body language

[Amy Sheldon]

On Mar 26, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Kenneth Hyde wrote:

> Amy Sheldon wrote:
>
>> I see your point.
>> But within the current gender system, the critique would be "Any
>> Lesbian is not a real woman".
>
> But that is not an issue of language.

Not directly.
But how we theorize gender is related to how we theorize language and  
gender.

>   Whatever label may be used (even a
> new one that we coin to avoid any previous connotations or  
> attachments of
> unwanted meaning) is going to run smack into the brickwall of reality.

	You are correct, playing musical chairs with labels does not solve  
the problem of labeling complex phenomena.
Or to say it another way, does not automatically help us understand  
"reality".  (My metaphor of the day is "the fog of reality" rather  
than "the brick wall of reality"; others might have a different  
favorite trope.)    :)

>   If
> people think that a lesbian is not a real woman, they will think  
> the same
> thing whatever she may be called.
>
> In any event, I don't think "masculine woman" implies that the  
> person in
> question is lesbian (or however you prefer to refer to the  
> category).  My
> understanding of "masculine woman" as a term is a woman who,  
> consciously or
> subconsciously, presents herself in a "masculine" way.  I.e., she  
> positions
> herself in the masculine zone of the collective gender-space of her
> community.

Can you give an example of what "presents herself in a 'masculine'  
way" is and what the "masculine zone of the collective gender-space  
of her community" (or yours) is, or contains, or means, or a woman  
would behave like when they're there?  And what is the "feminine zone"?

> Now, the question that obviously presents itself at this point
> is whether this phenomenon is the one that the original writer  
> intended to
> communicate.  If it is, then her use of the term "masculine woman" was
> correct.  If she meant to communicate something else entirely, then  
> the term
> was ill-chosen.
>
>> I'm making a point about how the logic of standard gender ideology
>> positions women who are labeled "masculine" or Lesbian".
>
> We could, of course, debate the rather tricky mythology of  
> "standard gender
> ideology."  As far as I know, this has never been defined in any  
> scientific
> way and, rather like "Standard American English" (or any other  
> politically
> convenient standard), probably does not exist.  Just based on  
> preliminary
> observation, I would be more likely to entertain a hypothesis that  
> gender
> ideology varies greatly from community to community (leaving wide  
> open the
> question of how to define community).

		yes, understood. I feel like Hillary Clinton, having "mispoke", or  
mistapped into cyberspace.
She didn't mean literally that she "said a million words that day",  
either.

> While we might expect to see central
> tendency emerge from a study of the various ideologies, I feel  
> strongly that
> labeling those generalizations "standard" would be the wrong  
> approach to
> scientific research.

	Suppose I use the murky but convenient term, "the gender system".
Or the "'local gender system".   Thanks for making your point.   
Interesting analogy with SE.
Amy
>
> Anyway, I'll stop now.  But, how refreshing to find such  
> interesting and
> thought-provoking discussions on this list.  I hope this is a trend.
>
> Ken
>
>
> Kenneth Allen Hyde
> Coordinator, ELI Tutoring Center
> Instructor, ELI and Dept. of Linguistics
> University of Delaware
> (302) 831-2567
> kenny at udel.edu
>
>
>
> <kenny at UDel.Edu.vcf>