Follow posts tagged #social construct, #race, and #gender in seconds.Sign up
“The concept of virginity as pre-penis in vagina intercourse excludes all who do not have sex that way, invalidating their sexualities and setting up a penis as the determinate. There is no tangible definition of what 'virginity' is, and in society it is used in heterosexist, misogynistic ways. Virginity is another way to oppress women, setting us up as the gatekeepers of sexuality in order to preserve our 'virginity'. The only reason virginity carries importance is to punish women.”— http://raspberryflavored.tumblr.com/
I hereby swear that "Gender" is a social construct that I will no longer be a part of.
I hereby swear to:
-Wear what I want, regardless of what “gender” it is meant for.
I will wear a dress if I want and not be ashamed if people see my legs or my “femininity”, or if they see my unshaven legs and notice my “masculinity”.
- I will wear bras when they are comfortable and/or preferable. I will wear panties when I feel, and boxers when I want. I will not care if my partner or friends see because it is my body, comfort and decision.
- I will mix and match my bathing suits to cover what I feel comfortable and show what I feel comfortable showing.
- I will wear make up to accentuate my features, and not to hide what I feel what others deem “ugly”.
- I will no longer fear that a haircut is too short for a girl or too long for a boy. I am a person, and my genitalia does not effect my hair or appearance.
- Not let stereotypes and biases effect my behavior.
- I will no longer accept holding a door open as a thing done exclusively for females, but a nice thing for all people.
- I will not restrict children from doing what they want because it isn’t ”gender appropriate”.
- I will walk how I want, and sit how I want. “Women” do not need to cross their legs any more than “men” need to keep them open. I will do what is comfortable.
- Allow people to learn and adjust to this.
- I will allow people to address me as whatever pronoun is preferred. He, xe, and she are all ways to address me as a person.
- I will allow people to ask my about my views and opinions and make it clear to them that my decision is my decision alone and that it does not reflect the views and opinions of other LGBTQ members.
- Allow people to label me, “Gender queer” “transgender” or any other label that helps them understand as long as the label helps them learn and encourage them to learn more instead of hate.
- Offer other names or identifiers for people who do not find my birth name a comfortable fit for who I am. Because I don’t think my name suits me all of the time either.
- Do what is comfortable for me.
- I will bind, pack, tuck and pad whenever I want to feel comfortable. I will not let others expectations of my body get in the way with how I feel.
- Promise myself that everything I do is for my own respect, comfort, and love. I will not stop my fluid expression of “gender” for anyone else in the world.
This...is height bigotry.
‘Tall beats small’ in leadership stakes
TSC: I just read an article about height and politics (based off of an old “study”) which is full of bias and outright heightism. Heightism, as conceived under a framework of normative ethics, is a social construct based in gender norms which asserts that a person’s height should convey social privilege or social stigma. In other words, it’s not heightism to report on statistics which show that our society grants privileges to taller people. However, it is heightism to make arguments that such privileges are justified or “natural”. The key element of heightism is the belief that a person’s height SHOULD convey social privilege or stigma, not that it does or doesn’t.
Tuesday, 18 October 2011 10:19 AM
By Alex Stevenson
Political leaders are more likely to win elections if they are taller than their rivals, new analysis has suggested.
Researchers from the US’ Texas Tech University have unveiled findings in the Social Science Quarterly journal suggesting that voters instinctively prefer their leaders to be taller.
Wait…hold on….Instinctively? How could one possibly suss out what is based on “instinct” and what is a matter of social programming? We can say that Political leaders are more likely to win elections if they are male instead of females…but we can’t say that such a truism suggests that voters INSTINCTIVELY prefer males for their leaders.
Their findings will be welcomed by David Cameron, who at 6ft 1ins has the edge over the 5ft 11ins of Labour leader Ed Miliband.
“Our research and the literature demonstrate that there is a preference for physically formidable leaders that likely reflects an evolved psychological trait, independent of any cultural conditioning,” report co-author Professor Gregg Murray said.
Professor Murrary’s general argument is based in the controversial field of evolutionary psychology. He came to his conclusion through an experiment he did with graduate students drawing stick figures of “leaders” on a piece of paper and then measuring their relative heights. Additionally, he claims to have evidence gleamed from Ancient Mayan bones and various baboon behavior. You know; steel-tight scientific evidence that culture has nothing to do with height bigotry. You can read more from Professor Gregg at Psychology Today. Yes, the very same Psychology Today which was forced to retract an article from a different Evolutionary Psychologist who claimed to have scientific proof that black women are the least attractive of all racial groups, after public outcry [The article said that black women evolved to have more Testosterone than women from other races and so were the least sexually attractive].
The researchers surveyed 500 students about their preferences. They also asked them to draw a ‘typical citizen’ and an ‘ideal national leader’. Nearly two-thirds of students drew the leader as a taller person than the average citizen.
This test does more to show cultural bias than evolutionary bias. One would think that a shared trait which was innate to humanity would be overwhelmingly demonstrated in such a test. “Nearly two-thirds” (or 64% - to be precise) is hardly overwhelming. And plus, 31% of the 500 students actually drew the shorter stick figure as “an ideal national leader”. What does THAT tell us? Do “Nearly one-third” of the population have defective genes?
A real example of a evolutionary based trait is the human preference for sweet over bitter. If 500 students were asked to taste a spoon full of sugar and a spoon full of lemon juice - I can guarantee you that more than merely 64% of the students would prefer the sugar to the lemon juice. 64% is not a large enough number to demonstrate a preference which is supposed to be innate to humanity.
Academic acknowledgement of height’s importance is not a new phenomenon. It extends beyond politics to the business world, where studies have shown tall people get jobs 8.5% more readily than short people and earn one-quarter more.
More evidence of discrimination being perverted as justification for that very discrimination.
Author Catherine Hakim argued in her book Erotic Capital, published last month, that there are clear advantages to being tall.
huuuu? Erotic Capital? Get ready for some armchair anthropologist psycho-babel.
“By early adulthood, tall people have substantially better social and psychological development, in terms of emotional stability, extraversion, motivation, optimism, taking authority, courtesy to others and sociability,” she argued.
This is height bigotry, folks. Notice that this isn’t merely reporting statistics. These are conclusions which say that taller people are simply superior (in every dimensions that this author could conceive) to shorter people. She even says that taller people are more courteous that shorter people…..all while “taking authority”
“They also have greater intellectual ability, possibly due to better nutrition. Higher ability and better social skills contribute equally to the higher wages of the tall.”
A little bit of knowledge is extremely dangerous when put in the hands of a fool.
Being short does not prevent a successful political career, she acknowledged, adding: “Short men have to be exceptionally able to overcome this disadvantage. Napoleon did it. So did Hitler. But tall men find their path in life smoother and easier.”
Wait a second. Did anyone notice that her argument switched from short people to short men? Again, heightism is a prejudice based in Gender Norms. Also, what’s up with her examples? Napoleon and Hitler? These are the men who came to mind when she was asked to think of successful short leaders? This is the mind of a height bigot, folks. First of all, Adolf Hitler was not even short. He was 5’8”, which was the average male height in Germany during WWII. Secondly, why didn’t she choose a short male leader who is associated with Peace and Justice instead of crimes against humanity?
What about Martin Luther King, Jr.? What about Mohandas Gandhi? What about Winston Churchill (an enemy of Hitler who was Democratically Elected and was SHORTER THAN HITLER)?