We largely compliment each other, each with the important strengths in their respective areas, and should make a point to view this courteously and appreciate the opportunity. Working together is relatively easy, and even fun, when only acknowledging our differences and focusing on the work.
In what sense is the tomboy pursuing their non-conformist desires, in your example, non-performative? Responding to any particular desire is inherently performative, since particular desires do not emerge out of a vacuum, but instead are conditioned by the world and culture. I understand and agree that identity should not be constrained to the powerful/dominant (in this case, men), but then why use their essentialist categories of feminine and masculine to form identities? Further, I think this structurally squashes the desires of an individual; a tomboy isn't just a tomboy, they are an individual with their own unique blend of desires and relationships with other individuals. To just view them as a non-conforming tomboy is an empty universality that swallows up the ethical content of the individual. I propose instead that we become self-conscious and intentional about our performances and learn to live with each other no matter how we perform, which is a universality that is inclusive of all particularities. I am curious about your thoughts on this. Thank you for the article.
What do you mean by "essentialist categories"? Categories are simply categories. They exist because they define things. We all know what feminine and masculine mean and there's no need for "performative deconstruction" of "essential categories" because it's simply something you cannot run away from. Refusal to conform to femininity doesn't stem simply from desire, it's a refusal. Refusal isn't a desire. Refusal doesn't imply that one isn't the thing that one refuses. By calling for rejection of "essentialist categories" (as if being a man or a woman doesn't stem from an essence aka male or female chromosomes???) but in fact reinforces them, by denying them.
Yes, exactly. We have been given an allergic reaction to categories, essences and difference by a destructive and colonising culture that, in reality, seeks to steal essence, but acts by pretending it can belong to anyone. There are men, and there are women: we begin here.
Just what the world needs....another specious soft-academic screed typed up by....some lady. Your work smacks of something that wasn't even considered for peer review, so you dumbed it down and repackaged it as non-fiction/personal growth. It reads like generic, coffee-table dogshit.
Published in the middle of a pandemic, no less. What was your methodology? Were you conducting human subject research whilst sheltered in place in your apartment? Who was the PI? What were the controls in your experiment? That must have been an interesting IRB proposal.
'A woman writing a book claiming to understand "What Men Want" makes about as much sense as a man writing a book entitled "Your Third Trimester and What To Expect."'
They should have called it “speaking at American men”
Welcome Back Alata
We largely compliment each other, each with the important strengths in their respective areas, and should make a point to view this courteously and appreciate the opportunity. Working together is relatively easy, and even fun, when only acknowledging our differences and focusing on the work.
Jane Eyre (Brontë) and Old Fashioned Girl (Alcott) are the secret to what’s next.
In what sense is the tomboy pursuing their non-conformist desires, in your example, non-performative? Responding to any particular desire is inherently performative, since particular desires do not emerge out of a vacuum, but instead are conditioned by the world and culture. I understand and agree that identity should not be constrained to the powerful/dominant (in this case, men), but then why use their essentialist categories of feminine and masculine to form identities? Further, I think this structurally squashes the desires of an individual; a tomboy isn't just a tomboy, they are an individual with their own unique blend of desires and relationships with other individuals. To just view them as a non-conforming tomboy is an empty universality that swallows up the ethical content of the individual. I propose instead that we become self-conscious and intentional about our performances and learn to live with each other no matter how we perform, which is a universality that is inclusive of all particularities. I am curious about your thoughts on this. Thank you for the article.
What do you mean by "essentialist categories"? Categories are simply categories. They exist because they define things. We all know what feminine and masculine mean and there's no need for "performative deconstruction" of "essential categories" because it's simply something you cannot run away from. Refusal to conform to femininity doesn't stem simply from desire, it's a refusal. Refusal isn't a desire. Refusal doesn't imply that one isn't the thing that one refuses. By calling for rejection of "essentialist categories" (as if being a man or a woman doesn't stem from an essence aka male or female chromosomes???) but in fact reinforces them, by denying them.
Yes, exactly. We have been given an allergic reaction to categories, essences and difference by a destructive and colonising culture that, in reality, seeks to steal essence, but acts by pretending it can belong to anyone. There are men, and there are women: we begin here.
Just what the world needs....another specious soft-academic screed typed up by....some lady. Your work smacks of something that wasn't even considered for peer review, so you dumbed it down and repackaged it as non-fiction/personal growth. It reads like generic, coffee-table dogshit.
Published in the middle of a pandemic, no less. What was your methodology? Were you conducting human subject research whilst sheltered in place in your apartment? Who was the PI? What were the controls in your experiment? That must have been an interesting IRB proposal.
'A woman writing a book claiming to understand "What Men Want" makes about as much sense as a man writing a book entitled "Your Third Trimester and What To Expect."'
Do better.
Yo heads up in 2026 it’s embarrassing to say “do better.”
What's with the nastiness? I don't understand.