TATKOP 117

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who think that gender is socially constructed and those who don't know what social construction is.

See all the posts in the TATKOP series by Fred Shivvin here.

Yin-yang a unified yes

By Fred Shivvin

This is the third part of my article on yin-yang, an elegant, complex and often completely misinterpreted symbol. Yin-yang shouts to the cosmos that we humans tend to see dichotomies where they do not exist. But many don’t hear this message.

In Part 1: Yin-yang not, I covered the tendency to interpret the yin-yang symbol as about 'natural' opposites, and in Part 2: Yin-yang seriously not, I explored misinterpretations of yin-yang specifically related to the gender stereotypes of feminine or masculine.

I draw on the ideas in Parts 1 and 2 to develop the argument in this final part of the article, so you might find a quick review is helpful.

So now finally, I’m putting it out there: it’s time to ditch thinking about people with a dichotomy of feminine/masculine traits.

Yin-yang seriously not

By Fred Shivvin

In Part 1 of this article, I talked about the well-known Chinese philosophy symbol of yin-yang which represents the dynamic, ever-changing and complex nature of the cosmos.

To me, yin-yang is a reminder that dichotomies - seeing the world in simple sets of opposites - can be false and misleading. At its core, yin-yang says, ‘You might see two things as opposites, but they are not in reality. Do not being misled by false dichotomies.'

But we often do, and we often are.

In Yin-yang not, I outlined many things that yin-yang does NOT say or symbolise; specifically, it is:

• not about opposites
• not about achieving balance
• not a feature of things or behaviour
• not an inherent nature of an object or person
• not able to be separated into yin apart from yang; not ‘added’ up to a whole
• not about one ‘half’ being superior to the other.

But people make these various misinterpretations all the time. People often refer to yin-yang to make claims about the world being made up of natural opposites needing to achieving balance for harmony. Perversely, the ‘opposite’ of what yin-yang actually means.

One common example is when people talk about men as yang and women as yin or hold up the yin-yang symbol as justification for rigid, opposite and separate gender roles for men and women as a 'natural' way of the world.

While I’d love to restore yin-yang to its original and complex meaning, I know I can’t turn back the tide. As I mentioned in Part 1, we humans are attracted to and easily satisfied by simplistic thinking.

But at least I can explain why yin-yang is seriously not a rationale for our gender stereotypes.

Yin-yang not

By Fred Shivvin

Every now and then, I like stepping back from WHAT we are talking about and look at HOW we talk about it.

In particular, I like looking at the mental 'boxes' we use when we talk about things; the 'boxes' that we put ourselves and everyone else into, the categories of our daily lives.

Mae's last article on Gendered adjectives was about the way we tend to see human traits as either feminine or masculine. This got me thinking again about the fascinating human tendency to see the world in dichotomies - categories to which we become quite attached (which I last wrote about in Gruntled). 

We humans like a dichotomy - they help to make the world easier to understand. 

A dichotomy is when two things are clearly opposed to each other; things can only be on one side of the dichotomy. We see things in dichotomies all the time: clean vs dirty washing, friendly vs unfriendly neighbour, broken vs intact cup, yummy vs yucky food, easy vs hard work, dark vs light, interesting vs boring articles on blogs. We create a mental barrier between the two types of things and 'see' them in separate 'boxes'. Clean clothes in this basket; dirty clothes in that basket. Separate categories that don't mix.  

And these categories work a lot of the time. I rarely go out in a dirty shirt as I have easy access to the dichotomy of 'clean/dirty' when I'm working out what to wear. My friendly neighbour and I share a lawn mower, but I stay away from the unfriendly, aggressive neighbour down the street. These basic categories help me make choices to stay safe socially (no one mocks me for my stained shirt at work) and safe physically (my nose is still intact after four years).

We also tend to think this way about more complicated, multifaceted things, and we use simple dichotomies like right vs left wing politicians, environmentally safe vs dangerous products, able vs disabled bodies. We know that these things are not at all clear and simple dichotomies. They are over-simplifications but, they are quick and convenient, they help us make decisions and interact with others, and we feel the world is predictable and safe.

An image often used to talk about dichotomies is the yin-yang symbol.

Here are some examples (I didn't take the sources, as they are just examples of extensive writing of this type):

·        The yin-yang symbol shows a balance between two opposites with a portion of the opposite element in each section.

·        Yin is the dark half of the yin and yang symbol. It means the shady place, and it is cold, wet, yielding, passive, slow, and feminine. Yang is the light half of the symbol and it means the sunny place. It is hot, dry, active, focused, and masculine.

So often, people describe the yin-yang as symbolising that the nature of all things in the cosmos is a dichotomy, even if 'things' can shift to the opposite sides at times.

But this is a fundamental misinterpretation.

In fact, yin-yang says that we humans tend to see simple, static dichotomies where they do not exist.

Gendered adjectives Part 2

By Mae Wright

In Part 1 of this article, I explored why the adjectives we use to talk about gender and gender roles make it such a difficult topic to write about. The adjectives masculine and feminine are 'normative' - words that carry the concept of 'what is considered normal' and how a person should be'.

This means using them always implies the meaning of 'normal' or 'not normal'. Using them about a person of the opposite sex implies they are not a 'real' man or woman. The words can be threatening to a person's sense of being okay as a man or a woman.

Many people simply cannot have a discussion about gender and gender roles without feeling threatened or criticised. 

I want to find other adjectives to conceptualise and describe human traits, behaviour and roles. Words that leaves gender where it is (it's not going away) but focus instead on the considerably more important concept of being human.

What other adjectives could we use?

I have no intention of saying we should just change the meanings of our gender adjectives: masculine and feminine - I'm no linguistic prescriptivist. The normative 'should be' aspect of the adjectives we use for gender is inescapable. 'Norms' are part of being a member of society - gender is only one area in which society 'shapes' us to fit in. I also have no illusions I could overcome the gender police or the gender reactionaries. And possibly we want those words sometimes…

But can we give them a little less air space?

Gendered adjectives Part 1

By Mae Wright

Gender is a difficult topic to write about. I've thought a lot about what makes it so tricky.

Because this is AdjAngst, I am going to say it is mainly due to the words we use, or more accurately, the adjectives that invade and cloud the topic of gender.

There are issues with basic definitions. We have the varying meanings and misunderstandings of the words sex (i.e. biology) and gender (i.e. social identity). This results in reams of confusion when people discuss (rant about) the latter as though it had the same definition as the former: 'People are born with their gender between their legs and that's it!'

Then there are conceptual issues. The words masculine and feminine are portrayed as representing either side of a binary division, which is a grossly inadequate representation of the vast and complex array of human traits and behaviours. Even those who attempt to avoid this rigid binary conceptualisation of gender often characterise masculine and feminine as the end points on a continuum, with neutral or androgynous in the middle. This perpetuates the idea that human traits and behaviours exist in categories based on gender, but with a middle messy bit!

One sign that so many of the words about gender are inadequate for discussion is the proliferation of new words; recent examples being gender fluid, non-binary, toxic masculinity, etc. But I don't think these words have helped make anything clearer.

I wonder if we could find other adjectives to conceptualise and describe human traits, behaviour and roles. Words that leaves gender where it is (it's not going away) but focus instead on the considerably more important concept of being human.

In Part 1 I will explain the specific problem with these gender adjectives, before I suggest some other words we could use in Part 2.

TATKOP 105

There Are Two Kinds Of People: those who think we 'have' gender and those who think we 'do' gender.
(View all the posts in the TATKOP Series by Fred Shivvin here)

Feisty

By Mae Wright

Most dictionaries define feisty as 'having or showing a lively aggressiveness'; 'tough, independent, and spirited'; 'lively, resilient and self-reliant.'  Sounds like a good thing to be.

The Collins dictionary adds the essential element that restricts which words feisty can be combined with 'often when you would not expect them to be, for example because they are very young, old or ill'. We see a feisty 85 year old who is active and assertive in their local community, and not what you would expect them to be: the elderly archetype of retiring, quiet, decrepit, submissive, helpless, ill.

But when it's combined with the word woman then feisty usually has had a negative meaning.

Quote from P!nk

A feisty woman. The adjective feisty implies the individual behaves differently from how women are expected to. Tough, having a lively aggressiveness (i.e. assertive), independent, spirited, resilient, self-reliant. Not what she is expected to be: gentle, sweet, tolerant, deferential, caring and sensitive. Not secondary and dependent.