Some housekeeping

I thought I was done with the "Gay-Hatin' Gospel" series, but it seems not quite. First there are some questions and criticisms I'll need to address, and then there are a host of other factors and considerations that I hadn't thought of which arose in the comment threads.

In particular, Brel raised an excellent point about the way the obsession with homosexuality in evangelical churches is another manifestation (or, they would say, another "battlefront") in those churches' agenda of "supporting and reinforcing traditional gender roles." E.J. Graff seconds this point in a TPM Cafe essay titled "Trannies & lezzies & gays, oh my":

When there is discrimination against, or recoil from, lesbians and gay men, it’s not just because we fall in love with others of the same sex. It’s because we don’t neatly fit our gender identities; we’re often “genderqueer” as well. Our girls tend to be boyish; our boys tend to be girly. Not always, and not all of us. But gay men and lesbians who “pass” -- who are “straight-acting,” in the terminology, who more closely fit sex stereotypes (like me, despite my short hair) -- run into the least trouble on the job. It’s the fey men (and, depending on the situation, the butch women) who run into trouble. And that’s the ground on which they need the most protection: gender identity.

That deserves more attention and consideration, so I'll try to get to that soon.

- - - - - - - - -

The consensus on using Intense Debate (a program designed to enhance comment sections) seems to be that while some of the features would be neat, more bells & whistles would mainly mean more hoops to jump through, so I'll try to err on the side of simplicity and say No, thank you, to their kind offer.

I will, however, continue to beg Typepad to upgrade the built-in comments function here. In particular, I'll keep asking for 1) the option of editing one's own comments after posting them; 2) the possibility of threading comments in longer discussions; and, especially, 3) the ability to close html tags in subsequent posts so that older and longer threads don't have to gravitate toward all bold, all italic ugliness.

- - - - - - - - -

Please note that the previous post is titled "Go read hilzoy." This is something I say a lot here, and would probably say even more often if I posted more frequently.

That's something you should probably consider if you're wondering who to vote for in the 2007 Weblog Awards under the category of Best of the Top 1001-1750 Blogs.

It is, as they say (through clenched teeth), an honor just to be nominated. But I'm voting for Obsidian Wings. (Although Echidne of the Snakes is currently the top vote-getter, and those voters aren't wrong either.)

Comments

[hapax]

Fred, I'm sad you didn't get nominated for "Best Online Community." Perhaps we should send the nominators links to the Inigo Montoya thread. Or some of Jesurgislac's baking.

(Actually, I was puzzled by a lot of nominations. Not so much for who was included, but those who were left off. But isn't that always the way?)

[Angelika]

Why actually is our society so awfully concerned about gender? It seems to me, that in most ways we relate with other people, gender is irrelevant: E.g. it really does not matter for the quality of the groceries, if the cashierer in the supermarket is male or female, the scientific value of a paper on earthworms is not depended on the gender of the author(s), and when leading a conversation on most hot political topics, e.g. the Iraq War or the Farm Bill, the gender of the discussion partner is of considerable less interest than their political affiliation. Actually, even most activities I engage in with my husband (e.g. cooking or talking together) would be still enjoyable, if he were a close female friend. (Though admittedly, I wouldn't kiss that female friend quite as often in the process.)

[not_scottbot]

Angelika -
from your name and somewhat remembered information, you didn't grow up in the U.S.

America rests on a number of paradoxes, and one of them is the need to freely follow harsh conformity, since if people didn't, freedom would evaporate. And those people who don't conform are a danger to freedom, and thus need to be reformed or destroyed to protect the decency at the core of America.

Germans refer to America as the land of 'unlimited possiblities' - they are quite mistaken in the sense of how deeply some 'American' values are felt. The debate about 'illegals' provides some of the flavor of what I mean. Interestingly, in the earlier 90s, when anti-foreigner attitudes were swelling in Germany, one of the commonly seen slogans was 'No person is illegal' - a point which would likely lead to incomprehension in the U.S.

[not_scottbot]

'commonly seen slogans' - against the anti-foreigner perspective. Another slogan was 'Everyone is a foreigner, almost everywhere' (Alle Menschen sind Ausländer. Fast überall).

But this idea. of a larger world is another part of common European perspectives that is almost utterly lacking in the U.S.

[Toby]

Angelika,

Our society is so awfully concerned with gender because almost everyone has almost always been awfully concerned with gender. You say, "It seems to me, that in most ways we relate with other people, gender is irrelevant", but an important component of our relations with each other is the evaluation of character, and gender makes a difference there. Maybe it shouldn't, but it almost always does. E.g., aggressive behaviour as seen as much more negative in women than in men. Even us enlightened liberals are liable to biases here, though we might not be aware of it. If that's not true of you, then you are an exceptional exception.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

This is admittedly off-topic, but there appears to be a Scott posting at Making Light under a plethora of sockpuppets. The style is very similar, we had our suspicions, but the bit where he says "Bsds, Slcktvst s lt mr fn. f y wnt rl prsn wh s bynd blf, chck t th wrld's mst Cmpssntly Whckd t Lbrl Lbrtrn (TM). t lst t Slcktvst, w ll thnk h s rl prsn - hrd s tht mght b t mgn t tms, h hs dstnctv styl ll hs wn." is sort of the clincher. (Well, when he said it, it had vowels in it, of course.)

Would Scott's designated handlers please come take him in hand, rehabilitate him, and release him back in his proper territory?

I suppose it could be someone talking about Scott in Scott-like terms. Maybe it's a troll who learned from Scott.

[Spalanzani]

So Scott has disciples to whom he imparts his trolling teaching? So he's kinda like the troll version of Mr. Miyagi in The Karate Kid , or that crazy old Chinese guy from Kill Bill Vol.II .

[Jeff]

Nicole, that was fun to re-envowel. Thanks.

I'd vote for ObWi over most liberal blogs because intelligent opposition is encouraged. We've managed to convince OCSteve on a number of issues, where most places he would just turn away in disgust.

[magistra]

One of the basic reasons gender is seen as so significant is that a male/female difference is built into most languages: there is a verbal difference between 'she said/he said', 'il dit/elle dit' etc. If you are going to talk about a person, you therefore need to know if they are male or female. So if (as I sometimes did) you dress your baby girl in a way that she looks like a baby boy, and people say 'what a beautiful boy' or 'How old is he?', you have to correct them implicitly or explicitly, which is always liable to produce social awkwardness. As a result, even with a commitment to gender equality, there is a tendency to end up putting small children in more 'correct' clothing, which leads to reinforcing stereotypes etc.

I'm not sure if there are (non-European) languages which do not make such gender distinctions and how that might affect social relations there.

[not_scottbot]

Nicole -
as I skipped from posting from Making Light to here (after noting the subtext of my changing names as Scottbot/not_scottbot, and my interests in torture made in the USA), it is good to see that you checked how IP addresses aren't very reliable. Especially when someone decides ahead of time who is guilty and who isn't, a pet peeve of mine.

As Scottbot of the many names, no one has ever called me a hydra or troll here, and my reference to the whacked liberal Scott was just for fun - Scott being a rabid anti-liberal. Actually, I'll confess to a certain hope that someone would pick up 'liberal' and 'Scott' in the same phrase, and really start ranting - unfortunately, the rants were at how the troll had been exposed and slayed in triumph.

Watching the cascade that came from one person atttempting to merely point out that deletion based on false assumptions is annoying, watching the growth of a vast Internet conspiracy in a couple of fairly insular Internet forums is fascinating.

And sadly, for all his flaws, Scott remains the sort of poster that actually deserves his right to post - though his subject(s?) and tone are giggle inducing (they send Scottbot into paroxysms of electronic bliss), he remains within civilized borders in general. And his style is unique - it may be possible to poorly parody in a robotic form, but as several people here have noted in the attempt, it is impossible to duplicate.

The baying of the mob is growing ever more loud in the U.S., and even people who think they oppose it are growing accustomed to its embrace - as Patrick noted, crazy is catching.

This isn't just Internet specific - the growing 'debate' about 'illegals' is starting to grow frightening, at least from the outside, and many of the people demanding actions are far from the educated Internet using individuals that read and post here.

Generally, this attempt to live in some sort vast story seems to spring a society drenched in Hollywood fantasy for generations.

And this is the same society that is bombing for peace, torturing for freedom, and going into debt for wealth.

It should be possible to learn to ignore it, but that seems sadly impossible - watching the coming crack up from the outside is just too entrancing. I have an unhealthy desire to say 'told you so' to people blinded by their own certainties.

Unfortunately, just as you have a number of IP addresses that exceed mine, the fact that I skip between two Internet forums will likely be seen as further definitive proof that the hydra is obsessively following what is happening.

So what - I have been obsessively commenting on torture, data privacy and its relation to a police state, and no one seems to care. Post about a trivial incident of deletion and watch the outrage fly.

And I'm sure that what was ve written during a break (I live in Germany) will be misinterpreted - as noted, I have no control over what other people think or believe.

[not_scottbot]

magistra-
Actually, there is a trick possible in English to avoid gender, one that I have been using since the late 1970s, when in first appeared as a way to solve exactly this dilemna. It is possible to use 'they' as a singular, and for most American English speakers, it sounds natural enough, even if most formal grammar authorities consider it 'false.'

'How are they doing?' when referring to a single child, for example, avoids the gender problem while not sounding utterly artificial.

Of course, in a language like German, where gender also influences the word itself (driver - Fahrer/Fahrerin), this trick really doesn't apply.

[A Texan in Bavaria]

I'm wondering how my German boyfriend is going to take all the talk back in Texas this Christmas about "illegals" and possible "solutions" to the problem... sometimes it scares *me* a bit, and I grew up there, accustomed to occasionally hearing blatantly racist talk.

Am I right to perceive that there are things that some Germans think, but most of these won't say, simply because the fear of "that" ever happening again is so thoroughly instilled that anything vaguely eliminationist is taboo?

I think my boyfriend understands that Americans, especially Southerners, are much more comfortable expressing any racist or nationalistic thoughts they might have than Germans would be.

(or am I just having excessive "meet the parents" fears?)

[treeandleafster]

German attempts at non-gender specific language all end up looking a bit forced, to my mind: particularly the ghastly 'StudentInnen' (etc). But I'm not sure I like the -ierende solution, either. The student chaplaincies have taken to calling themselves 'Evangelische Studierendegemeinden' rather than 'Studentengemeinden', which to my (non-native) ear sounds as if they're some sort of study group or seminary. But such are the problems of a language with genders: and it is a real problem, I just can't think of a decent solution.

Maybe we should just all start speaking Finnish?

[Tonio]

"It’s the fey men (and, depending on the situation, the butch women) who run into trouble."

Dumb question - is that behavior innate? Is the behavior a deliberate choice, a tactic to fit in with the gay or lesbian subculture? Or is it some of both? My wife and mother-in-law used to watch Christopher Lowell, and Lowell's feyness was so exaggerated that I was convinced that it was all an act. I expected Lowell to talk like Joe Pesci when the cameras were off. Keep in mind that I don't seem to have gaydar - I've never knowingly met a gay person, although I've met at least four people who I learned were gay, sometimes years later.

[not_scottbot]

'Am I right to perceive that there are things that some Germans think, but most of these won't say, simply because the fear of "that" ever happening again is so thoroughly instilled that anything vaguely eliminationist is taboo?'

This is actually impossible to answer, but I would hazard to guess, that since this is not actually a theoretical or slippery slope discussion in Germany, that you will find that most people have a fairly strong opinion that killing innocent people for any reason is wrong. You will find exceptions, of course, but you will not find very many people who have not deeply considered the question, in terms of themselves, their parents, or their grandparents.

And much like the single way to ensure that you never drink alcohol again is to never drink alcohol again, for any reason, this sense of something preventing even the most minor consideration of the subject, apart from rejecting it absolutely, certainly exists. Personally, after what the U.S. did in Vietnam, I wish we had a bit more of it, but as loudly proclaimed at the start of the Iraq war in the early 1990s (yes, it is the same war), America overcame the Vietnam Syndrome. With luck, Germany will never get over its 'syndrome.'

Admittedly, this applies to West Germans - I have little information to share about East Germans in terms of much personal discussion, at least in this regard. In terms of pacificism, the East Germans are equally pacifistic as West Germans in general. In terms of tolerance, East Germany is Eastern European, not Western.

[not_scottbot]

Another quick note about German attitudes in terms of the southern U.S. - my German wife was shocked to see my race on my birth certificate - from a state which provided a number of slave holding presidents. She could not imagine that any civilized society would actually use race as a category - citzenship is one thing, but race is something entirely different, at least from a German perspective. Never forget, these are not theoretical discussions here. This doesn't mean that there isn't a spectrum of German beliefs in these matters, from disgusting to saintly, merely that no one has the luxury of simply dismissing the subject by saying it would never happen here, as is the current practice in the U.S.

[Jos]

And this is the same society that is bombing for peace, torturing for freedom, and going into debt for wealth.

It just so happens that I'm reading 1984 again at the moment. So that sentence suddenly became a hell of a lot creepier than it already is.

[not_scottbot]

Jos -
I imagine at some point surprisingly soon, reading 1984 in the U.S. will feel a lot like reading a nightmare you see around you. What would be interesting is to compile a list of literature one should not read in today's America, if only because it hits to close to reality.

Especially the use of language in 1984 is becoming impossible to dismiss in the U.S. - things are often no longer called by their real names anymore, and if you attempt to discuss various subjects, you are rapidly classified into a compartment that the listener feels comfortable with. Surprisingly, it doesn't matter which compartment, as long as it is an existing one.

[Zzyzx]

The debate about 'illegals' provides some of the flavor of what I mean. Interestingly, in the earlier 90s, when anti-foreigner attitudes were swelling in Germany, one of the commonly seen slogans was 'No person is illegal' - a point which would likely lead to incomprehension in the U.S.

Just because something is a popular slogan doesn't mean it's a popularly held sentiment. If people are felt compelled to say it, it usually means that it's a point of contention. There are quite a few people in the US who are working for amnesty bills so I doubt that the range of debate is that different.

As for the idea that people have issues with homosexuality out of fears of what that would do to gender roles, I think that's just a theory that others come up with. It's too logical (in the sense of involving if A then B thinking, not in the sense of being true) to explain the depth of feeling. It's just an arational fear based around a sexual activity that just squicks people. That's why it's so strong and also why it fades dramatically once people have more exposure to gay people.

That argument bothers me for many reasons. It's bad faith reasoning ("They're scared of us because we're cool and they're lame!" "They reject Jesus because they know if they accepted the Truth, they'd have to change their behaviors."), it tries to understand the behavior of people who have one set of beliefs while not getting out of the assumptions that the author shares (roughly the equivalent of people who think that dissent against the war is due to hating the US and hoping Al Queada takes over the world), and doesn't seem to be based around any actual real experience with their opponents.

I spent a few years having to work with homophobes when I was in graduate school and the math was hard enough that I had to team up with them. I had some real conversations because I was curious as to what was in their headspace. People didn't hate homosexuals because they were scared that women wouldn't stay home and cook anymore - some of the worst examples were women who were in grad school after all - rather they had issues with people exhibiting abnormal gender identity because they were scared that those people were gay. Saying that people are really worried about gender roles swapping is like saying that antisemites really hate the fashion statements of the Hassidic crowd. It's just that that's the only way they can think of to know who their enemy is.

(Note: I'm about to go to an all day meeting, so if there are responses, I might not be able to get to them until much later)

[Cowboy Diva]

Tonio,
very good questions. Speaking as a lesbian who apparently was incredibly obvious to many family members and friends long before I actually came out, I think it is innate. Some one or other may "turn it up" for the sake of the audience or the camp factor (not unlike someone from the southern or western US exaggerating his or her accent for the humor).
I think you are associating masculinity/femininity with outward appearance and behavior, and that is not usually a productive thread to follow. Gender preference really has nothing to do with the way one stands or speaks. I am also thinking of the line from Hair. "... flamboyant affectations of appearance are nothing more than the male's emergence from the drab camouflage that it is the birthright of his sex."
Of course, that was about straight men and long hair, so go figure.

[Tonio]

"but as loudly proclaimed at the start of the Iraq war in the early 1990s (yes, it is the same war), America overcame the Vietnam Syndrome..."

When Bush 41 spoke to the nation after we first attacked Iraq, he said (approximate quote) "this will not be another Vietnam where we have our hand tied behind our back." He was parroting the old hawkish claim that dovish politicians caused the US to lose by preventing the deployment of the necessary military resources. My understanding is that it was the other way around - the generals were urging caution, fearing a quagmire, but the politicians were pushing forward because they didn't want Vietnam to become another China.

[McJulie]

"It’s the fey men (and, depending on the situation, the butch women) who run into trouble."

Dumb question - is that behavior innate? Is the behavior a deliberate choice, a tactic to fit in with the gay or lesbian subculture?

Actually, I think it's a very interesting question, since as far as we know every society has homosexual people, but every society defines gender norms differently.

I suspect it mostly happens subconsciously -- maybe there's even a part of our brains that is specifically pre-programmed to adapt to gender norms, like the part that's pre-programmed to learn language, and will adapt in reverse in some situations.

It might also explain why some people are so bothered by those who don't fit gender norms.

But, societies are often uncomfortable with people who don't fit pre-understood roles in general.

(example: I have sometimes been in social situations with very mainstream people who seem to think I'm weird and sort of ignore me and give me funny looks. Then they find out I'm an artist, and suddenly they're a lot more friendly. My behavior hasn't changed -- the only difference is whether they feel they understand how to react to my social role. I guess it's okay for artists to be weird, so suddenly it's okay that they think I'm weird.)

So maybe the gender thing is just a part of that.

[not_scottbot]

'Just because something is a popular slogan doesn't mean it's a popularly held sentiment.'

Actually, in Germany, to a certain extent, the reverse is true. Recently, the town I live in had its election for mayor, and a neo-Nazi type entered the race. A lot of people saw this is a symptom of something deeply wrong, so they spoke up, went to vote in large numbers, and held an after election party for everyone, where the results were read - the neo-Nazis got all of about 50 votes from several thousand voters.

Reminding yourself that you are actually part of a decent and living society that believes in democracy involves proclaiming those beliefs, especially when they seem threatened. Staying quiet is wrong, and dismissing someone expressing themselves as having doubts may be accurate, but not really relevant. Speaking up, even when frightened, is the civil courage that democracy needs to survive.

Interestingly, there is a tangential connection to a Saturday morning a few months before the election. Whenever I see the mini neo-Nazi stickers occassionally plastered up by some teenager/youth, I peel them off. A few months ago, walking to the local baker at 6am or so, I noticed a few plastered around - the last time was a year or two ago, but someone has to keep the town neat, so I walked around, peeling them off again. After taking down a few, I noticed someone in a black sweatshirt, tightish jeans and black boots (basic right wing garb) crossing the street. After going to the baker, I walked back to check the deserted parallel street, still peeling off stickers. Then I noticed him waiting at the train station to go back to wherever he came from, and it occurred to me, he was the one to have something to worry about, not me. He was the one in a dangerous situation, surrounded by a number of people who would be disgusted by what he had been doing, and those people were my neighbors, and some friends.

The local election confirmed it, of course. Sadly, I don't have any such uplifting revelations to share about the U.S.

[Tonio]

"I think you are associating masculinity/femininity with outward appearance and behavior, and that is not usually a productive thread to follow. Gender preference really has nothing to do with the way one stands or speaks."

I agree with you in principle. I'm saying that in terms of interpersonal relations, one must never assume that someone is gay. That doesn't mean one should automatically assume that they're straight. While I usually think of people as "probably straight" until they express a definite preference, I try to keep an open mind. I generally treat their sexuality as none of my business if they don't discuss it. This is because a huge number of straights would take offense if one assumed they were gay, but I've never heard of any gays taking offense at being mistaken for straight.

[A Texan in Bavaria]

not_scottbot: I, on the other hand, was somewhat surprised that I was asked what my religion ("Konfession") was when I registered with my town. I figured that would be the LAST thing Germans would want to keep tabs on.

But then I realized it was more to make sure I was paying any church tax I might owe.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

not_scottbot: I like your postings here. They have been fun at times and thoughtful at others. Your performance at BB and Making Light, however, was actively deceitful and also rude. There's a big difference between 1) defending the blogger against a troll while using different names as a visible joke, and 2) being a troll and using different names to give yourself the illusion of popular support.

That you actually came across as being Scott over there brings to mind the famous quote about staring into into the abyss and battling monsters.

And that's all I have to say on that subject. Good day, sir.

[Cowboy Diva]

Tonio,
I had the wonderful joy of singing with an a capella women's group in philadelphia in my early 20s. I still remember one of the longstanding members commenting that she liked singing in the chorus because she liked being a part of a group of people where you could go in assuming everyone was gay.
When you talk about "assuming" gay or straight, and whether gay people are offended when you assume they are straight...
You live in a world where dominant culture, if it cannot ignore minority perspectives then tends to oppress them. When you watch TV, do you count the number of ethnic minority people you see? do you support those companies willing to advertise with a minority presence?
And these are people who are visible minorities. Aside from your question about whether gay people are faking it when they act a certain way, I much rather like your perspective that the sexuality of others is none of your business. In truth, who you are sleeping with (or not) has no bearing on my life. Which, of course, is why the evangelical response Fred discusses seems so very weird, even to people like me who were raised as evangelicals.

[Tonio]

Cowboy Diva, it's not just about straights being offended if one assumes they are gay. It's that labeling someone as gay still carries devastating consequences in many areas of American society. There are still many people who have the mindset of the monsters who murdered Matthew Shepherd, and many others who believe that social ostracism of gays is not only acceptable but desirable.

[Steve]

So Fred, you're currently #4 of 1001-1750. So does that make you 1004?

[Cowboy Diva]

But Tonio, that's not a good thing, right?

[not_scottbot]

Nicole - you might want to read what TruthFriction5 posted - and since it has been up a few hours, it is likely true. As for my posting history at Making Light - see the links MacDonald placed, as those are mine, as is the never ending sequence of course. I have never been publicly posted at boing-boing - from the first, when I complained about deletions, I was placed on the sock puppet list. Bugs me no end, to be honest, and seems to be fairly typical behavior. Of course, for those secure in their own perceptions of dark Internet forces, the facts that the facts TruthFriction recounts seem par for the course won't matter - though why he would go to such effort to actually post is beyond me - and notice his opening 'It would probably be smarter for someone like myself, who was once banned for being a "sock puppet", to keep quiet, but I just can't stand by while others go through what I did.'

Texan in Bayern -
yes, religosity is pretty freaky here, especially in the Catholic dominated south. Of course the main reason is taxes, as the Catholic Church in my limited experience here seems interested in little else than money, generally. A far cry from my upbringing in a parish near DC with Missionhurst priests - what happened in Central America during the 70s and 80s also concerned that order, along with Maryknoll nuns. At least in church, I didn't need to read the news, it was part of the parish's reality that priests and nuns were being killed because they were teaching people to read. Most intriguingly, even in the little village Catholic Church here, there is a painting on an exterior church wall from that period of time - Jesus is with the poor, bleeding, broken, and dying - to the other side stand the police, the politicians, and the rich. South America provides a fascinating view into a world where torturing for freedom is seen for the evil it is. And it was our tax dollars paying for it, over decades.

[Tonio]

But Tonio, that's not a good thing, right?

Correct. Do you understand my larger point, which is that one can cause grievous harm to others when one makes their sexuality one's business?

[Angelika]

non_scottbot: one of the commonly seen slogans was 'No person is illegal' - a point which would likely lead to incomprehension in the U.S.

Yeah, I remember that slogan. I was still living in Germany then. It would be a good one here, too. I don't think that the anti-immigrant people realize that US-agriculture would crash without the immigrant workers...

She could not imagine that any civilized society would actually use race as a category

That's another thing I never quite understood here. After my first marriage broke apart and I was looking for a new boyfriend, I was supprised to find so many people in my internet searches specifying the race of the wished for partner. I had a great time dating charming young men from around the globe, and could never quite understand why anybody would limit their search by such an arbitrary factor.

treeandleafster: German attempts at non-gender specific language all end up looking a bit forced, to my mind

I agree. It sometimes sounds awfully funny. English is easier that way. On the other hand, I like the German practice to refer to a child as 'it'. I do that sometimes accidentally in English, too, which earns me startled glances, if I harmlessly ask the mother 'How old is it?'.

I think you are associating masculinity/femininity with outward appearance and behavior, and that is not usually a productive thread to follow. Gender preference really has nothing to do with the way one stands or speaks.

That is so true: My husband and I are both straight, and he is the one who cooks the yummy dinners, while I'm turning the compost or chainsaw something.

[Tonio]

My husband and I are both straight, and he is the one who cooks the yummy dinners...

About 20 years ago, I read about a fundamentalist Christian woman who protested a textbook used in her district's elementary schools. It had a photo of a boy cooking. The woman claimed this was wrong because it placed the male in a subservient role, contrary to God's plan.

[not_scottbot]

Angelika-
race and America is a really complex subject, and one which tends to be hard to understand.

Personally, what I find worst is the fact that a black American and I are unlikely to ever actually deal with each other in a way which is natural - for example, the way I deal with Africans. When talking to an African, I don't need to worry about whether anything I say will be reflected through a racial mirror, in the same way I don't worry about it talking to a German or someone who is Malaysian or Korean or from Argentina - we all come from different societies, and though this poses its own challenges, it is nothing compared to the problems which are always at the forefront of one's own mind when white and black Americans interact.

Obviously, Germans and Jews have roughly the same experience - the reality of what occurred makes normal human relations essentially impossible, and often even the simplest exchanges feel somehow artificial. Of course, what is worse in the U.S. is how many people insist that they are not racists, or how racism is merely a thing of the past.

[A Texan in Bavaria]

Well, I think two years in the Oberpfalz (Bavaria's backwater) is the best preparation my dear Braunschweiger could have for encountering Central Texas, without leaving Germany.

It seems like position advertisements handle gender neutrality by tacking "(m/w)" (mannlich/weiblich = male/female) after the masculine form of the title being sought, or by tacking a "/in" at the end of titles where adding it makes the feminine form, as in, "Ingieneur/in".

Startlingly, it is legal to advertise for a specific gender, e.g., "Wir suchen eine Kauffrau" - "We're looking for a saleswoman".

Germany seems to have stronger safeguards against disastrous failures of tolerance than the US, but weaker ones against everyday occurrences.

[not_scottbot]

'Germany seems to have stronger safeguards against disastrous failures of tolerance than the US, but weaker ones against everyday occurrences.'

That about sums it up, considering that one of the world's most catastrophic failures of tolerance happened here.

There are a number of things which are technically illegal in employment law, but which are done routinely anyways - such as asking a female job candidate about her plans for family, pregnancy, etc.

Germany is not a paradise, but it seems to have a long term perspective that America has lost, and an awareness of its past which America could do well to at least understand on its own terms. However, comparing Bavaria and Texas is apt - they both tend to stand proudly apart from the larger nation they belong to, with hard to understand accents and occasionally strange customs.

[Cowboy Diva]

Thus spake Tonio:
Do you understand my larger point, which is that one can cause grievous harm to others when one makes their sexuality one's business?

Yes. We are in agreement. Thanks for clearing this up.

[Jeff]

I am also thinking of the line from Hair. "... flamboyant affectations of appearance are nothing more than the male's emergence from the drab camouflage that it is the birthright of his sex."
Of course, that was about straight men and long hair, so go figure.

I keep forgetting that Woof isn't gay. I think of him as bi, if not gay.

=======================================

Obviously, Germans and Jews have roughly the same experience - the reality of what occurred makes normal human relations essentially impossible, and often even the simplest exchanges feel somehow artificial.

I think we can handle it. Thalk to us like we're people -- we're likely to respond in kind (forgoing a German-English pun, for once).

"It’s the fey men (and, depending on the situation, the butch women) who run into trouble."

Dumb question - is that behavior innate? Is the behavior a deliberate choice, a tactic to fit in with the gay or lesbian subculture? Or is it some of both? My wife and mother-in-law used to watch Christopher Lowell, and Lowell's feyness was so exaggerated that I was convinced that it was all an act. I expected Lowell to talk like Joe Pesci when the cameras were off. Keep in mind that I don't seem to have gaydar - I've never knowingly met a gay person, although I've met at least four people who I learned were gay, sometimes years later.

Interesting question, actually. I think the behavior may be innate. My (ex) stepfather is gay, and he is rather fey. He grew up in a household with no girls, and even his mother was frequently absent, owing to the fact that she was always running off with some man or other- why Grandpa didn't kick her to the curb is beyond me. All of his brothers are very manly men, so he didn't really have effeminate behavior modelled for him. He also vehemently denied he was gay, even for a couple of years after my mother divorced him and he was living with his current partner.

Incidentally, when he and the partner first started seeing each other, Stepdad was getting on forty and the partner was just sixteen. I found out later that he had been in a previous relationship with a fifteen-year old boy.

Knowing this makes me really glad I was born a girl.

[cjmr]

Startlingly, it is legal to advertise for a specific gender, e.g., "Wir suchen eine Kauffrau" - "We're looking for a saleswoman".

I don't think this is necessarily always offensive. I'm not going to shop in a lingerie shop where the sales staff is not all female, for instance.

[Brandi]

So if (as I sometimes did) you dress your baby girl in a way that she looks like a baby boy, and people say 'what a beautiful boy' or 'How old is he?', you have to correct them implicitly or explicitly, which is always liable to produce social awkwardness.

And sometimes you have to correct them even if your baby girl is dressed like a baby girl. (Drove my mom nuts, it did. I guess bald == not girly enough.)

[Raka]

cjmr: I don't think this is necessarily always offensive. I'm not going to shop in a lingerie shop where the sales staff is not all female, for instance.

Why not? I mean, I imagine I know why not (more or less) and I don't have any real objection to it; so this is mostly, though not entirely, rhetorical. But why not?

Would they lack first-hand knowledge about the subject, like a female urologist? Would it be because you don't trust them not have potential lascivious interest in you-- and if so, would you stop shopping there if they hired a lesbian? Is it that having certain groups of people inside an intimate conceptual space makes you uncomfortable? Why is it okay to avoid a diversified lingerie shop, but not okay to avoid a sporting goods store that hires gay men, or a restaurant with a black cook?

[cjmr]

I've never been to a lingerie shop where the staff did not, as part of routine, come into the dressing rooms with additional merchandise for customers. I am not comfortable with a male person who is not my husband or son walking in on me when I'm en deshabille (pardon my abysmal French spelling). I certainly wouldn't want to be measured by a male person who is not my husband or son, either.

[cjmr]

Actually, I wouldn't want my son measuring me either. I put up with getting walked in on because it doesn't happen often or on purpose.

[ako]

On gender-neutral language; most Filipino languages are more gender-neutral than English. The ones where I lived had a single pronoun, "sha", which means either he or she. This lead to an amusing quirk where people who spoke less-than-perfect English referred to everyone as "she", because it sounded like sha (for the record, I made far worse language mistakes; I once accidentally asked a friend to take her clothes off while trying to get her to unplug the stove). If you wanted to say 'boy', 'girl', 'brother' or 'sister', you had to take the word for child or sibling, and stick adjectives to them. So brother was 'utod na lalaki', or 'sibling who is male'. 'Big brother' or 'big sister' was specific, however (which, if you knew the different cultural connotations of 'kuya', and 'Big Brother', made the Philippine version of Big Brother a bit odd to watch).

Gender roles looked more rigid to me there than in the US, but that could be because the rules they had which I didn't stuck out. There have been two women presidents of the Philippines. However, particularly in more rural areas, certain jobs and tasks were very rigidly split by gender. Driving as a job was specifically male. Doing laundry was specifically female. And people flat out told me that doing a gender-inappropriate task meant you were gay. Most gender-variant behavior got categorized as 'gay'; which lead to social expectations of being a transvestite or trangendered. It didn't always have the hostility that usually accompanies those attitudes in the US (again, that varied substantially based on where you were, and who you were in relation to the community), but the strong tendency to sort responsibilities and expectations by gender was there, as was the tendency to lump all variations into the category of 'gay'.

[Jeff]

I made far worse language mistakes; I once accidentally asked a friend to take her clothes off while trying to get her to unplug the stove

Yeah, "accidentally", sure, right, uh-huh! I believe you! [/snark]

[Spalanzani]

Japanese is also rather gender-neutral, at least in certain ways. Almost all nouns are gender-neutral. The ones that aren’t are for gender-specific ideas: mother, father, elder brother and so on (so it’s not as gender-neutral as Filipino in that respect). Most pronouns are gender-neutral as well, and generally not even used. Instead, you either use the person’s name instead or nothing at all (you can leave out subjects, objects, and pretty much everything else in Japanese if they are understood from the context). The honorifics are also largely gender-neutral; for instance, the same word is used for ‘Mr.’, ‘Ms.’, and ‘Mrs.’ However, some of the less formal honorifics are gender-specific.

The amusing thing is that at the same time it’s extremely un-neutral in that men and women have very specific ways that they are supposed to talk. It’s a bit too complicated to really go in depth here, but basically there are certain sentence forms, particles, and what-not that are marked off for men and women specifically. While there’s nothing ungrammatical about a woman using male speech patterns or vice-versa, it’s socially awkward. It’s something that trips up a lot of non-native speakers, especially since most of the differences only really come into play in casual speech and schools generally focus on polite speech.

I should note that I’m not a native speaker, so I might have gotten some of that wrong or overlooked a few things (learning a second language is to know that at any time you could turn out to be completely and horribly wrong).

[ako]

Yeah, "accidentally", sure, right, uh-huh! I believe you!

I probably shouldn't mention how I accidentally learned the Tagalog word for 'clitoris' then. ;-)

[ninjanun]

Raka:Would they lack first-hand knowledge about the subject, like a female urologist? Would it be because you don't trust them not have potential lascivious interest in you-- and if so, would you stop shopping there if they hired a lesbian? Is it that having certain groups of people inside an intimate conceptual space makes you uncomfortable? Why is it okay to avoid a diversified lingerie shop, but not okay to avoid a sporting goods store that hires gay men, or a restaurant with a black cook?

While CMJR answered the questioned a bit, I wanted to delve into the issue of, "would you be uncomfortable if a lingerie salesperson was lesbian?"

For me, I'd have to say, No, I would not feel nearly as uncomfortable having a lesbian help me out in the dressing room of a lingerie store as it would to be helped by a man (even if he was a gay man). And the only "uncomfortableness" I would feel at all would be the general uncomfortableness of having a complete stranger seeing me in my underwear. The reason has everything to do with having the same basic bits as the salesperson, and nothing to do with attraction. Just because there's no danger of a gay man finding me attractive doesn't mean I'd want one to see me in my underwear. In fact, I know a few gay men who are a bit disgusted at the thought of the female body and its particulars, so that idea would probably make me feel even more self-conscious.
It's more of an empathy thing than anything else.

I went to a women's day spa where you were pretty much required to be totally naked if you were in the hot tub area. Once I got over my self-consciousness about being naked in front of 50 other strangers, I didn't give a rat's ass if any of them were looking upon me lasciviously or not. Although that probably has more to do with the general assumption I was making that women tend not to base attraction as much on physical characteristics as do men, and that they are more likely to act in a sensitive manner when approaching someone they find attractive. So I can see why a straight man in a similar situation (forced nakedness in front of other men, some of whom may be gay) may be uncomfortable beyond the "being naked" part. But that may have more to do with how men in general approach people they're attracted to than women (in terms of it being about power+attraction--not sure if I'm clarifying that very well).

I certainly don't think men are jerks or anything, just that being inherently dominant in society makes the whole "hitting on someone" dynamic different than it would be for a woman hitting on someone. Am I making any sense?