My KFA talk: Basic Gender Theory and Why You Should Care

[rax]

So my goal in giving this talk was to get through a coherent arc explaining gender theory and why you should care in 12 minutes and then have time for discussion. (KFA time slots are 20 minutes long.) I left out roughly a zillion things, which is OK, because that was sort of the point; I also think I actually did a good job, and got people thinking, and sparked interesting discussion, and hopefully encouraged people to do some further reading and/or conversing.

In giving the talk, I set myself the challenge of not using the words "discourse," "problematic," or "deconstruct." Obviously (or at least obviously if you talk to me a lot) this is not because I think those words have no value; I find them important in how I understand the world around me and if anything overuse them. Arguably, though, theorists and genderheads as a whole if anything overuse them, and it's something people have explicitly said turns them off to thinking about theory at all, and so I figured in a basic brief talk, I should avoid them. Another word I've been told is a major turn-off, although I didn't explicitly set out not to use it in this talk, is "oppression;" I've as a result been trying to think twice before using it. Unlike the others, which generally have less loaded (if also less usefully loaded) synonyms, not using "oppression" makes me nervous for calling-a-spade-a-spade issues. I'm torn, and I figure "thinking about it" is the right place for now.

You can watch the presentation video by clicking on this link. I'd embed it but I'm pretty sure LJ won't let me do that due to the recent security issue; just in case, here it is:

Gender Theory and Why You Should Care from maymay on Vimeo.

I'd really love to know what people think. I'd especially love to hear from people about what you think the most important things missing are; I have some thoughts but I want to hear other perspectives before I share them all. A bit of explanation (not that it necessarily negates potential criticism) --- I wasn't sure how to introduce myself because I wanted to avoid using identity labels but also wanted to express that it was worth spending twenty minutes listening to me talk about this topic. In general (and I blame circuit_four in part for this, as well as the whole ##crawl-offtopic gang) I've been trying to hold both "identity affiliations are powerful" and "identity affiliations reinforce things I don't like" in my head at the same time lately. It takes a lot of energy, but they do interesting things when put in the same place; I think that the end of this talk is one of them. If you have suggestions for things I should go read by other people who have been holding those ideas in their head together for much longer than I have, I'd love them; in particular I recently read Covering by Kenji Yoshino (Amazon link) and while he doesn't focus on that duality, he does touch on it. Really, though, that book should be its own post...

Anyway, I'd love criticism, and I'm also in a mood where I could really go for any praise you've got lying around, too. :)

Comments

[bossgoji.livejournal.com]

Many already are, if you count headpeople.

[circuit-four.livejournal.com]

And I REALLY look forward to the day that academic learns of, embraces, and starts giving serious thought to, headpeople as anything other than an abnormal (read: "pathological") psych topic. In part because it means I won't have to go to grad school and DO IT MY DAMN SELF. :)

[bossgoji.livejournal.com]

Seriously. I can point to maybe twenty or thirty people I know with headfolks/soulbounds who are living saner, healthier lives BECAUSE of their "abnormal psychological condition". At that point I really don't think you can dismiss it as a statistical blip.

[eredien]

I think you ought to go to grad school and do it; otherwise people really start pathologizing the phenomena (even one they're interested in and aware of. See: furry study, proposing there be a new DSM category akin to gender dysphoria for furries--and Dr. Gerbasi was at AC, buying furry art IIRC, so is certainly sympathetic as far as I can tell. http://www.furrystudy.blogspot.com/).

[rax.livejournal.com]

This is why I wouldn't take it on; I know I would screw it up.

[baxil.livejournal.com]

Interesting comparing the numbers against the (much larger but not random) Furry Survey (http://www.klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey.php).

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

In part because it means I won't have to go to grad school and DO IT MY DAMN SELF. :)

Aw. ;)

[probabilistic.livejournal.com]

Oh boy...what's a headperson? Google is not really telling me anything here...

[bossgoji.livejournal.com]

Headperson, AKA soulbond, AKA muse, AKA whatever the hell you want 'cause there's a half-dozen terms for it.

Basic upshot is that's an imaginary friend, one level higher. Many times, it's a character from an existing piece of media(I've known a TON of people with anime characters living in their heads), sometimes it's a shamanistic thing(I also know a couple people who have spirit animals who advise them), and sometimes it is basically an imaginary friend, a created personality designed to help you cope with stuff. I've got at least one of the first and two of the third.

But in all cases, it differs from what would classically be thought of as Multiple Personality Disorder because headpeople/soulbonds rarely take over, yet are all definite, independent personalities(even if very similar to their host). The best way to describe it is sort of a symbiotic relationship, wherein the host provides... well, themselves, and thus a catalyst for the existence of the headperson, and the headperson provides emotional support, feedback, commiseration, and friendship.