the meaning of the >term that has been used in reference to the fellow in charge of >Autreat? Does that mean " other " or...? Yes, it means " other. " Intersexual. If I were at work, I could give you the URL for xyr [non-gendered pronoun form for his/her] web site. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 > Sorry Clay didn't know you were that old :-) > > Jesus was a Carpenters Son. > > Steve The word over here is that he was a carpenter. Why not look it up? Get some facts. Clay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 On Saturday, August 9, 2003 16:16 -0700 Jeanette wrote: > Unfortunately, she's had very little power tool > safety instruction until I *insisted* she ask for some after she sliced > her little finger nearly in half trying to catch a chainsaw she'd > dropped after carrying it up a *ladder* to use it to cut something that > didn't need a chainsaw anyway. aaack! I hope she wasn't hurt too badly. This suggests more than a lack of safety instruction. What you described is so obviously dangerous that it would suggest either an overall lack of appreciation of her own mortality or a reckless disregard for it. > So she'd better have had some by now, > because I know she's back to work on the house. And I'm betting a lot > of the reason nobody bothered to teach her safety is because she's > female and nobody expected her to be using these tools. It's why they > wouldn't let her train as an architect, too.) It goes both ways. They don't teach guys how to cook or sew. What's up with that? I knew that was bogus back when I was in school I took " shop " with the rest of the boys and the girls all got " home ec " . I wanted to take both, because I knew I'd need both sets of skills, but that wasn't an option. Ride the Music AndyTiedye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 AndyTiedye wrote: > It goes both ways. They don't teach guys how to cook or sew. When I was in the 7th grade, all boys took cooking and sewing with all the girls, and all girls take wood shop and drafting with the boys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 Andytiedye wrote: It goes both ways. They don't teach guys how to cook or sew. What's up with that? Actually, it DOESN'T go both ways. My uncle learned how to sew by taking a sewing class at one of those material stores. He told me the women encouraged him, supported him, helped him out. Also, did you ever stop to think how many chefs are male? Men DISCOURAGE other men from taking these courses, saying sewing is " woman's work " , or that guys that do that are " sissies " . Your school probably didn't offer it because they figured no one would be interested, and of course they want to keep social norms up. I'm sure if you look around now, you'll be able to find a class somewhere. Jeanette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 Jeanette wrote: >> The " gender norms " are a law given to us by the patriarch. Since they >> are so obsessed that women and men MUST be different ( or the men >> would be women), these stupid rules govern society. Women are forced >> to get rail thin (female invisibility to make fearful men more >> comfortable) and responded: >Then the patriarch must be a really recent invention, because standards >for female beauty are different across cultures and have changed toward > " rail-thin " very recently (within the lifetime of some of the people on >this mailing list, I'll bet). There's a theory that men-in-power (definitely a sub-set of the gender as a whole) impose on " their women " whatever appearance the time-period accepts as proof of wealth. So, when s was painting, for example, a wealthy man's wife would show his wealth by being " eseque " (what today would be called fat). He could afford to buy her lots of food and let her live a life of leisure rather than hard work. Her size proclaimed his wealth to the world. These days, lower-class women are likely to be bigger (because of the food available, mostly, which provides more bulk than nutrition if it's cheap food affordable by poor people), whereas rich women (rich men's wives) can afford expensive diet foods and memberships in gyms and hours spent on their bodies instead of work (in- home or out). Because " everyone " aspires to upper-class values, even those who are not rich want " their women " to be thin now, and women have taken on the value system, too. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2003 Report Share Posted August 9, 2003 > I have no idea whether any of the bear-making men took > sewing or " Home Ec " at school. May depend on their age, > more than anything else. > > Jane When I was in 7th grade, '58/'59, one of the classes was separated into 4 groups. We took a class in music for a quarter of the year, then crafts, then home ec, then art. The home ec part only covered sewing, when I could have used some help learning to cook for myself. Clay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.