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

[blushingflower.livejournal.com]

That was really interesting.

I was a little concerned when you brought up Foucalt that maybe you were being a little too academic, but it seems that your audience knew what you were on about. I'm not familiar with the demographics of who attends Kink For All, I know that the DC BDSM community tends to be fairly well-educated but not necessarily in terms of things like social theory, so alienating the audience is of course a concern when having these conversations.

I really don't think that 20 minutes is any where near enough time to have anything close to a good discussion about this topic, or even a really thorough introduction. But I think that given the time constraints you did a pretty good job of staying on topic and being interesting. I'm not sure that you actually answered the question of why I should care about gender theory, but I'm also not sure that anyone in the room didn't already care about gender theory at least a little bit.

The transition from "a person who does X" to "an X-ual" is a really interesting one, and on the one hand my first thought was "so I'm a bad person instead of a person who does bad things, and the former is far less redeemable than the latter" but then the idea that it's an immutable identity becomes interesting. And also gets into "love the sinner, hate the sin" and certain churches' teachings that it's ok to be gay, it's just not ok to have gay sex, which is highly problematic. And as a queer, kinky, poly person, I want the right to act on those desires/identities, not merely to have them.

And you're right you can't legislate (which is the word you want instead of "legalize") people's attitudes. You can say "you have to give transpeople jobs and places to pee", you can't say "you aren't allowed to stare at a transwoman on the Metro".

What are we going to do once we get plural marriage?

[eredien]

I'm not sure that you actually answered the question of why I should care about gender theory.

If I had one critique of your talk, it would be that you might want to concentrate on this a little bit more next time.

I am not sure if I agree that citing people's names in your talk is a turnoff for your audience and/or disrupts the flow of the talk, but I'm an academic; of course I would already have processes in my head for having that be a "normal" thing. But that seems to be a concern that a lot of others are having so you may want to address it. I think the "sheet of paper with references" is a good idea.

And as a queer, kinky, poly person, I want the right to act on those desires/identities, not merely to have them.

I totally suggest you read "Covering," if you haven't already. It talks about how the courts are generally interpreting this idea of "the right to take action based on identity" vs. "the right to have an identity."

Do you think KinkForAll audiences are specifically interested in BDSM? Why?

[maymaym.livejournal.com]

I'm not familiar with the demographics of who attends Kink For All, I know that the DC BDSM community tends to be fairly well-educated but not necessarily in terms of things like social theory, so alienating the audience is of course a concern when having these conversations.

BDSM could certainly be discussed at KinkForAll events, but can you tell me why you'd be concerned about alienating an audience? You make a reference specifically to the DC BDSM community. Do you believe the BDSM community is the audience that would be present at a KinkForAll event, as opposed to, say, a group of gender studies student who like to think about sexuality but not engage in BDSM activities?

Re: Do you think KinkForAll audiences are specifically interested in BDSM? Why?

[blushingflower.livejournal.com]

I don't know if they are or not. I used the DC BDSM community as the alternative sexuality community with which I am familiar (and also because in my brain kink=BDSM). I realize that Kink for All isn't necessarily about BDSM, though because that's my little corner of the world, that's where I've seen it advertised, which means that BDSMers are certainly at least part of the audience being courted. But I have no idea who goes to KinkForAll, which is why I said that I didn't know. I don't really know anything about what the event is like or who attends it, as I've never been, and rax is the first person I know who has.

My concern about alienating an audience at an event that is advertised as being "for all" is that most people aren't gender studies students (or human sexuality students, or sociologists). I've never seen KinkForAll advertised as an academic conference, and I don't know how academic KinkForAll is intended to be, I only know that often at non-academic conferences people are turned off when presenters are overly academic. It's not that they're not interested in the material or aren't capable of understanding it, it's that certain ways of presenting and interacting with ideas don't work for everyone. And also that people who are insecure about their own education frequently embrace some degree of anti-intellectualism in order to make themselves feel better (and are thus alienated by anything that seems like academia).

Re: Do you think KinkForAll audiences are specifically interested in BDSM? Why?

[maymaym.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see.

because in my brain kink=BDSM

How did this happen in your brain? In mine, kink is like a rectangle and BDSM is like a square. That is to say, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square. BDSM can be kinky but kink isn't limited to BDSM. As a question, what might you call a loving heterosexual couple who tenderly enjoy strap-on sex in which the man is the penetrated partner? This seems kinky to me. It doesn't sound like BDSM….

people who are insecure about their own education frequently embrace some degree of anti-intellectualism in order to make themselves feel better (and are thus alienated by anything that seems like academia).

Yeah. :( I've seen that happen, too. It's frustrating that so much academia is alienating to people who would are smart, but simply do not believe they are because they don't use the same language. Have you seen Emily Rutherford's post about the academia (or lack thereof) of KinkForAll (http://worthlessdrivel.net/2009/03/18/kink-for-all-new-york-city/)? If so, what do you think of it?

Re: Do you think KinkForAll audiences are specifically interested in BDSM? Why?

[blushingflower.livejournal.com]

I think part of why BDSM = kink in my brain is because a) I've always been interested in power (and the lack thereof) in sex, and b) because everyone who I personally know who does kinky things is also interested in BDSM. So, yeah, pegging might be kinky to your average person (and certainly isn't vanilla). (I would argue that your example could be BDSM if the couple in question were engaged in a power-exchange relationship- BDSM can be -and frequently is- loving and tender) And actually lots of the things I do aren't bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism, dominance or submission (though sometimes they're done in a D/s context), but they're definitely still kinky.

Also, I think that lots of other kink practices don't necessarily lead to people identifying as kinky, or at least to seeking out other kinky people to hang out with. I mean, there are swingers communities, which is sort of a necessity of the practice, and people might see swinging as kinky even if the actual sex is pretty vanilla. But I don't know that there are munches and the like for people who are into X sexual practice (pegging, fisting, watersports, whatever). Which I suppose is part of the whole point of KinkForAll...

And thank you (and rax and everyone else for making me think about these questions.

Re: Do you think KinkForAll audiences are specifically interested in BDSM? Why?

[maymaym.livejournal.com]

So, yeah, pegging might be kinky to your average person (and certainly isn't vanilla). […]your example could be BDSM if the couple in question were engaged in a power-exchange relationship- BDSM can be -and frequently is- loving and tender) And actually lots of the things I do aren't bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism, dominance or submission (though sometimes they're done in a D/s context), but they're definitely still kinky.

I think you bring up a good point here. In trying to tease out what's "kinky" and what's BDSM, your statement makes me ask, if there are things that you do that aren't bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism, dominance, or submission, but they are still kinky, would you say that something that isn't vanilla can be kinky but may not be BDSM? If so, and if vanilla is the opposite of kinky as you imply, then how is it that "kink" and "BDSM" can be identical things? And following from that, would you consider the two terms interchangeable if the concepts they contain, so to speak, are different?

Also, I think that lots of other kink practices don't necessarily lead to people identifying as kinky, or at least to seeking out other kinky people to hang out with. I mean, there are swingers communities, which is sort of a necessity of the practice, and people might see swinging as kinky even if the actual sex is pretty vanilla. But I don't know that there are munches and the like for people who are into X sexual practice (pegging, fisting, watersports, whatever). Which I suppose is part of the whole point of KinkForAll...

Yeah, I think that's certainly one of the many great things about a KinkForAll event, and also a very succinct explanation of what you can use a KinkForAll event for. I'm not sure it's the whole point, but it can be part of the point, if you want to make it that. :)

Since KinkForAll is an event that you get to bring what you want to, in terms of topics to discuss or presentations to give or even books to give away (there was a small free book swap at KinkForAll New York City 2, which was cool), do you think your experience of the event would be different if you understood "kink" solely to mean power exchange? If so, how would your experience be different if you thought of "kink" differently?

And thank you (and rax and everyone else for making me think about these questions.

Yeah, this was a fantastic post, and I second this thanks. I really enjoyed your presentation at KFABOS, Rax, and it's inspiring to see how much awesome discussion it's spawned here!