(no subject)
17/11/06 23:08![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
telaryn"Convicted in Absentia":
That's over 3000 words today. I'm satisfied.
Of course today *was* supposed to be a day of backing off the writing in order to pack for our trip tomorrow. *facepalm* I'm so pathetically predictable sometimes.
I did want to mention a discussion I got into another LJ and some thoughts that other comments stirred up. The discussion was about the feminization of heroines -- specifically a lot of the heroines she listed were media heroines of the 90's and 00's. The question was, are the women disempowered at some point by the audience being reminded that they are women through the process of making them mothers? (I'm paraphrasing, probably badly, but I think I'm getting the point across).
Well anyway, after pointing out that the women cited (specifically Scully, Sydney Bristow, Aeryn Sun, Starbuck, and Xena) in most ways became *more* badass after having a child, I made the somewhat bold, obviously pre-caffeinated statement that "the ultimate expression of our humanity is our ability to choose the direction of our lives. The ultimate expression of our gender as women is the ability to bear children." I did qualify it by distinguishing between ability and the actual bearing of children.
But once the caffeine kicked in (and I read some of the other perspectives), it got me thinking. In making a statement like that, I'm coming from an admitted bias of experience. I have a child.
However -- I have several childfree-by-choice women on my friends list. I have several mothers. I have women who are going through hell in the hopes that they might someday conceive.
In making the statement I did, am I saying that they're "not real women"? I hope I'm not. Intellectually it's not what I intended at all. But in reducing the gender question to an issue of plumbing, am I being shortsighted?
I find myself curiously unable to step outside the bias of my own experience on this one. So I'm throwing it out to anyone who wants to chew over it. What defines us as women? Is this a question that's important to answer? Should it be the same for everyone?
Is woman a word that has to have a specific base definition or it loses meaning?
I also want to chew over the heroine question some more, but whoa-tired and whoa-behind on packing. Will try later -- should be fun after eight hours of driving!
| |
56,383 / 100,000 (56.4%) |
That's over 3000 words today. I'm satisfied.
Of course today *was* supposed to be a day of backing off the writing in order to pack for our trip tomorrow. *facepalm* I'm so pathetically predictable sometimes.
I did want to mention a discussion I got into another LJ and some thoughts that other comments stirred up. The discussion was about the feminization of heroines -- specifically a lot of the heroines she listed were media heroines of the 90's and 00's. The question was, are the women disempowered at some point by the audience being reminded that they are women through the process of making them mothers? (I'm paraphrasing, probably badly, but I think I'm getting the point across).
Well anyway, after pointing out that the women cited (specifically Scully, Sydney Bristow, Aeryn Sun, Starbuck, and Xena) in most ways became *more* badass after having a child, I made the somewhat bold, obviously pre-caffeinated statement that "the ultimate expression of our humanity is our ability to choose the direction of our lives. The ultimate expression of our gender as women is the ability to bear children." I did qualify it by distinguishing between ability and the actual bearing of children.
But once the caffeine kicked in (and I read some of the other perspectives), it got me thinking. In making a statement like that, I'm coming from an admitted bias of experience. I have a child.
However -- I have several childfree-by-choice women on my friends list. I have several mothers. I have women who are going through hell in the hopes that they might someday conceive.
In making the statement I did, am I saying that they're "not real women"? I hope I'm not. Intellectually it's not what I intended at all. But in reducing the gender question to an issue of plumbing, am I being shortsighted?
I find myself curiously unable to step outside the bias of my own experience on this one. So I'm throwing it out to anyone who wants to chew over it. What defines us as women? Is this a question that's important to answer? Should it be the same for everyone?
Is woman a word that has to have a specific base definition or it loses meaning?
I also want to chew over the heroine question some more, but whoa-tired and whoa-behind on packing. Will try later -- should be fun after eight hours of driving!
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
18/11/06 04:36 (UTC)We have better orgasms.
... okay, I'm being flip. I would say that what defines our sex is that we are the gestating part of the equation, but that doesn't (for me) define "woman." However, I'm not sure I can come up with a definition at the moment, being as I'm pretty much braindead.
(no subject)
18/11/06 10:30 (UTC)Two X chromosomes.
(no subject)
18/11/06 16:34 (UTC)And I get the original discussion. In the last Superman movie, I was annoyed because they gave Lois a kid. Totally pointless. Did not advance the plot. Interfered with the Intrepid Girl Reporter persona; gods help me, taking the kid along on an investigation? I thought at the time: sixty years, Lois has been on her own, but now it's not good enough. It did, however, give Superman a chance to be annoyingly moony over the kid while he slept. I guess the point was to make him look better, and Lois look conventional.
(no subject)
19/11/06 03:38 (UTC)(no subject)
19/11/06 03:40 (UTC)Does this apply to men, too? Are you only a man if you fertilize an egg? Or are men allowed to not be defined by childbearing? They don't need a quantifier because they're the "normal?" This is a very slippery slope, is what I'm saying.
(no subject)
19/11/06 04:20 (UTC)You say you know you're a woman when you look in the mirror, but biologically speaking, there's a reason we have those defining physical characteristics.
What *elevates* us above the ranks of the animals, though, is our ability to choose whether we put those physical characteristics to the use nature intended them or to something far more enjoyable. I think that holds true for men as well as women.
It is a slippery slope, and it was an interesting response to find I had in me (again, granted, pre-coffee).
I think if you were expanding the argument, it *could* apply to men as well (keeping in mind that I'm only speaking to the *ability* to perform the act, not the act itself). After all, why do they have their particular physical traits if not to make them biologically capable of protecting their mate and providing for their young?
I'm glad you responded, actually, because I need perspective from somebody who comes from a different set of choices.
Fresh question (or possibly same question more coherently phrased): is it important to understand ourselves as women, or is it enough to understand ourselves as individuals?
And completely off topic, I <3 your WW icon *makes grabby hands*.
Even more off topic -- e-mail me with your t-shirt size again, please (women's cut, not standard)? I am actually embarrassed that I don't remember...I know we were sold out of everything even remotely decent in your size this year, but I can't remember what size it was. I'm thinking small, but if you could confirm, that would be great. (yes, I have something up my sleeve).
telaryn at gmail dot com.
(no subject)
19/11/06 06:07 (UTC)And to address your question, Tel, I think it's far more important to understand ourselves as individuals. Because anything else may be casting by society. Figure out ourselves first, and to hell if we fit into Society's mold.