Idealism rears its ineffective head
Apr. 16th, 2008 08:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
clarentineA New York Magazine article (http://nymag.com/news/features/46011/, linked to recently on a friend's blog) included the following passage: "For women in clubby, male-dominated industries, like banking and consulting, the objective is often to appear more masculine (and ward off the suspicion that you will someday procreate and thus become professionally unviable). “They cultivate a hard edge, pressing to be more masculine in their manner and the way they deal with people,” the management consultant told me."
Am I alone in objecting to the either-or nature of this behavioral equation? I fear it may be pure idealism on my part to wish we ("we") would stop defining behavior in such a polarizing manner. I would like very much for people to stop saying, in effect, "Assertiveness is a male characteristic" and change that statement around to "Male behavior often includes assertiveness." It is inappropriate shorthand, in my opinion, to say "masculine" when you mean certain behaviors often, but not exclusively, associated with males.
Perhaps this is why so much of my fiction revolves around gender issues. (You think?)
Anyway, I had to get that thought off my chest. I doubt the issue will ever be settled--certainly not in my generation--since it is human nature not to pursue or accept change unless the status quo is actively painful, but it doesn't hurt to discuss the topic from time to time. Or even hit them over the head with it occasionally, eh?
Am I alone in objecting to the either-or nature of this behavioral equation? I fear it may be pure idealism on my part to wish we ("we") would stop defining behavior in such a polarizing manner. I would like very much for people to stop saying, in effect, "Assertiveness is a male characteristic" and change that statement around to "Male behavior often includes assertiveness." It is inappropriate shorthand, in my opinion, to say "masculine" when you mean certain behaviors often, but not exclusively, associated with males.
Perhaps this is why so much of my fiction revolves around gender issues. (You think?)
Anyway, I had to get that thought off my chest. I doubt the issue will ever be settled--certainly not in my generation--since it is human nature not to pursue or accept change unless the status quo is actively painful, but it doesn't hurt to discuss the topic from time to time. Or even hit them over the head with it occasionally, eh?
Re: Were you in my kitchen this morning?
Date: 2008-04-17 12:18 pm (UTC)The conundrum, of course, is in balancing the need to deconstruct society's gendering of characteristics with the reader's desire to enjoy the story. I have a character who deliberately exploits gender issues (well, to an extent; I need to push harder on this, I think) for her own advantage. I have knowingly, with forethought, set up my opening scenes with this character such that no pronoun is used to give away her gender until the very end of the scene...and I keep getting confused comments from my readers. Sure, I'm making them think about their assumptions, but am I in the process doing a disservice to the reader and the book?
I could say that their reactions show not that my concept is flawed but rather that I need to do a better job of executing it. I'm not sure I believe that, though.
::steals another piece of strawberry toast::