I am sure that many of you have at some point in life heard some variation of the following phrase: On the day <insert deity/creative force here> gave out <insert physical or mental attribute here>, you were <insert activity that implies that you were in the wrong place at the time that said physical or mental attribute was distributed.>.

Now, if I were to fill in the above blanks as it pertains to me, it would read something like this: “On the day that the IS was giving out brains, you ended up with a gelatinous lump of oddly-shaped, multicolored matter whose only discernable purpose seems to be to generate abstract and bizarre theories.”

Yep. That’s me. Humanoid Theory Machine.

In support of this self-assessment, I offer up the following as it occurred three nights ago. In order to do this, I have to take a moment to introduce you to Ken.

Ken is a close friend of mine who has something of a conisseuer’s appreciation for the Theory Generator. He is one of the people in this world who, if I were to inform him that I just spent last night playing poker with Bigfoot, the Chupacabra, the Loch Ness Monster, the Mothman and two Unicorns, would respond with “Draw or Texas Hold’em?”

He never wonders IF my mind works, he’s only wonders HOW.

This makes for prime theory generating conditions. That, and he has a hell of a wine collection - which also seems to contribute positively to my theory generation abilities.

Ken is a very good person. I, however, seem to be one of a very few people that seem to have this opinion.

Explanation forthcoming…

Three nights ago, over a glass of a Cab Sauvingion (St. Supery, if anyone is interested) we discussed the disparity of the reactions that people have to him and the ones that they have to me. You see, Ken and I have very similar outlooks on things, and share very similar views. We also have very similar personality traits. This being the case, it seems odd to me that people, generally speaking, seem to respond to me much more positively than they do to him. Whereas people tend to be engaged and and interested in things that I say, people tend to be far more dismissive of him when he says almost the exact same things.. I get called witty, intelligent, charismatic - he gets called cocky, arrogant and an asshole.

He offered up the observation that in his experience men are dismissed far more readily than women tend to be. By this he meant that a woman who displays an overt intelligence is less likely to be dismissed, whereas a man is more likely to be called an asshole. I responded with while men may be dismissed based on traits they display, often times a woman is dismissed simply for being a woman. In short, Men, when dismissed, are, generally speaking, done so actively, women, when dismissed, are done so passively.

This led to the following theory:

Ken is a white, and by all social standards, successful male. He has a good job in the IT field with a prestigious law firm that he both enjoys and is good at. I am not white, not male, and have a job in one of the most stigmatized industries there is. Despite our obvious differences, however, what we have in common is that we are both educated (a large portion of which is self-education), intelligent, confident and, most importantly, constantly striving to be the best people we can possibly be.

And herein lies the difference in how we are percieved. In a patriarchal society, Ken is at the top of the social heap. In a patriarchal society, I barely register as a person. As such, from society’s point of view, it is perfectly reasonable that I would want to strive to be the best person I could possibly be. In a patriachal society, this is defined as becoming, from a social perspective, more like a man. Any attempts to be a better person are, unconsciously, percieved as trying to achieve what is defined as the gold standard. In Ken’s case, however, any attempts to becoming a better person would be viewed, unconsciously, as trying to achieve a standard above gold. I am percieved as trying to better myself, he as trying to be better than everyone else.

In which case, the reactions that he experiences and the reactions that I experience make perfect sense.

Now, I am not what anyone would ever call a feminist. At least, not anyone who knows me. Nor am I what anyone would call race-centric. At least, not anyone who knows me. If anything, I am an egalitarian humanist. (Yes, I just made that up.) I believe that all people are equal simply by virtue of being. I say this so that my theory is not categorized as the ramblings of someone who feels that their potential for achievement has been limited by both men and/or “the man”. I don’t feel as if my potential has been limited in any way. In fact, from a certain point of view, if this theory is true, it has actually worked to a bit of a personal advantage. Starting off in a “lower social tier” just means more room to grow. That being said, however, if this theory proves to be less a theory an more of an on the money epiphany about the true definition of what it really means to live in a patriarchal society, then a whole lot else starts to make sense. It explains why after 100 years of campaigning for civil rights on both the race and gender fronts, society has still failed to make the same level of advances that it has made in other areas. It would also explain why this society is, in general, more accepting of homosexuality and transgenderism as it pertains to women than it is as it pertains to men.

I mean, think about it…women who wear pants, button down shirts and boxer shorts are not considered cross dressers. They are, generally, considered sexy. Men who wear skirts and lace panties are considered cross dressers and deeply disturbed. Women who have sexual relationships with other women are not blanketly described as lesbians. They are considered the stuff of masturbatory fantasies. Men who have sexual relationships with men are almost always labeled as gay and deeply disturbed. Would the subject of same-sex marriage really evoke as negative of an emotional reaction as it does from much of the general populace if “same sex” didn’t almost universally, though often unspokenly, imply “gay men”?

In short, in a patriarcal society, it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to want to be more what is traditionally defined as “male”, (within certain boundaries, of course. After all, some attempts at what society sees as being “more male”, are taken as parody. Anyone doubting this need only look at the running joke that the WNBA has sadly been turned into), but it is considered FAR from ok for a man to want to be more what is traditionally defined as “female”.

Now, I know that the fact that this inequality exists is no big revelation. Its is a commonly held belief that when the framers of our country said that all men are created equal, they meant all rich, white, land-owning men were created equal. But the truth is that I am not just talking about social inequality; I am talking about a belief so endemic to the American social psyche that it has become, at a fundamental level, the personification, the very identity of this country. It is the face that our society wears, and from this society’s point of view, anyone that does not wear that face is not a part of it. If society believes itself to be a white, straight, well to do, christian male, and that is all it is, was and ever will be, then how can it be gay, muslim, female, jewish, hispanic, black, transgender or anything else?

And while there may be a few people out there who are all fine and dandy with this, (who, granted, are probably nowhere near this website), that is probably because they don’t  (or, in some cases perhaps DO) realize that if there is no room for anything else, there is no room for improvement. For growth. For change.

There is no room to be more.

That, and along with this society being white, straight, well to do, christian and male, it is also, by and large, narrow-minded, insufficiently educated, paranoid, megalomaniacal, prejudiced, chauvanistic, judgemental, easily distracted and limiting of its own potential by its refusal to embrace diversity and change, preferring instead the single-minded pursuit of the static path of over-specialization.

The last species on this planet that was overspecialized and unable to adapt has been extinct for about 65 million years, give or take.

Now, believe it or not, this allllll brings me back to the reason why this post is Indifferently Gendered, Part Two

As you may recall, in that post I discussed the subject of lables and my belief that more options for gender identification do not solve the problems inherent to a binary gender identification system - it compounds them. This is because the real problem ISN’T a binary gender system; the definition of what constitutes a person, by sociey’s standards, is. And while labels may serve to in some small way treat the symptoms of this by bringing attention to the many ways people don’t fit this definition, they don’t cure the disease. You see, until society allows itself to wear different faces, to adapt to diversity and adopt a different definition of what it is, or better yet, no definition that extends beyond “human”, the labels you stick on people won’t matter a damn. A human may call themselves anything they want - male, female, transgender, gay, straight, other, black, arab - whatever, but as long as society defines itself has having one face, none of those labels will make a human a person.

So, if this is the case, and labels don’t solve the problem, what does?

In answer to that, let me share this with you:

Some years ago my father, with all the best intentions in the world, imparted unto me the following:

“The first two things that people are going to notice about you is your race and your gender.”

Now, while my response of ‘What’s your point’ may have been entirely inappropriate for a thirteen year old, it was not as much of a smartass comment as it, on the surface, may seem. It was my way of saying that those labels were of no importance to me whatsoever. They were not my problem.

The question is are the labels that people, including yourselves, apply to you your problem?

If the answer is no, then you have the cure to the disease. You know who you are, you are who you are, and the fact that people may not get who you are, and opt instead to interact with you based on the label they ascribe to you phases you not. It is what it is, and your proceed through life with a smile. You go, girl/boy/other.

If the answer is yes, if you need to use a label to identify yourself to others, then you also need that label to identify you to yourself. And if you that is how you have to identify yourself to yourself, then its a very good chance that you are, on some level, subscribing to the notion that society has one face - white, male, straight, well to do and christian, and your label amounts to little else beyond an apology to the world for being born unable to wear it. It is a scarlet letter, warning the world that you different - that you have been afflicted with the incurable disease of diversity, and you are sorry for it.

And seeing as diversity is the very thing that may save humanity from extinction, it seems to me nothing to be sorry about.

Despite all outward appearances, I am not hapring on labels, gender identification, male-female relations or any of that. The truth is that the Theory Generator in my head is, in addition to being prone to fixation, a means to a problem-solving end. And the problem it is continually working on is how to be a better person. In order to do that, it tends to take a good, long, hard (did I mention long?) look at the things that impede reaching that objective.

I wish that I could say I have nothing more to say on this, but you’d all see that for the lie it is. That is, however, not necessarily a bad thing, because by my way of thinking, as long as the problems persist, it is imperative that the dialogue does as well.

At least in theory.

Recently:

Indifferently Gendered
Where to begin…?
Holidays and Gas Station Bathrooms: gender politics hold the jargon